bithive123

I think they are saying that people have a tendency to react to their impressions about what is going on, which may not resemble what is actually going on. Being reactive, they are prone to over-reacting. This seems trivially true in the way people of every political stripe work themselves up into a froth over misconceptions about how government works, how the monetary system works, etc.

It's a fair observation, but I personally don't think we should take a wait-and-see approach to the breathtaking corruption and everything else going on.

Indeed, there is the daily treasury statement as well https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/datasets/daily-treasury-stat...

Respectfully, this is not accurate. Zimbabwe's debts were not denominated in their own currency. You are repeating a claim which has been debunked for decades, and is based on a misunderstanding of how our monetary system works.

Well, we know can't be to "save America from bankruptcy" because as a currency issuer, the federal government of the USA can't go bankrupt the way a currency user like a corporation or state government might.

For anyone else looking at these devices to use with frigate, I found that using the openvino mode on a <$200 intel mini pc was more than adequate for 5 cameras, and probably could have handled more. Glad I tried it out first before buying an accelerator.

I wish those sorts of people would realize that they are showing their whole ass when they act like that. Only the deeply insecure mask their ignorance with arrogance. We can hear your thoughts and feel your motivations.

I never said that we have no fiscal constraints, just that the common misconception is backwards. I also never said that the government chooses the rate. It chooses to pay interest when it chooses to sell securities.

I think the popular misunderstanding is more harmful than some of the misunderstandings you point out (which some people may indeed have) because it leads to people pushing austerity because of their monetarist dogma.

Nobody ever asks who's going to pay for stuff when it's so-called "defense" spending. But if we want health care or education then it's all apoplectic "debt, hyperinflation, enslavement of future generations, where's the money going to come from!?"

I hate threads like this because of all the misinformed debt hysteria.

People like to bring up places like Argentina and Venezuela, but their debts weren't denominated in their own currencies, so they had to collect dollars in order to repay debts in dollars. As a currency issuer, since we create dollars, we can never run out of them. Nor do we have to round up dollars and take them back from currency holders before we can repay a debt. Doing so just takes those dollars away from the non-government so that the issuer can zero out a ledger somewhere. The interest is interest we choose to pay, for some reason. The only way we could default on our debt is if we decide to. The only way to "pay off" the "debt" is to take all the dollars away from the non-government, which is _us_.

Not to detract from anything you said, but what if I told you there is a world where the beings etch arcane glyphs into crystals and then enchant them to do their bidding using esoteric incantations?

I feel you. These "cyber security" people's main qualification appears to be scoring 70% on a multiple choice test. I've seen people with no practical experience building things be paid more than 25+ year veterans (who, by the way, might know a thing or two about security).

The CIO and CISO don't understand that certifications only tell you someone is minimally qualified (at best). They are afraid of what they don't know (which is everything) and looking for something to conform to, some external authority on which to base their cargo cult. But they don't want to learn anything more complicated than a buzzword, so their first and last interview question for a security candidate is "what is the CIA triad?"

The old timers don't seem particularly anxious about security (because they understand where and how the rubber meets the road), which is misinterpreted as complacency.

So the security team will insist on not learning anything about the environment at their new job (separation of duties!) but will want to install footguns on every server, and generate reams of automated scanner output that is 98% useless. Budgets get eaten up because we have to buy products from the magic quadrant, because they need to be easy enough for an under qualified person to use (I've heard this). Sometimes it feels like never-ending stream of XY problems and Chesterton's fences, but I guess that's just another day in IT.

I bet the hardest thing about surviving a nuclear war would be remembering how important and reasonable it seemed before the war to make those bombs and use them.

As someone who has purchased a half dozen SBCs over the years but who has also switched to mini PCs the other thing that you start to miss is having a real BIOS so you can install a vanilla operating system. With the SBCs, there is often a single Linux distro that is supported, and which rapidly stops getting updated. Even using stuff like Armbian, it's challenging to use an SBC that is more than a couple years old, and I've had bad experiences where the NIC stops working after a software update.

I'm not a physicist or biologist but what's always made sense to me is that anytime you walk outside during the day you are bathed in broad spectrum radiation from the sun. So anything weaker than the sun is probably safe enough. Anything a million or billion times weaker is probably a million or billion times safer. We already know when and how radios get dangerous (large transmission towers, microwave ovens, etc) and how to mitigate that danger. Inverse cube law and somesuch.

We can't destroy ignorance and violence but we don't just shrug and let the ignorant and violent run amok.

How predictable the ego's self-defensive reactions are. Merely encountering the suggestion that the ego is a necessary servant but a terrible master and it yelps "I'm not an egotist, you're the egotist!"

Helium is apparently great for soundproofing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxOzpPJbnTI (a great demonstration of sound suppressing properties of helium)

I am a light sleeper and would love to use it somehow in my bedroom, but keeping it contained is tricky.

How does this compare to Amazon's own offering in this space, the "AWS Storage Gateway"? It can also back various storage protocols with S3, using SSDs for cache, etc. (https://aws.amazon.com/storagegateway/features/)

What do you do now when there is nothing you have to do? Are all hobbyists doing it to be "better" than someone else?

If I get to choose between the status quo, where I have to work for 30+ years to have a chance at an uncertain retirement, or spending the rest of my life exploring the question of what to do with my time, I know which I'd pick.

You're being pedantic. Your statement that "it's spitting bad data" is incorrect too, as it implies agency. Actually, nothing is happening but electrons flowing. The notion of an "it" that "spits" "data" which is "bad" is your own conceptual overlay.

From what I've learned, there are generalist pollinators (i.e. european honeybees) and specialist pollinators (i.e. your local native bees). Generalists can use any plant, but specialists require particular plants to complete their life cycles. So your intuition is basically correct; the honeybees won't care, but the native ones will appreciate a native plant.

The "news" is never "new". There is nothing in the news that people haven't been doing to each other for thousands of years.

Some people complain that Hollywood just keeps making the same movies, but they'll watch the same news for their entire lives.

You get to choose what games to play in life, and how to play them. When I was younger and the internet was new and exciting, I had more of an online presence. I don't have a family and plenty of time to spend online, I just choose not to.

If the kinds of jobs you want penalize you for not having an online presence, then you have to decide if you want to play that game. Personally I have always hated jumping through hoops; I don't have anything to prove and am confident in my abilities. I don't need to broadcast my hobbies and opinions to the world.

So while I could probably make more money if I conformed to a different play style, I am happier playing my way where I don't do anything (including using social media) because I ought to, but because I want to.

It's such a farce. You got a 70% on a multiple choice test and now you are "certified" in information security, nevermind that you don't know how to actually produce anything (neither a "dev" nor an "op"). But hey, the c-suite who hired you can only read pie charts and bar graphs, and is paid top dollar to make sure those boxes get checked, not to know how anything actually works.

So you buy a bunch of automated scanning tools, pester the sysadmins to install multiple root-kits on all the servers, generate a bunch of PDF reports, and email them to those same sysadmins. You know, to help out the people who have been _achieving_ security (not just talking about it) for years. You rely on them to implement or document everything for you, but it never occurs that they could teach you a thing or two because they are not "certified". What they would consider their nuanced opinion tempered by years of experience comes across to you and your c-suite boss as complacent and change-resistant excuse-making.

> It's literally brought about the longest period of peace between major world powers, in basically the entire history of civilization.

What may look to you like peace is still a mexican standoff. On small time scales no one is firing a weapon but it's not an environment I'd call peaceful.

> At the end of the day human conflict is rooted in simple physics and biology. We compete for a limited set of resources. Even if everyone had every resource they wanted, they'd still compete for sexual partners. You're not going to fix biology or physics. If you have an issue with this, I'd suggest filing a complaint with God.

I don't think using physics to explain warfare would be simple at all. Biologically, I agree that situational constraints sometimes do potentiate conflict. But my complaint is firmly with humans, not some made-up external force they imagine to be responsible. If you would use violence to obtain sexual partners that's on you, not God.

I'm not suggesting that people ignore real constraints, that would be as irrational as ignoring the consequences of actions. I'm also not claiming to have a formula, or system to achieve this. I'm saying we discount the possibility of anything new or different at our own peril. I just can't accept that "God made us violent, so stop worrying and love the bomb" is the only conclusion a truly serious person could come to.

> What is your comment? No one can choose on behalf of others. You can only choose on behalf of yourself. Hence the issue.

I agree that there is no simple solution to ending humanity's destructive tendencies because society cannot change from the top down, only the bottom up (or inside out if you prefer).

We may not have a lot to discuss if your idea of safety is everyone having loaded guns pointed at each other. To me that is an extremely precarious position especially if we have accepted as wisdom that violence, maybe even preemptive violence, might be necessary. Is indefinite cold war really our highest aspiration?

I'm trying to suggest that human beings engage in all sorts of destructive behaviors, including warfare, because of the way we think about the world. We compartmentalize violence, pollution, etc, advocate for the security of our nation-state at the expense of others, and ignore the "externalities", i.e. the simple fact that everything is connected. This tendency perpetuates the very cycles of conflict that most people feel like we could do without.

And yet somehow it's easier to see that you've gone too far east and to go west instead, or vice versa. But for non-trivial matters it seems people want a fixed action pattern to which to cling ("never use force" or "be ready to shoot first") and get confused by comments such as mine which aren't advocating any fixed strategy because the fixed strategies are what got us in this mess.

By inductive reasoning that's an understandable opinion; human beings have had wars somewhere every day for thousands of years. Is the conclusion that therefore violence is inevitable prescriptive as well? Where do we draw the line between accepting necessary violence (someone attacks you) and perpetuating the cycle (arms races)? Do the laws of physics somehow require humans to engage in violent conflicts?

It seems evident to me that the root of these problems is in our thinking; when we engage in everyday behaviors and experience unexpected results, we easily recognize the error and take corrective action. For instance, if you take a wrong turn while driving. But when the same thing happens with violent conflicts, we seem to shrug our shoulders and say "nothing to learn here, it's just the human condition".

Maybe the best we can do is individually not contribute to the various forms of violence. This requires a level of responsibility that is abdicated when we start with the conclusion that violence is mandatory. It's not very scientific to start with a conclusion.

First we invent a machine to kill, then someone invents a machine to kill that machine, and so on. We call this progress. An endless cycle of violence perpetuated by the pursuit of one group's security at the expense of another's.

Is warfare a fact of life? Maybe. But to take actions which logically and demonstrably create the very insecurity they are meant to avoid is irrational. Point this out and you are branded an idealist. "Humanity is doomed to violence, so always be ready to kill" is apparently sage wisdom.

Negation, being a concept, exists only in the mind. Same with "things". A thing is a noun; a part of speech. The "real world" is undifferentiated quanta.

If you are doing it primarily out of frustration, without reading the articles, and merely out of a desire to "put it in other people's faces", then yes.

Motivation matters. I may care deeply about the environment but if I act from a place of wanting to coerce others, I sow seeds of resistance to the very thing I am trying to achieve.

Propaganda. It is a form of violence.