lkdjjdjjjdskjd

Switching away from GoDaddy seems like a better approach.

On a related note, last I tried Cloudflare (a couple of years ago) they also injected JavaScript into my site. The JavaScript was larger than my site.

If they had such a great coop going, I don't understand why they went back to Lyft/Uber?

While that's true, there is also "antitrust". The Guardian certainly has squandered away most of the trust bonus it may have once had. (I think it was the Guardian making the claims?).

At least you haven't caught me lying before, doesn't that count for anything?

Even most o the journalism prices don't mean much anymore. Here in Germany there was just a scandal of a journalist faking many stories, who had also won lots of prices with them (Claas Relotius). In some articles about him it was also mentioned that by now there is also a kind of "inflation" of journalism prices. I think they also serve the purpose of creating a fake aura of trust.

All I did was ask for some examples. That's not an absurd, inapplicable standard.

And I am not applying the just-world fallacy. I think it is a completely misguided way to think about the world to begin with.

Of course not everybody reaches the optimal outcome in life. That doesn't make it unfair or an injustice.

Why did nobody inspire me to buy Google stock when I was a teenager? Then I would be a millionaire by now. Other people became millionaires because they bought Google stock.

So unfair! It is such an injustice! Obviously I am entitled to be bestowed millions by society now, because the only reason I am not a millionaire is because society didn't point me towards buying stock as a youth.

Also, I think I am entitled to at least 1000 Bitcoin. Can I send you my address? It is not my fault that society didn't encourage me to become a computer geek who would then experiment with Bitcoin mining in 2009.

So obviously I don't believe in a "just world", because I myself am a living example of it not being just!

While you can frame your view of the world that way, and not rest until everybody in the world is EXACTLY the same (you may also look into genetic engineering, because it won't do that some people are more beautiful than others), I think it is a completely silly approach.

Maintaining that force also costs a lot of energy. Abnd such a currency doesn't do the same things as crypto currencies.

So if he is just "shitposting", why pursue him?

Presumably the logic is more "nobody has published any footage, so there probably isn't any".

I have footage of Trump and Hillary leaving a Motel together. Do you believe me? Why not - have you watched all the footage? Didn't think so...

They are not obliged to provide examples or proofs, but I am also not obliged to believe their claims. If you want, I "offered" my "viewpoint" that the support of their argument was insufficient.

Moreover, I am ENTITLED to having doubts. Isn't that what the modern world (and also the article here) is all about? Entitlement?

In general, more double-blind studies would be a good thing, so what is your point?

I don't get it - it seems to be just a list of common false claims about Assange (according to Wikileaks)? How is that "things you can't say"? Surely you can still say them? Or what - will Wikileaks send their hired guns to silence you?

Also I think Assange is not in control of Wikileaks anymore.

How did that turn out? My impression is we simply don't know enough about creating prodigies yet.

There is the Polgar/Ericsson approach, but it may be too narrow. It may enable us to create, say, chess prodigies - but how do we pick the fields for people to become prodigies in? Also, it might not be economically feasible. I think Polgar educated his kids as a full time job. Can't do that with everybody.

That Tom Mueller guy is building rockets right now, though.

The point is, there may simply not be that many people obsessing about some things to the point of becoming geniuses in their field.

I am not the one who wrote an article making claims, so why should the burden of proof be on me? I dnn't think your criticism of my comment is fair at all.

The author made a claim, so they should support it. That has nothing to do with just world hypothesis. Also, he actually provided an example of somebody prevailing against the odds.

The only evidence that talent might be wasted is our feelings that it may be so. That's not enough.

As for contradicting statements, it seems to me my statements both say the same thing. Both are a request for providing evidence of (unfairly) wasted talents.

"The point is, we need to build systems that enables geniuses to be discovered regardless of races, resume, age, skintone, college."

I was referring to that. It is a hard problem, not simply a matter of hiring more ethnically diverse people. If you just say "we need a better system", frankly I consider it a fluff article. There is no actionable information in it. It would be like saying "we need to create better cancer treatments" - yeah, sure, but HOW?

"We need a fair and level capitalist system that reduces barriers-to-entry for innovative companies and stops monopolistic practices."

I am not convinced our current system is unfair. At least the article doesn't provide any evidence for it, as I said. It seems to me all sorts of companies are trying to improve opportunities for everyone (YCombinator Startup School, MOOCs come to mind). The lack of opportunities for some people is not because of unfairness, but because we don't know how to do it better yet.

But who is "unfair" here? Again - if nobody would have created a space agency for Tom Mueller to work for, would it have been unfair? And who would have been to blame? I really don't think fairness is the dominant issue here.

So an "auto loan" is a "car loan"? I thought it was an automatically created loan. Thanks for clarifying.

How do auto loans and credit card approvals differ? Surely both have some human element to it still?

Maybe the sums involved are different, so giving loans is more risky than approving credit cards?

Also, incentives might be different. Maybe credit card companies want "bad" borrowers, because they make the most money if people go into high debts on credit cards? On the other hand for normal loans there is no such incentive, because the interest rates are fixed and much lower.

That just seems like business as usual to me. Companies have always competed over talent. Nevertheless, if you are good at it, I am happy for you :-)

Maybe they meant the actual "diversity" of ideas and personalities. It is just that these days if you say "diversity", it has become synonymous with more women, different racial backgrounds, and for some reason also sexual orientation.

I'm not convinced that it is not normal. Disproportionate numbers of females and black people in certain professions are more likely because of different proportions in applications. And perhaps also in different distributions of skills and education.

I really want to enable ipv6 on my web site, but then I heard horror stories about connections failing if not all routers between the client and the server have ipv6 enabled.

Apparently at least for a while, browsers would not try the same request again via ipv4, so the site would simply be unreachable.

Perhaps browsers have become smarter about that, but it really makes me wary about enabling ipv6. I have no immediate benefit besides "doing the right thing", and some possible downsides.

Most people don't obsess about rockets. I would find the story more convincing if there were also examples of "talents" who didn't go anywhere. I find it rather likely that people with his talents would always find a way.

Of course there is always untapped potential, for the time being. That is why there are still startups and entrepreneurs, who try to release that potential. But it is not as simple as hiring diverse genders and races.

It is simply a hard problem to enable people to make the most out of their talents and potentials.

The Tom Mueller case seems to illustrate that well. What if there had been no SpaceX during his lifetime. Who would have been to blame? What would there have to be done? Perhaps Tom Mueller would have started his own Space company? Or maybe not. But whose duty would it supposedly be to provide a space company for people like him to work at?

Most people are not even sure how to enable their own children to make the most of their talents (or to develop some talents to begin with) - let alone some strangers. I think that also shows that it is not primarily an issue of diversity. We simply don't know enough about developing talents and making the most out of life yet. So we experiment - sometimes it works out, and sometimes it doesn't.

What exactly made Tom Mueller obsessed with rockets? If I want my kids to become rocket scientists, should I send them to lumber jack camps in the summer?

Being a woman or black is not unorthodox, though. And priding yourself for hiring somebody black or female seems odd. It should be a normal thing - if the skills (or whatever unorthodox aspects you fancy) are a match.

Seems to me at least using Electrum for cold wallets as you should would not have been susceptible to the attack.

Is that relevant, if your apps only communicate with encrypted messages (https only and so on)?

Most people who want to already bought the song. Then they can play their CD forever without paying another cent.

Disk encryption is also only available with Pro upwards.

It's not helping against the notion that Windows is insecure to use...

If it is so bad, why isn't anybody making a short, accessible story out of it?

I read as far as the cancer map. I wonder if the population density is perhaps simply higher around the creek. I can't tell from the map.

Let's be honest: without filter bubbles, (social) media would be pretty much unbearable.

"It would appear that way" - that was my whole point, that the perception is presumably wrong here. There is no rejection, and nobody built anti-trans parameters into their ad server by intent. Sure, the OP feels that way - but feelings can be changed, in theory. They should be amendable by rational thought. Also I suspect it can become a habit to frame everything in terms of "rejection of my identity". I am not blaming that person, just pointing out that it may not be a healthy habit.

Maybe, to sum it up in a more friendly way, this quote is a good summary: "never attribute to malice what you can attribute to incompetence" (don't know who said it).

As for the miscarriage, I likewise wouldn't blame the algorithms or companies. However, I would think that most of them would be happy to learn and improve their algorithms. So pointing out such a flaw should hopefully be received well.

The entire point of cryptocurrency is to eliminate the need for trust. You can verify the source code of Ethereum implementations for yourself.

The only problem here is that they may have taken upon too much complexity, making it again hard to verify. It might still be better than closed systems with no option to appeal.

That would be a valid opinion (imo) - saying they failed to deliver. But accusing them of being scammers is off the mark.

The implementors of Ethereum are not the scammers. You can have scammers with every product. A salesman can sell you a used car that is broken. That doesn't imply cars are scams.

If somebody sells you Ethereum for 1 Million Dollars, they might be a scammer. That doesn't imply Ethereum is a scam.

How does she know what is "normal"? That was my point - nobody is "rejecting her reality". There are simply some ads that don't appeal to her, as happens to everybody else, too.

How can she blame the algorithms for rejecting her, if her past actually contains things that the algorithm happens to pick up on?

Since everybody gets ads that don't appeal to them, clearly it is just a case of algorithms not being smart enough. It's like saying the sky rejects her because it isn't pink. It is blue for technical reasons, not to spite her identity.