459 karma · joined April 4, 2019
To get the real news I need to read comments like yours. Thanks, I think the title should be: "Amazon Changes Policy to Pressure Fedex in Negotiations."
The ruling is hardly a huge win for civil liberties. It's pretty narrow and specific. A better title would be:
"States can't jail people for sleeping in public if there's no homeless shelters."
Of course such a title would seem reasonable and normal and wouldn't produce a click-bait news title that stokes the flames of national division.
Hopefully these sound wave systems can be adapted to municipal water systems so as to remove the consumer as the point of failure. Really cool to see the technology that creates Chladni figures being applied to something so useful.
Reminds me of how things start off as entertainment many times, and eventually make a way into an industrial application.
From the study the article is quoting: > in nearly all countries, more girls appeared capable of college-level STEM study than had enrolled. Paradoxically, the sex differences in the magnitude of relative academic strengths and pursuit of STEM degrees rose with increases in national gender equality
This is only paradoxical if you're presuming men and women are NOT attracted to different things. Experiments with little kids before they can even process coherent though, and across cultures, have produced quite conclusive statistical evidence that there's innate gender differences (preferences of color, of soft vs spinney/mechanical things, etc) that don't fit the 'evil men suppressing women through artificial social constraints' narrative.
It also seems odd the amount of information they glance over to create their narrative.
In the article, there's a video that mentions a ton of facts.
Among the facts: Women make up 18% of CS engineers. 1:4 computing jobs are held by women. I'm no math genius, but this actually seems to dispel the myth of women just aren't hired in tech. I mean, if they are 18% of CS engineering graduates, you'd expect them to hold slightly < 1:5 computing jobs, not 1:4.
In the article, the author mentions 'your policy is what you enforce'. But that's really overly simplistic. There's a gradient, with extreme moderation on one end and no moderation on the other (even those in favor of no moderation will generally agree that nuclear launch sites and codes should be moderated off).
And then there's how and where you implement systems to identify cases which require moderation and what systems you put in place to avoid abuse and what incentives you are creating. And all this probably changes with time as people try different things to game systems. Our government(s), economies, etc are getting more and more centralized, controlled by fewer and fewer hands. This skews incentives and positions of leverage, look at what's happened with youtube content creators as a tiny example, but it's way beyond that.
By making it decentralized, Jack's basically appealing to the wisdom of crows. I think the article is missing the long of it. Yes, there will be forks, but eventually consensus appears in the community. I feel his comparison to Mastadon is unfair, since it was new and looking for a niche. Twitter is such a big name, everyone will want to have input on such a decentralized system, so there should be strong input from all sides as they are represented, at least within the tech sphere (which is pretty large and diverse when you leave SV/CA).
Our current development climate is allowing something as dramatic of a change as P2P protocols in the early 2000s. P2P has mostly disappeared in favor of streaming services, at least in the first world. But it was the P2P that allowed the creation of big streaming services. Without that pressure, I have serious doubts the current IP holders would have allowed Netflix or Hulu to be.
Jack's level of vision is reaching way beyond mine, but I think he is on to something, and the payoff can be truly disruptive, not just to business which is a bit boring, but to how things can work.
That's why I avoid them. They have every right to their perspective, just as I have every right to interpret it: status quo is supreme. Efficiency, effectiveness and progress are far second. In fact, larger organizations are INTENTIONALLY inefficient, as it limits the damage any one bad actor can accomplish. This makes sense for the large organization, but for the individual perspective, it means those who play politics are more valuable than those who actually get shit done.
It's why I love small businesses. Generally getting shit done is supreme and the need for appearances is less.
I get the appearance game, and many people who refuse to play also get it. But I find it sleazy and fickle. I mean it's mostly based on heuristics. Funny, Adam Smith seems to agree on large corporations being less focused on results: "This total exemption from trouble and from risk, beyond a limited sum, encourages many people to become adventurers in joint stock companies who would, upon no account, hazard their own fortunes in any private copartnery. The directors of such companies, however, being the managers rather of other people’s money than their own, it cannot well be expected that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own."
SROs? (I'm not familiar with the word in english) are generally for people living full time. Many have minimums of > 30 days.
Also, I don't get why I'm being downvoted.
I use streak CRM for gmail and have learned to not mention the details of what I see so as to not freak people out. The funny thing is, I can see 0.00001% of what the commercial trackers can see, but people don't bat an eye on that. They allow images to appear on emails by default, they don't block javascript, they keep all the tracking cookies no their machine, etc.
Unfortunately... https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=d000067823
This is how you sound to me:
> When I drive drunk, I drive real slow. But I started getting pulled over, so I started driving drunk and at normal speeds. It's so dangerous to do that. Why can't I drive drunk really slow, it is the safest way to drive drunk after all! Most people don't have the self control I do.
If you find that unconvincing, don't expect others to find your anecdote convincing.
In the 50s people though 'how can I drink and drive safely'.
It took a while for people to accept that... can't happen.
I see far too many people thinking about texting like people thought about drinking in the 50s.
I mean you are right, but you are right in a very odd way. Imagine this headline:
Local boy gets beat to death.
Then some random guy comes to comment: "Well that happens all the time, it's not news."
I mean sure, it's true, but it's callous, it's minimizing and trivializing what happened, it's acting like it's always inevitable and it's not bringing anything new to the table. It's not just helping, it's actually detracting from any meaningful conversation. In short, I get the feeling that such responses come from smug people who aren't very kind. Not saying you are, just saying how you come off to me.
I'd like to place this here for those who only read comments:
.org registry rights belong to a non-profit - the rights were sold to a private equity group - somewhere between 50% and 90% below market rate. It was based on self dealing of the people given stewardship of the non-profit that manages .org
Basically, this is privatization Russian style. Not good. Even if you like privatization, no-bid stuff is just wrong.
Want to help support the democratic institutions which hopefully won't fail us? Look here: https://drewdevault.com/2019/11/29/dotorg.html
Yes there is something lost. I included it in my post but I'll repeat it: People who aren't good at math are 'shielded from the truth' (they objectively suck at math because they can't grasp something that is objectively simple in the domain of math). Again, feeling bad about not grasping something simple is the necessary element for a humbling experience. Humbling experiences aren't meant to feel great. For me, I've learned the most with humbling experiences. I honestly believe most people in the first world need more of them.
The suggested language is more inclusive, that's an advantage to sales, but less clear, that's a disadvantage to communication/learning. Personally, I like learning and want to see things optimized for that.
BTW; I loved the sly way of you implying that: A- I took offense (I am not, nor do I see anything in my comment that says I'm offended) and B- That I'm the lowest common denominator because of A. It's a subtle way of attacking me and not my point. It says a lot about both the person doing the attack and the strength of their argument that they have to resort to ad-hominems. Though I will credit you with using a smartly disguised one.
Also, you are speaking to me as if I was the website author. I'm not the OP of the article, which if you read TFA you would see the actual author changed in favor of the suggestion.
But this isn't a sales pitch. Some people are just bad at things. The explanation on that page require grade school levels of math. I think math that's taught in grade school can be objectively called simple. Some people suck at math. That's ok.
I'm very geeky. I get geeky things. Many times geeky things can be very simple to me.
I went to a dance lesson. I'm terribly uncoordinated physically. They taught me a very 'simple' dance step. The class got it right away. The more physically able got it in 3 minutes. It took me a long time to get, having to repeat the beginner class many times.
Instead of being self absorbed and expect the rest of the world to anticipate every one of my possible ego-dystonic sensibilities, I simply accepted I'm not good at that. It makes it easier for me and for the rest of the world.
The reality is, just like the explanation and the dance step, they are simple because they are relatively simple for the field.
I think such over-sensitivity is based on a combination of expecting never to encounter ego-dystonic events/words, which is unrealistic and removes many/most growth opportunities in life, and the idea that things we don't know can be simple (basically, reality is complicated). I think we've gotten so used to catering to the lowest common denominator, we've forgotten that it's ok for people to feel stupid/ugly/silly/embarrassed/etc. Those bad feelings are normal, feeling them is ok, and they should help guide us in life, not be something to run from or get upset if someone didn't anticipate your ego-dystonic reaction to objectively correct usage of words.
Brands pay a lot of money for influencer endorsements.
Think of his as one and you will see the marketing value of this as it relates to people who want to see privacy issues advanced.
If they only included a little bit of a narrative, they could easily make those links take on new meaning. Maybe even mixing examples of old with new (like the surveillance and terrible abuses toward labor leaders in the 19th century)
I think the list is a good starting point for something a little more cohesive.
The term 'retail therapy' is a very real thing.
I think a lot of our consumerism is connected to our disconnection and lifestyle, and this is related to how we set up our cities and communities. From population density, to walk-ability of cities, etc.
When I lived in the third world, in an area with pretty high population density, mixed use zoning, and high walk-ability I would consume less 'stuff' and more experiences. For instance, instead of driving to TJ max to buy some new clothes as I would here, I might take a walk and buy some pastry... which I'd be hungry for from walking. It was from a small producer, who used less materials for packaging than a large one would. I'd also get to know people who I'd regularly see, and that also reduced consumption of good I think as I would stop and connect with other people. We are pleasure seekers, and if consumerism is the easiest way to satiate that desire, it will be done in a consumerist way.
I'm not saying our consumerism is ONLY about lifestyle, but I think going into what causes consumption is more effective at reducing it than simply saying 'hey you, don't do that'. I think it's why in some parts of Europe people seem to buy less junk and more quality, artisanal made items.
> And what, may I ask, are your pea shooters going to do against the firepower of a corrupt nation state?
I think my comment quite clearly answered this question.
> bravery alone does not stop armies and did not stopped the armies. Power
Like the POWER AND BRAVERY of the ARMED local militias in the US which HELPED drive out the world's most powerful army. I'm sure glad they didn't get disarmed. Notice though, I said help. I'll admit my wording in regards to Russia was poor.
All or nothing arguments that remove the nuance (like saying 'it does' or 'it doesn't') are generally employed by people who aren't well positioned to understanding the complexities of reality. Any intelligent review includes more nuanced words. And any review that completely dismisses the power of armed local populations resisting oppression is simply going to be detached from reality and history. The use of the derogatory term 'pea shooter' is the perfect example of this dismissive, arrogant and ignorant take on history.
The Nazis my grandfather killed by putting lead through their skull certainly didn't think those were 'pea shooters', it takes a certain type of keyboard warrior to see a gun that way. Even a little .22 purse gun is no trivial matter.
> The argument is about whether it can protect the freedom
The people my grandfather saved I'm pretty would agreed that they 'obtained freedom/had their freedom protected thanks in great measure to the small arms' my grandfather had. Which kinda covers both the original goal posts and the new ones you created.
You might want to make it seem like it was inconsequential by highlighting the fact that they were occupied. But I have to say, it seems a little keyboard warrior to minimize Danish resistance.
Russia had an actual army, but local guerrilla resistance played an important part. I've read about the bravery of the Russian resistance with awe.
For the US, yes we received support from France. I'm pretty well acquainted. But if you are going to say that George Washington and his men had nothing to do with our struggle for freedom, that's on you.
Using words like 'peashooters' makes the anti-gun lobby seem out of touch, just like people who would say Obama is Muslim/Communist. There's a certain nasty arrogance of showing huge disrespect towards those who have achieve more than you ever will.
Since you are bringing them up, you must be.
So tell me gun ownership statistics for Australia and participation in gun ownership organizations. I'd be interested to hear what happened there and learn.
I mean I know they pretty much disarmed, and I've seen the positive statistics paraded by anti-gun supporters, but I've yet to hear about the details of what % of the population was armed, what % the population supported disarming, ratio between gun owners and cops, etc. That would say a lot about the feasibility comparison.
Since you are implying the feasibility of disarmament was worse in Australia, I'd love to learn about the exact details that allowed you to come to your educated conclusion that it's worse in Australia. I'm always happy to learn about things I didn't know about.
Unless that is you are just assuming. Like when you said 'take their guns' without even considering feasibility and then you ignored posts that confront you with contradictory evidence to your assumptions. There's a certain type of attitude that will base their conclusions on made up information (aka assumed... I can't say you are presuming as you don't seem to have the data needed to make this about probability), without bothering to check or even ignoring contradictory realities as perceived and recorded by human consensus. It's not very pretty.
More than half of them are desk/bureaucracy bound. It's probably more like 3/4 of them, not to mention many of them will favor the gun owners, but let's be generous to the opposing argument and suppose all active street duty cops were in on it.
So you are saying each police officer is going to arrest and remove weapons from 10 people scattered across millions of square miles. They will also need to ostensibly put those 5.5 million 'bad Americans' somewhere. We don't even have jails for that many people. You'd need literally a few million guards just to keep them. And that's just NRA members. There's many more gun owners than there are NRA members.
Have you been in the US? Do you understand how insanely unrealistic this is?
Lists are great when the people you want to hurt are small in number and weak in force. Neither applies here.
A tyrant dictator could send the army, but again, way outnumbered. Not to mention how big the USA is, how rugged the terrain can be, and how well acquainted the locals are. Even just rounding people up is super hard when people WANT to cooperate (look at our response to natural disasters)
The tyrant dictator can take over with tanks, no doubt. But then they would face a long, protracted guerrilla war with all freedom loving Americans. If Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, the founding of the USA, etc have taught us anything, is that you can conquer, but holding a territory is a whole other ball game. And holding is where it's at.