N00bN00b

They are trying to evolve and become land snakes.

> that betrays its user, is a self that betrays itself.

And cloud computing are corporations that take your self away from you.

And that was always going to happen. And people have been fighting that idea in the shadows for a while.

This issue is just bringing it to the foreground in a most intense way. "Think of the children."

They are coming for your self. They will take it. There's not doubt. There never was. Your self is too valuable and you've just been squandering it anyway.

Eventually you become Apple. Unless you start resisting, but that's hard. Just slooooowly warm the water. This froggy is fine. Nice and warm. Just don't touch the bottom of the pot.

The real issue is never making it to an age where you can optimally use the "freedom" you've stored. I think at 65 1 in 5 males are dead in the US.

That 20% risk needs to be properly accounted for somehow.

Wealth management isn't explicitly mentioned, but it's part of the work that comes with having a high savings rate.

It's not too hard to beat inflation. Yeah, you do have to expose yourself to some risk, but it's really not hard to know enough about investing to make your wealth grow over time.

(I don't use the product. Or maybe I should say, I'm not a Facebook product)

>Facebook moved to penalize the researchers in part to remain in compliance with a 2019 data privacy agreement with the Federal Trade Commission, in which the company was punished for failing to police how data was collected by outside developers, Clark said. Facebook was fined a record $5 billion as part of a settlement with regulators.

That's a reasonable explanation for their action, right? Even if it's not 100% true, if you're a manager at Facebook, and the situation isn't 100% clear cut, you're still going to act, so you can show it as an example the next time the FTC tries to fine them.

And they did offer an alternative:

>Clark said Facebook offers targeting data sets for political ads, and has suggested the NYU group use that information.

Honestly, I can just change what I consider economic growth and the problem immediately goes away. I can make that graph do anything I want, just a matter of convincing enough people to go along with it.

Also:

>Why can't this go on?

>If this holds up, then 8200 years from now

Alright. Well how about we worry about that in 8100 years?

Cars in my neighborhood have started popping up that are painted it what appears to be primer with a coating.

I was kind of wondering why that was suddenly a thing. I don't know if that was somehow directly or indirectly motivated by pantone, but it certainly has been a headscratcher for me for some time and this could answer why that is happening.

Not for me it won't.

That has to be true, right? There's just way too much to understand and it's impossible to come up with an absolute ordering of importance. At some point you have to delegate huge chunks of your understanding.

And it works 9 out of 10 times. It's just that one time that's a problem, but it's still probably the most optimal strategy for nearly everyone.

>The problem is that language learning is inherently about putting your brain in tricky, slightly painful situations.

I think that's a really good description of learning in general.

I think that's incorrect.

They couldn't log in, because that VPN tunnel is only open before logging in. So they had to gain access while on the login screen.

I think that's incorrect.

They couldn't log in, because that VPN tunnel is only open before logging in. So they had to gain access while on the login screen.

It's not wrong. Life is ultimately meaningless.

I'm doing the same thing. Except that I understand that I was able to do so because I'm considerably more resourceful than average.

I personally think that gives me the responsibility to at least improve the lives of a couple of people. Especially because it's relatively easy for me, compared to how hard most people have it on planet earth.

But if you just got the money from your parents or something, even that reasoning doesn't apply to you. Most people really don't add much more to history than hanging out and making sure their DNA is passed on to another generation. Nothing wrong with being one of them.

You might end up depressed due to boredom and lack of purpose, but that's easily fixable with antidepressants.

It's going to have to be on the blockchain. No way around that.

Any other way you end up with the same outcome. If one party has full control, it will eventually abuse it's position.

That's going to depend on the store and the shift.

I'm sure you understand that I gave an example that's easy to understand and I'm not trying to discuss the intricate details of being a high performing cashier.

If it's really needed I can come up with a different example, but otherwise just assume it's not a neighborhood pet store, but a very busy and successful supermarket with 35 check out registers that are always busy.

But you can just as easily swap it with an overqualified dentist assistant that provides a massive value by detecting things the dentist misses.

Or a engineer at a mine that's so damn good, that he repeatedly detects machinery failure 5 minutes before it breaks catastrophically (and some of these machines cost millions).

Or a bricklayer that lays three times faster than any other bricklayer. It doesn't matter.

The point is they are supportive roles that can't function independently of the corporation, yet will never receive a salary that's proportional to the value they provide.

What is it called.. Market failure? It's got a name, I don't remember it.

The job market doesn't support certain overqualified people. I gave you an example.

Rationally, you'd think that a cashier that works 3x faster than other cashiers can make 3x the income. Or even 2x.

A plumber could do that, or a woodworker (they might have to start their own company, but they can do it). But a cashier relies on employers and they're just not going to pay a cashier that much. Cashier being an example. There are many support jobs were it just doesn't pay to be good at your job.

These people are technically incentivized to be mediocre. And they often are. Some of these positions allow growth paths, but not all. And just because I'm the world's best cashier, doesn't mean I'm a good store manager.

>Do you want their hiring level to be even higher or what?

I just described what I see. It's not about what I want or don't want. Personally I'm mostly indifferent, I'd say.

>I've been in interview debriefs where the fact that the candidate speaks at dozens of conferences a year has been raised as a potential problem, since it suggests they may not be as dedicated to the work that needs to be done.

You are right, that's another good example. Hiring someone that's very passionate might just not be in the best interest of the employer.

Yep. I basically made the same remark. For a lot of positions they're just not looking for creative people, just chairs to fill. They want "good enough" and nothing more.

The opposite is also true. I work in system engineering (sometimes it's called sysops. Hybrid programming/administration, often production stuff) and I've learned to I hide my creativity.

A lot of employers want people they can understand and they can trust.

The companies I work for generally don't want someone that's creative. They want someone that's dull and reliable. Show your creative side and they'll look for someone else, even if you've got 10x more skills than someone else.

Given that creativity doesn't pay anyway (there's a cap on pay and I've already reached that cap), there's no point to show it. I can get hired based on what's on my resume alone and by answering the same set of questions they always ask.

Then I get hired, I automate everything in under 6 months and I go sit on my ass or do something else. Flaw in the capitalistic system. I know what I'm worth, I can bring across what I'm worth, but it's simply outside the bounds of what's expected or needed.

And I know that sounds weird, but think of it like this:

No one is going to pay the fastest cashier in the world 3x minimum wage. Not even if they check out customers 6x faster than the next person. And claiming you're the fastest cashier in the world during the hiring process just gets you thrown on the discard pile.

The same goes for a lot of other professions, including mine.

The first thing any bad actor would do is unhook the trailer and hook it up to their own truck and drive away.

We'll see. Stablecoins are a workaround for the current price fluctuations, if the cryptos stabilize they might replace the stablecoins at some point in the future.

In practice debt restructuring and those providing the new/bridging loans (often the same banks that gave the old loans) putting down demands.

If the demands aren't accepted, loans aren't provided. If loans aren't provided, salaries won't be paid and city employees will be fired.

The demands will include cutting costs, defaulting on pension plans (and dealing with the legal consequences) and the like.

Since the city is in default, they won't have the same level of autonomy to accept or reject.

Capitalist takeover, basically.

Doesn't happen often though. You can find some accounts if you look for it. Detroit has gone through this recently, but there are other cities that dealt with issues like this in the past. New York had it at some point, though I think they narrowly avoided default by accepting the terms of the bankers.

Easy enough to guess how that works.

Give chimps/gorillas/humans enough territory and they're peaceful, make them compete with others of the same species for limited resources and they'll turn violent.

I don't need much more than basic evolutionary theory to support that.

It's not just WD NAS that are facing issues like this. I have a QNAP, so I follow news on that and they've been getting hit repeatedly with ransomware cryptolockers recently as well.

It's nearly always UPNP that's causing the device to be exposed unknowingly to the internet and then a some software bug that allows the exploit.

Ah alright. I thought you didn't know. Have a good one.

Not at all.

Power off closes all your apps, hibernate doesn't.

I'm generally using 15 or 20 apps. I only have to open those once a month after updates.

If someone uses power off, they have to open them daily (I know, because I have other computers in my house configured like that).

>It's a discourteous and lazy way of dumping a romantic interest.

Language isn't fixed, the meaning of words, especially "new" words (and ghosting is a new verb) changes over time. That was the original meaning, but it's now applied to all relationships.

>Ghosting is by no means limited to long-term romantic relationships. Informal dating relationships, friendships, even work relationships may end with a form of ghosting.

https://www.psycom.net/what-is-ghosting

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Ghosting

I've been using hibernate for years now. I start my computer once per month. I really wouldn't care if it takes 5 minutes.

I'm not sure why that isn't shown by default anymore. But you can still add it to the menu and map it to the power button.

>A problem with this from my point of view is that while hardware engineers did an incredible job increasing the processing power of our thinking rocks, us software devs did a tremendous job of squandering 90% of it away.

That works both ways though. The highly qualified software devs did indeed squander some of it away.

But I'm a rather bad dev that writes really inefficient code (because it's not my primary concern, I'm not a programmer, I just need custom software that does the things I need done that can't be done by software other people write).

All this overpowered hardware allows my code to work very well.

I've been in situations where I could pick between "learn to program properly and optimize my code" or "throw more hardware at it" and throwing more hardware at it was definitely the faster and more efficient approach in my case.