Moomoomoo309

You could if you added a flag, same with upgrading from 24.04 to 24.10 or 25.04, but not without a flag.

I think the title of this post is actually incorrect. It seems they actually blocked this guy from the hackathon due to his former employment with Israeli national defense. Could someone provide me with any evidence that they've banned Jews, as opposed to this specific person?

The name has not been legally changed. The law still says it is the department of defense, regardless of what name they choose to use.

Your exact words were "housing is much more affordable for younger people in those states", which, even by the numbers you have cited, is not correct. More affordable? Sure, we are number 5 or 6, not number 1. Much more affordable? Come on now.

And no, I don't think prop 13 style laws would be helpful, it would just create more problems, as it has in California.

As someone from NJ...you think seniors and young people don't have affordability problems, especially wrt housing here, in the 5th most expensive state to buy a house? (California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Washington, New Jersey, in that order, according to redfin, if you're going by house cost to income ratio, NJ is 6th)

https://www.redfin.com/blog/most-expensive-states-to-buy-a-h...

It's satire, making fun of how Claude writes. That's the point.

It's a fork of Gecko pre-webrender and pre-webextensions.

Your argument, as I understand it, is "In current communist countries, things are bad, therefore, nothing communism-adjacent or communism-inspired should be attempted or tried.", is that right? I think there's a bit of a logical leap there from their issues to all communism-inspired taxation.

I don't think you'd make it far as a hunter-gatherer if you had physiological myopia. Both of my parents are severely nearsighted (my dad around -4 or -5, my mom is worse than -8), and all of my siblings have myopia. It's definitely genetic too, but for less severe myopia, I think it's our environment.

That makes sense, thank you!

In such a world, if we still kept cats as pets, how would we feed them? Would non-industrial, more small-scale farming of animals be able to sustain that, or would exceptions need to be made? I use cats in this example since they, unlike dogs, are carnivores, and they must eat meat to live healthily (unlike us, where a bit of supplementation is enough for entirely vegan diets to be viable).

I'm curious how problems like this would be dealt with in a vegan world. Just let the cats loose on the local rodent and bird population, maybe?

What is the term for the vegan diet sans the ethical framework? If there isn't one, that kinda sucks.

Are there historical examples of this ever happening in any significant numbers? This idea that people en masse just won't work and live off of the state where opportunities for work are reasonably available seems more like a boogeyman than a real thing. (obviously, if work is not really available, I can see this happening, but I wouldn't describe the people unable to find work as "leisurely" in that case)

Legally, the corporation itself is similar to a person and has rights unto itself, as stupid as that sounds. Those rights are different from those the individuals who run the company have.

The person you replied to said many of them were armed, then said more than one did that, and you took that to mean that's the only reason any of them do that? I think you misread.

The original source in the top comment of this thread is much better than the hit piece linked in the thread itself. Read that and see if your comment is still accurate, because as much as Zuck is a terrible human, this article is presented really dishonestly.

Can you think of anything you can do that is exclusively a positive behavior? Drinking water in excess kills you, excess breathing kills you, excess exercise kills you, I think the logic here can be used to sow the seeds of uncertainty in nearly anything, honestly.

I think I'm going to stop replying, since you continue to reply in bad faith, and assume negligence on my part, and proceeded to ignore everything else I said so you could do so again.

Obviously, I drive, how else would I get around in the suburbs? And yes, obviously I'm aware of the cars around me when I bike. Please, stop assuming I'm being negligent. When a car suddenly switches lanes because they're about to miss their turn and they almost hit you, it's not because you didn't see them, it's because they're being erratic due to almost missing a turn. When a car behind you almost clips you, again, to make a turn, it's not because you're being negligent. The person operating the two-ton vehicle easily capable of maiming you is. Cyclists have to be constantly vigilant, drivers should be. The consequences for them are more financial and legal, the consequences for cyclists are more physical.

Here's[1] a study from Rutgers about this, it seems to conclude that bike lanes do impede traffic, but the reason is that when a bike lane is present, drivers don't speed and actually come to a stop when making a right on red, and in general, the drivers in these areas don't speed when there's a cyclist there. Speeding does alleviate traffic, but I don't really think the safety benefits are worth it.

[1] https://bloustein.rutgers.edu/rutgers-bike-lanes-reduce-traf...

You see them for the brief period between them being next to you to them passing you, as compared to cars, where they're in front of you for most of the time you're driving. There just aren't many cyclists in most of them, too, because most bike lanes are like islands, they connect nothing and exist for usually political purposes rather than to actually be a usable network of transport. In cities, this is not the case, mind you, there, bike lanes are usually interconnected enough that one could use them for many trips most of the way, but in the area I live in, where the bike lanes do exist, yeah, the cyclists will pass right by, so you don't even notice them unless you're at the intersection where they are. What might clear it up is that bike lanes where I live are mostly on straightaways and they give up when a major intersection comes up, the lane just ends, and it might start back up after, maybe.

To paint the picture, imagine it's rush hour, and there's cars backed up everywhere because that's just how it always is at rush hour. You're, let's say, 7 cars from the intersection, and a cyclist passes. You see them for a grand total of maybe 5 seconds before they're too far ahead of you to see, then they turn right at the intersection, and they're gone.

Oh, I see the mixup here. When I said "They don't need to stop", I was referring to straightaways where the cars are waiting in traffic (I.E: They're not stuck in traffic), not at the intersections. Obviously, they need to stop there, except when making a right turn.

I don't feel safe when I ride like that, I've been almost hit multiple times from people going into a turn lane or making a right on red because they didn't even bother looking (or just didn't care and got within like a foot of me to get into the turn lane). Most of the time, it's fine, but what would be a minor accident in a car is going to leave you pretty injured on a bike.

You don't see the cyclists because they pass right by - they're only in a particular bike lane that you happen to be next to for a very short time, they don't usually need to stop, and yes, obviously there are fewer cyclists than drivers because cycling in the US is unsafe.

People don't bike here because they can't. I don't live in a city, I live in one of the many dense suburbs (which are denser than many cities in the US) of NJ, where there's lots of roads, and almost no bike lanes. Where biking does happen, they bike in the street, with no shoulder, and hope not to get hit by cars.

The bikes aren't stolen because there are no bikes, because you'd have to have a deathwish to try biking in the road with cars in the same lane as them.

It's the densest state in the union, and the only places you can bike are Newark, Hudson County, New Brunswick, Trenton, Atlantic City, Camden, the barrier islands, and the boardwalks. The other 99% of the state, you're putting your life on the line.

It's about safety. Would you feel safe biking in those lanes? Would you feel more or less safe biking where there are none?

I am pointing out that is how the term is used in the android community, as you are well aware. They did not misspeak.

There's certain figures he gives that paint the picture well enough without him having to really even make the argument. For example, in his piece "The More You Buy, The More You Lose"[1], a few paragraphs in, he says: "Hyperscalers will have sunk over $1.3 trillion dollars into generative AI by the end of 2026, and have plans to spend a trillion dollars more next year. On a very rational level, nothing that large language models (LLMs) have done, do or will do in the future can or will ever bring in the more than $2 trillion (or more) in brand new revenue that will be required to make any of this worth it."

He explains some more numbers in the following paragraphs (that aren't needed to make my point), but the problem isn't even that AI can't make any money, it's that the scale of the money spent is so colossal, what they would need to do to actually make it back is insane! They'd need to actually replace most of the workers in the world because that is such a ridiculous, unimaginable amount of money! It outclasses all of their combined revenue significantly, and remember, these companies don't tell us how much money they make from AI (anymore), they bundle it in with other things, and if it was good, you know they'd be shouting it from the rooftops how much they were making.

I also don't take seriously any of his predictions that have dates attached to them - after all, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. I don't trust his timing, but the numbers don't lie.

[1] https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-more-you-buy-the-more-you-lo...

Could you please read my message in good faith and not intentionally quote me out of context, then ignore everything I had to say? It's rather impolite, and if you did that to someone in person, they'd probably be rather upset with you.

I think drivers are catered to in almost every single scenario in the United States to the point that giving cyclists any space, any infrastructure, or anything that is not also usable by cars is almost unthinkable. With that in mind, yes, drivers will be inconvenienced. Oh well. They're convenienced at almost every turn in almost every decision about transportation, let's give bikes a chance too.

You have a bike trail? Lucky! I live in central NJ, while bike trails do exist in the western part of the state, where people live here, they basically don't exist and you have to just ride in the street. Almost no offices even have a storage room, so you'd be chaining your bike to a sign, most likely, or storing it behind the building somewhere. You have it better than we do here...clearly, there's a lot more work to be done.

The problem with his work is that a lot of the conclusions he comes to are a step too far, but the problems he identifies with how money is moving or how much datacenters cost or how no one has ever built a 1GW datacenter and we're expected to believe they can build a bunch of them, or even a 10GW data center - those are real.

You don't see cyclists because they don't have to wait in traffic as much, and because there's essentially no safe road for them to travel on. Bike theft is not why people don't cycle, from my experience, it's because they're right next to cars going 35+ miles per hour that would maim them if they got hit, even plastic bollards are enough to get drivers to stop riding so close to the bike lane, which makes cyclists feel safer.

ROM is to android what distro is to Linux. The term is used correctly here. An android ROM could refer to the stock OS, GrapheneOS, LineageOS, Pixel Experience, etc.

Don't forget the small detail you're neglecting to mention: That over 90% of their population had already been wiped out by disease over the last few hundred years prior to large-scale European expansion in the Americas. (And it was not intentional! The whole "small pox blankets" thing was in the 1700s, well after most of the deaths had occurred!)

Adding that detail, the situations are a bit more apples-to-oranges.

The article is about how being seen as negative on AI is getting people fired, even if their grievances are legitimate. It's not really about AI itself, it's about the decision making around it.