dandare

Tangential: is it just me or speakers made a huge leap forward over the last 20 years? I mean for given price range. Laptop speakers, headphone speakers, car speakers, any minisystem/potrable stereo speakers. Was there some prominent techonolgical improvement or just a miriad of small improvements?

Also RIP to mister Koss.

No, we are not. Progressivism spread from the US to the whole world long time ago. There is literally a party called Progressive Party where I am from that even adopted the "white male privilege" narrative even though, as I said, my country never had any racial minorities (other than jews, if you consider it ethnoreligion a race) or colonial history. It would be comical if it wasn't tragic.

If you are talking about a whole race of people, but you actually mean only a specific subset, then it is up to you to define the context, not up to the reader.

(And even in that case you will still probably end up with a racist generalisation.)

I never asked for a white identity, but it is being applied to me by other people.

Any way you spin it, it is not ok. The color of my skin is my immutable characteristic, any derogatory statement about the whole white race will always be wrong.

Yes, by progressives - and don't start the "no true scotsman" fallacy please.

Also, your second statement maybe applies to the US, but there are many countries where white people are not the majority, or where there were virtually no other races than white. Saying that e.g. Norwegians or Italians are privileged by institutional racism is absurd. I am from a post-communist country that was always 99.9% white, saying that “White identity is grounded in racism” is absurd and of course totally racist.

actual hate speech is very subjective term. #killAllMen was trending on Twitter. Saying all white people are racist is considered progressive.

I see. I completely agree.

You made two mistakes: You optimise prematurely and your assumption is incorrect.

Premature optimisation:

In most cases the performance would not matter. Instead of optimising for performance you should optimise for readability. IMHO IFs and FORs are way more readable in any context than any language specific methods like REDUCE and MAX.

Incorrect optimisation:

At least in modern browsers, simple IFs and FORs are the most optimised methods of doing anything. See for instance https://leanylabs.com/blog/js-forEach-map-reduce-vs-for-for_... (Operations per second, higher is better).

And 1 stable coin is backed by 1 dollar in the bank. That means one stable coin is backed by 0.01 real dollar.

So this stable coin is "100% backed by the asset behind it", like a dollar, which is "backed by 1% real assets (go fractional reserve money!)". What did I miss?

But why would you do that? When you can do exactly that with a traditional currency but much safer, much cheaper, much faster and much more conveniently.

You are right. How are they useful?

A stable crypto-currency will not attract any investment. Crypto is useless for anything but money laundering and speculation.

> Even when you have paid Google products that come with support, it is really awful

Once I subscribed to YouTube Music (paid!) family plan, but my wife's account would always say that she is in another country and can not join the plan. I tried everything - the support never even bothered to reply to my emails. I cancelled the plan and since then I keep seeing the same ads for the premium service every time I open the YT mobile app.

We talk a lot (actually, not enough) about the dangers of AI, but we rarely discuss the perils of longevity. Not that they are similar, but both are somewhat underrated.

- Once there will be a scientific breakthrough in longevity, everything will happen very fast. The time between the first and the billionth vaccine against ageing probably won't be much longer than one year.

- The breakthrough may be just around the corner (10, 20 30 years...) - many people seem to be putting their money on it.

- Sudden increase in the average lifespan by as little as 10 years would throw most pension funds and state budgets into disarray. Mind you, a 70 years old retiree rejuvenated back to his 60 won't be magically as productive as she was before she retired. She will be unemployed and 10 years behind on everything.

- Any significant lifespan enhancement will mean we have to renegotiate social contract about having kids. Will the vaccine come with strings attached? We can't even control our population explosion today.

- Not just science progresses one funeral at a time.(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30025879). Imagine having no real possibility progressing in your career, once the "best" will fill the ladder. Would you want your judge or police chief to be the same person for 50 years?

PS: That being said, I don't think we can or should hold back and it will be all worth it.

That was my first thought as well, but then I realised there is a big difference when one just grossly exaggerates (e.g. "touching someone without consent is rape") and when the word is used with poetic licence. Rape of a ghost is clearly not meant literally.

Funny how I immediately imagined WW2 when I read 'Maikop'. Now I am down the rabbit hole on Wikipedia's Maykop culture :)

The difference is this: if police misuses bad laws selectively - like predominantly only against the black community - then the majority won't give a fcuk. But once "honest citizens" are targeted by excessive policing, the laws will sooner or later change.

Why do you think this has anything to do with libertarianism?

> Police have a duty to justice

How did duty to justice and honour worked for the black communities deliberately. targeted by law enforcement over the last 100 years (in the US)?

Why exactly is this problem? I personally see a problem with having laws that we enforce only if the offender is black, or a similar discretion or bias of the policeman.

That is problem of the laws governing the use of the funds, not a problem of policing per se.

This may be controversial but:

Policing for profit is in theory a good thing. Every time they enforced a good law the society profits. Every time they enforce a bad law the society should change the law.

The alternative is having bad laws that are enforced just sometimes, at the discretion and personal biases of the not-for profit police.

Yes, exactly. Or would you rather live in a China or Russia dominated world? Good luck. (Again, I am not saying they are not bad, I am saying they are not the same.)

I agree. But that does not mean they are just propaganda tools. CIA and Mi6 is not the same as FSB or MSS.

CIA and Mi6 are controversial but that does not mean they are the same as FSB or MMS.

Maybe it is just me but I never use chatbots and I don't understand why anyone would.

For everything I want to do there should be an UI that is much easier to use than explaining it, even to a human.

For help and troubleshooting chatbots are pretty much useless. If I have a problem doing something via the UI then probably the developer did a bad job and no chatbot will ever do better.

That is the correct think to do.

Remember, never be loyal to your company because a company CANNOT be loyal to you. (You can be loyal to a good boss though.)

To me it sounds less morally consistent. It says they are against slavery on the paper but will not do anything concrete to avoid profiting from slave labour in practice.

> race-based wage/earnings disparities in the labor market

Is there an adjusted race wage gap similar to adjusted gender pay gap? By adjusted I mean for the same work on the same position.

This Wikipedia article does not mention any adjusted (apples-to-apples) comparison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_pay_gap_in_the_United_S...

My favourite feature of English grammar is the Garden path sentence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden-path_sentence#Examples

Bonus: There is the secret adjective order rule that most native english speakers have no idea about https://qz.com/773738/how-non-english-speakers-are-taught-th...

> It started off excluding women and people of color...

While true, this is irrelevant - because that was the general condition back then - and only deludes the argument.