734 karma · joined November 27, 2013
Also, I would assume other processor companies hire people from other processor companies and everyone all wants the best, most of the basic knowledge would have already made it's way to AMD and other companies.
Focusing it on one single act tries to negate the point. It's not just a single act. It's multiple acts, on a daily basis. The police are arresting journalists live on air. For failing to obey commands that weren't given. They shot at other journalists on air. If that's what they're doing on the air.
There is no dispute in police brutality, the police do not deny it, the protesters do not deny it. So why would the truth lie in between an agreed-upon truth?
> Oakland police, who are assisting the FBI in the investigation, tweeted a statement Friday night saying the shooting appeared to be unrelated to the protest over the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
So the police don't think it's related?
What security guard. I googled this since I haven't heard anything about it and it seems that it happened in Flint on the 6th of May before the protests and was about face masks and not police brutality. Or are you talking about a different murder? At first glance, this just seems like misinformation.
Well, isn't this the entire point. The police are killing innocent people. Protesters aren't killing anyone. Seems like even more of a reason to be angry.
"Before you get angry about police brutality, remember context is important!" Are you serious?! Some people are talking to the police chief so you shouldn't be angry that they are blockading people on to a bridge. Or angry that they are driving SUVs into people. Or violently pushing people to the ground. And that's just the NYPD. A department where the commissioner was praising the department for their restrain, if that's restrain wait until they stop holding back.
Giving each other the chance to do the right thing? What are you talking about? What do the protesters need to do? Stop proetesting?
> So, before you get worked up about what happened, check the date, and try to see if there's any local news in the city that might indicate something might have changed in the meantime
> So, before you get worked up about what happened, check the date, and try to see if there's any local news in the city that might indicate something might have changed in the meantime. You won't necessarily see these on frontpage headlines, so it might take a bit of digging. (I've found actual videos from local news reporting on the ground much more helpful than textual articles from national outlets here. It seems to me it's just too difficult to capture all the relevant dynamics, emotion, and nuance in text.)
Are you nuts? So if it happened 3 days ago and the police are saying sorry but not laying charges, it's a-ok? There are no real nuances here. You have police shooting rubber bullets are people's faces, spraying them with pepper spray while they have their hands up, tear gassing people. All while not facing criminal charges.
> In fact, if anyone's involved, I would suggest putting this information in the repo here as well. You don't want to add fuel onto a fire that was already under control a few days ago, and you want to know when (or whether) good progress is being made. Ultimately the goal is to find a working model that others can hopefully emulate.
No, you want to add fuel to this fire if you want this problem to be solved. Working models can be found in nearly every civilised country in the world.
Stop telling people not to be angry and start being angry.
My understanding is making the website available to a country can be soliciting business.
> And how, in practice, could they enforce that if this canadian entity has not broken any canadian law and canada as such has no impetus to enforce german law?
Don't they have deals for such thing? I remember reading that a British court judgement for damages could be enforced in the US.
> Second, he seems to be a co-founder of Precision Nutrition, which suffers from a lot of the same problems as Examine.com. Seriously, let's look at the first entries in their "Free Articles" section:
Firstly, you don't do a lot of nutritional research, do you? Or research on fitness and health? There was a reason why I wrote what I did. This company is one of the major players in that sector. Hence why if you can't verify that he endorses this website you should be looking for an easier to digest source that comes from one of your favourite publishing houses.
When you do research on a website do you just look at that website? If so, I have bad news for you. You are doing a terrible job of researching. And most likely will result in getting yourself scammed by thinking you can spot a scam website when you can't.
Step 1. Google the site. - It's quite a comprehensive result page including multiple related searches. Step 2. Look at what other orgnisations trust this one. If you look at the courses they sell, you'll see they're accepted by multiple groups. (Again, if you want to be save you do separate research on them) Step 3. Look at their social media. Their social media seems to be rather good. Not every post is selling something. First 4 I seen, not a single "buy this" or anythig. Just standard fitness stuff I would expect.
> Click-bait and attempts to sell things.
Business tries to sell things. The fact you've stated this multiple times tells me you are far too into the tech culture of VCs paying for your toys. In the business world without VCs paying for growth these companies need to sell you stuff. The sales tactics are well sales tactics. But just because someone is trying to sell you something doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about. Since every expert in any field is selling you stuff.
Now let's look at these clickbait things. Ok two of them aren't clickbait at all. They are very clear on what is going on. It's alerting you that the new round of courses that they do and have been doing for years are starting. In my experience, any company selling you a course that you can just sign up and start straight away is selling you a course not worth a penny. (Disclaimer I've done their PN1 course and let me say it's worth every penny). So firstly, we've got something to give me confidence about the course. It has a start date. This also tells me who they're targetting. They are targetting professional coaches. So that means stuff like how do you rank as a coach is something they're going to want to read and get an idea to see how they are.
Realistically, I find these hard to classify as clickbait since when you click on it. You get what you expect. Are they written with the intention to help sell you stuff? Yes. Just like nearly everything else you read on a company website. I just think you're just far too used to the tech approach that you think it should apply to everything else even though the customers are different.
> And then there's the second part of the question - how do I know John Berardi actually recommends this site? I don't without taking the site at their word.
You use Google. I instantly found the below post. So these two are friends who visit each others houses it seems. Friends giving friends quotes, pretty much how all quotes on these websites are created in my experience.
https://www.facebook.com/john.berardi.page/posts/22337770833...
If you listen to the guys podcasts, etc. You'll all certainly hear him talking about them. If you're on his newsletter you'll read about them at some point.
Anytime you want to know if a quote is real, you're going to need to do research. But if you were into this subject you would probably hear 4-5 respected people telling you about how awesome examine is. Which comes back to my original point of if you can't verify that quote, it's not for you. The guy's reputation in the field is so high and he's repeatedly publically suggested their services.
One of the reviews by professionals is John Berardi of Precision Nutrition if you're into nutritional research and can't verify him. Then, in my opinion, this site is not for you. You'll need something simplier.
Ok. But the real statistic to disprove the statement is the percentage of building permits granted based on building permit applications. Has that dropped? Or is that still rather high? Also, I think you're not mentioning the fact that major parts of Berlin are against gentrification so while the local government want something, the people don't, because that gentrification allowed them to bypass the rent rise law.
Realistically, to say they aren't building a ton of new housing at a rather fast rate would be a lie. As fast as possible, maybe hyperbolic but that is all.
They've also introduced laws to stop people from buying up apartments to rent out via Airbnb.
Considering even with the law that limits how much they can raise their prices, they're just doing unneeded renovations to get around that law and increase the rent 40%.
This law in combination with the housing construction going on throughout the city and the Airbnb law I think it's the right direction.