BookmarkSaver

Try having even the tiniest bit of an idea what you are talking about.

What are you basing this on?

I'm not gonna say that there isn't cause for concern that an organization like NPR might not be very good at this sort of development or product, but I don't think naked greed or exploitation needs to be a significant concern. And more than any content producer I can think of, I'd trust NPR to maintain relative neutrality towards external content.

This is assuming that the school actually reached an incriminating verdict, ignoring possible incompetence and/or apathy towards catching and "convicting" cheaters.

Hacker News hates big companies, Amazon being evil is in the zeitgeist, and people are unable to contextualize criticisms properly.

Being a software engineer at Amazon is fine (yeah, yeah, congrats, out of the tens of thousands of engineers you were able to uncover a few horror stories and terrible teams. Shocking) and very lucrative.

Just about anything is "within the realm of possible". Without even a shred of actual positive evidence, this is just obnoxious flat-earth level conspiracy bullshit. You could make the exact same statement about just about every single government expenditure you are too lazy to research. Unless you have a basis for suspicion, this is just a waste of time that is pandering to people who flatter themselves with their "realistic" worldview.

Either it's removing public information (censorship), or it's this bizarre stop-gap to allow people to conceal information while pretending they aren't deleting it. There's not reasonable or principled system here. Just a dangerous stop-gap measure where it seems like people are trying to delete (censor) information under the guise of individual freedom ("we're just making it harder").

I don't really buy into the middle-ground presented by this measure.

That is an absolutely inane stance to take. How about instead of the obviously unattainable and unrealistic goal of "world peace", we just go for "more peace", or "less violent death" or similar goals. It is very hard to argue that American hegemony has not significantly reduced conflicts around the world. Not all of them, not equitably, and generally in pursuit of economic rather than ideological interests, but there is basically nothing to be gained by opening up the US to actually being threatened by competing powers.

Well, his post is hidden now, but he seemed exclusively concerned with the danger, not the actual culture.

How? It is literally not even close to something to worry about unless, as I posted elsewhere, you either own a gun (accidental deaths), are suicidal, or are involved in criminal activities.

Similarly, the difference in deaths like traffic accidents between countries is so much more massive than the firearm homicide rate that it is absolutely insane to list that as a hard-line criteria.

It is not reasonable or rational to be scared of guns in the US unless you are actually involved in sketchy situations or own one yourself.

>And in all fairness, "it's not a big deal, you probably won't be a target anyway," isn't the most attractive selling point is it?

Only from a psychological perspective. If you are actually concerned with your statistical likelihood of death, this is exactly what you should be interested in. Lurid stories from a country that has a third of a billion people is a completely irrational basis for such a decision.

>American soldiers were typically safer in war zones than back home.

This is absolutely untrue and a completely asinine thing to say, revealing your own unexamined biases.

Like, the difference in traffic deaths between the US and UK is 10.6 to 2.9 per capita, which is under 4x. But the actual lethality difference is massive. It pretty much completely swamps the difference in gun murders (I'm treating this as a naive comparison to prove a point, not trying to dig into the particulars of these stats), but I don't here people making sanctimonious posts about an absolute hard-line refusal to moving to the US due exclusively to the dangerous driving culture.

It's just psychological biases at play.

GM exists in a very competitive industry with major competitors at or above their capacity, while Google has maybe 1 or 2 competitors in several of various industries, and dominates several independently and almost completely.

GM might be able to claw aware market-share from competitors, and end up more valuable, but not by that much. Google is in the sort of position that allows them to potentially capture a brand new industry if one appears.

GM could (relatively) easily get broken up or get massively devalued to to a large market event or by falling behind in an industry that is rapidly changing shape from what they are accustomed to. Google falling out of existence/dominance would almost have to be the result of a fundamental societal shift at this point (or anti-monopoly legislation somehow), and they could throw enormous amounts of cash at problems for years before facing insolvency (from my understanding).

Not living in the US because of "gun culture" is unreasonable and irrational. It is falling prey to what is essentially fear-mongering (as far as that decision is concerned).

No, that's just the stuff that is most popular and visible, just like in almost every other venue of the film industry. Dig slightly deeper, just like in actual cinema screenings, and they offer plenty of lower-key content.

I am sorta of the opinion that nothing on FB should be considered private, but even with that noted, and the fact that I don't particularly care what personal FB info on me is scraped, I'm a bit annoyed that any random friend could expose data that I have marked as private by allowing some random BS app to access to their own account. According to FB, this was solved years ago (but the data already scraped from the previous state was never successfully recalled), but I hardly trust them to give a shit about this or other issues popping up in the future, barring another mass outrage.

That doesn't prove what you are saying. "sucked out the whole of the social graph" is a non-technical statement that doesn't have an explicit meaning, nor is it specified what user data they were scraping.

Racist, discriminatory, or whatever you might think this would be, I cannot imagine being any type of manager in any type of corporation and wanting to hire someone above retail clerk-level who could not pass such a test. I just wouldn't want any company business passing through the judgement and perception of someone that never learned mathematical reasoning beyond single-variable algebra, even if it seems like math abilities are irrelevant to the position. Innumeracy might be less of a big deal than illiteracy, but it is still a fundamental gap.

If it was being pushed on international hires, it could have just been a trivial check against unreliable international standards and qualification reporting or something.

I mean, I don't even know where to begin.

First, good luck getting the 200 million drivers that don't ever have this problem to agree to dealing with this system every single time they start their car. Not gonna happen.

Second, have you actually stopped to think about how this would actually work? BAC is already a pretty vague and inconsistent check of impairment, but it is literally the best available from any category. There are no sobriety tests for other substances. And there definitely are not ones that could be compacted and used on-demand in vehicles.

> a system to check for the driver attention plus the collision detections and other driver assisting technology.

So instead of just letting software do everything, instead you think we should stop at a stage where the human is redundant and honestly a weakness in the system, just so that we can feel like we are doing something when driving? Why not just let the software do the last 10% of the work and free up 100% of your driving time? This just sounds like pure stubbornness, not an actually effective system.

And finally, it completely negates the enormous advantages of an automated driving network. Barring rare and extreme events like multi-lane closures, traffic exists entirely and exclusively because of fundamental issues in human habits and judgement. There would be no traffic if computers were automating freeways. Ever.

I also don't know what driverless cars have to do with this. For one thing, it is possible that you might not have the option in another 25 years in some locations. For another, this actually is an extremely Luddite attitude, given the objectively horrify safety of cars which we've managed to psychologically lock away in modern culture. Not to mention the massive secondary benefits: you get to recover massive amounts of time dedicated to staring at a road, and being sober.

I mean, you should be able to answer those questions, otherwise you've put yourself into a tautilogical little bubble ("There is nothing new/just fearmongering, so I don't need to pay attention to it. I didn't pay attention to it, so I didn't hear anything new". Return to step 1)

"The Russia stuff has always seemed like fear mongering to me. It’s a big scary enemy messing with our political system."

Are you saying that countries don't really mess with other countries political systems? Because they do it all the time (including and maybe especially the US).

This basically reads like you saying that "bad/scary news isn't real, because I've decided that bad/scary news sounds like 'fear mongering' and couldn't possibly affect me". I mean, war is a thing. People and countries do hostile things to each all the time, often disastrously. Reporting on this isn't fear mongering.