Pilot In Command. On a commercial flight there are at least two pilots, and possibly three.
4,754 karma · joined March 9, 2017
Overall I agree with your point and I'm extremely confident Amazon buying MGM will completely and utterly fuck over any creative potential that company has (similar to what's happening with AT&T and HBO), but - if you're looking for something good to watch on Prime, take a look at Invincible. I was actually about to give up on it and then I got to the end of the first episode and I binged the rest of the show in less than a day.
It's the first time in years I've looked forward to the next season of a show that isn't a comedy.
There's the platform versus publisher issue, where companies are arguably trying to be both.
And there's the social media companies already using black box algorithms to control their feeds.
So I'd argue with twitter everything already falls under the latter issue, which doesn't mean it's okay just that this is larger issue for any social media company and it's more complicated than just free speech (which is already more nuanced than I've described).
So yes, once twitter begins censoring opinions (and arguably they already do simply by having an algorithm make a feed for you) then they are equally culpable.
As to the corporation vs government issue, yes I'd prefer to hold governments accountable for these things and I agree they should be the entities that handle this. But I see that as an ideal and meanwhile I care more about practical solutions to help us improve where we are and hopefully get there some day.
I think this is where we disagree. Yes, twitter added their own opinion, but as far as I'm concerned why is that worse than anyone adding their own opinion to it? My point is twitter adding their opinion should be as inconsequential as a random person with 6 followers replying to the tweet saying "this is fake news." The only difference is because people give twitter more credibility than a random stranger, which is the fundamental problem of trust in society. No amount of laws can fix this if you truly advocate for free speech. People just need to educate themselves better about what to believe.
Well yeah, and those safety protocols could've prevented the pandemic. You're arguing this isn't important? This could prevent the next black plague, regardless of whether it was released intentionally or not (I do not believe it was released intentionally, my point is that's irrelevant to this discussion of public safety).
100%. My stance is that twitter can add its opinion just the same as anyone. The government trying to censor an opinion is what I consider to be the problem. Even if that opinion is "covid is fake" I think people should be allowed to say it because I believe in free speech.
> My main issue with that is the sheer power a private company not answerable to the citizens holds.
Then you must really hate (almost) every news organization in the world. They literally make it their business to do the very thing you seem to oppose. And as far as I'm concerned they have no more credibility, but that's entirely subjective.
Sure, it'd be nice to hold your government accountable. But when your ruler is effectively a tyrant in a government that is laughably calling itself a democracy, I'd rather have twitter provide its own opinion as well. Because at the end of the day you as the reader can still decide to ignore twitter's judgment and just read the document as you could before. It's additional information, not censorship - whereas the government wants to limit information.
Nobody is forcing you to trust twitter any more than they're forcing you to trust the government. You can ignore twitter's label and still try to hold the Indian government accountable - it's a non sequitur.
Of course they'd have to want to do this.
You're giving me possible applications, not talking about you being an actual user. There are products for lots of things, that doesn't mean they have enough people using them that they're going to last.
> Blockchain is moving so fast that Yearn.finance, the platform with billions in investment, wasn't even a thing a year ago.
You're talking about something I've never heard of before as proof of blockchain having made it. We are on different planes here and I don't see us getting through to each other.
Anyway, agree to disagree. Cheers.
Your entire argument is about the promise of blockchain and not the actual current applications people are using. Your argument is theoretical when OP is asking for practical use cases. You mention many hypotheticals but not a single "I use blockchain for X" or "my mother uses blockchain for X" which is what actually matters.
> While I won't talk about the idealized vision of blockchains
As far as I'm concerned that's all you talked about, and you don't even realize it.
I hope I'm wrong.
The best advice I can give is pretty generic - follow the data. First of all actually find the data. Don't trust some finance news rag to tell you anything meaningful, some of them actually have a direct incentive to lie to you. Now that you have the data, what does it say? This sounds simple, but everyone told me I was an idiot to invest in GME in January. They said the same thing in March. So far my investment in GME has more than a 10x ROI. I'm just using GME as an example because it's topical - people tell me I'm in a cult while I'm actively making money betting against them.
"Buy the rumor, sell the news" is pretty easy to understand, just find a stock you know well (I would guess something in tech, like Alphabet or Amazon but whatever) and look at dates for stock movements, rumors, and announcements. You can do this retroactively to find a pattern then try to apply it moving forward. "Never invest in something you don't understand" is general advice outside of stocks, but just an extension of what I said initially - do your own research until it makes sense to you.
I think a huge amount of inertia is just people afraid to try it because they've been conditioned their entire lives to believe they can't make money doing it. I'm quickly realizing how much of this is bullshit (I realize I'm lucky and I understand I'm likely in a local maxima, but I am still extremely confident a lot of the things I've been told are just wrong). So take a small amount of money and invest it and see how it goes. Learn. Iterate. Improve. The goal is to start making money before you lose it. I actually started with just $10k and once I started to figure it out put in more money as I wanted to increase my profit.
At the end of the day it's your money and you should do what you want with it. So long as you understand you will definitely lose money sometimes and are willing to learn from it, give it a go with whatever money you're willing to lose.
I think it's more likely the first time this happens the person is actually guilty, and there will be a huge debate as to whether or not it's a good thing.
I thought the same thing for years, and just avoided the market except for a 401k and stock granted by companies I worked at. Then I got into trading because I thought I could make money trading volatile stocks and I've never looked back (I've already made enough to retire). So far I've only lost money on my value stocks.
To each his own.
At first I misread the last word as 'latter' and I was confused because it completely reverses the meaning. English is fun sometimes.
I am thankful to you for bringing this to my attention, but my WTF! meter is soaring.
The (total) qualifier was just because I realize node sizes are measured slightly different depending on the foundry, ie TSMC and Intel mean different things when they say 10nm.
To be clear, when I am asking this, the phone has access to my location data and everything else it asks for.
Apophasis: the raising of an issue by claiming not to mention it (as in "we won't discuss his past crimes")
Sports, bars, culture, muni metro, proximity to the ocean, proximity to nature (I can be alone in natural parks with less than 30 minutes of driving from my house in SF), jobs, dating, restaurants, I could go on.
I'm not even someone that plans on staying in SF (I actually don't like it that much), but there are lots of downsides if I left for Sacramento. I realize there are upsides as well, but I think it's disingenuous to say 'Sacramento is as good or better than San Francisco except for the weather'