5,895 karma · joined March 29, 2014
If you wanna do a subscription or a rental, you have to call it that.
I don't see why forcing companies to stop lying is a bad idea.
It doesn't matter how large your sample size is if your sampling method is biased. This could be measuring market share gain/loss in different segments of a steady employment environment.
> disregarding the entire report as noise
Studies with bad / non public sampling methods should be, at a minimum, treated with great skepticism. Why would that not apply here?
If you're trying to argue for a concept, you'll be much more effective if you lay it out initially rather than starting the way that you did.
That's my best guess and it isn't very flattering so perhaps you should try making your point more directly.
Nobody but you mentioned skill. Plenty of mathematically literate people play the lottery for fun, knowing the the expected value is a loss. I personally oppose these types of state operated lotteries as regressive forms of taxation, but if they exist, they shouldn't serve the purpose of allowing capital (especially foreign capital) to extract even more money from citizens.
> In the aftermath of the 2023 bulk buy, Texas politicians put much of the blame on the couriers. The couriers, for their part, have argued that they’re being scapegoated to deflect attention away from broader issues within the Texas Lottery Commission. In any event, the freewheeling atmosphere in Texas seems to have attracted businesses with questionable pedigrees. Lottery.com, which ended up managing the on-the-ground logistics for the 2023 lottery plan, relocated from California to Texas in 2017.
> Lottery.com seems to have struggled, initially. One potential investor, who visited the Lottery.com’s offices in Austin, told Bloomberg Tax, “I said, this isn’t a corporate office; this is a failed 7-Eleven with three goddamn machines.” In 2022, an investigation found that the company had sold more than half a million tickets to out-of-state players, which is illegal. Three top executives left the company. Two of them, Ryan Dickinson and Matt Clemenson, have since pleaded guilty to separate securities-fraud charges. That same year, the company stopped selling lottery tickets, its license as a lottery retailer in Texas was suspended, and its app was removed from the Apple and Google stores.
Texas law prohibits sales to out-of-state players. Do you really not see how a foriegn backer using a sketchy third party and sketchy techniques to purchase tickets and make profit off Texans who play for fun is clearly unfair?
This doesn't seem true. I'd assume you know more about this than I do though so can you explain this in more detail? The concept of privacy is definitely more than thousands of years old. The concept of a "human right", is arguably much newer. Do you have particular evidence that a right to privacy is a harder argument to make that other human rights?
While the language differs, the right to privacy is enshrined more or less explicitly in many constitutions, including 11 USA states. It isn't just a "european" thing.
Since that wasn't ever a real argument, your strawman is indeed ridiculous.
The argument is that requiring people to have a special license to process text with an algorithm is a dramatic expansion of the power of copyright law. Expansions of copyright law will inherently advantage large corporate users over individuals as we see already happening here.
New York Times thinks that they have the right to spy on the entire world to see if anyone might be trying to read articles for free.
That is the problem with copyright. That is why copyright power needs to be dramatically curtailed, not dramatically expanded.
Coinhive earned 35% of everything mined on any site, not just the image board. They had no means stopping malicious installations from stealing from users. This provided hackers financial incenctive to compromise as many sites as possible and Coinhive's incentives were aligned with this. The choice on Monero as the base blockchain made it pretty clear what the intentions were.
> Lessons learned: Good ideas in paying for your content needs to pass the outrage culture test. And Krebs is ... not a honest news source.
Don't create tools clearly intended to facilitate criminal activity, make money off of it, and expect every to be OK with it.
#1 Troy works for Microsoft.
#2 No Troy doeys, as he clearly states.
#3 Being a Microsoft Regional Director makes him an employee and any claims otherwise are based on some arbitrary semantic distiction, not a real difference
#4 No, there is a real difference. That award is like these other awards and none of them take you anywhere near being an employee.
#5 the arguemnt in #3 is flawed because MRD is confusing and the example title others aren't. (Which misses the point, that using non-confusing examples is much better than using other confusing examples if you want to explain something.)
#6 that doesn't affect the argument being made in #4
#6 repeat ad nauseum
Troy is not a Microsoft employee, no ammount of semantic wiggling will make him a Microsoft employee, no matter how confused people are by the title of the MRD award. That confusion may be justifiable, but doubling down when your error has been explained is not.
You might want to reread, nobody was arguing that.
> We can debate semantics but if you describe yourself with a job title attached to a company then I suggest that you have an association which looks rather like ... employment.
"Debating semantics" is arguing about which definition to use. There is no valid definition under which you can say that Troy is a Microsoft employee.
You can't say "I'm not wrong, You're just debating semantics", all you can say is "I was wrong because I was confused by a misleading title I wasn't familiar with."
cupofnotjoe pointed this out and got a bunch of responses from people with poor reading comprehension who entirely missed his point.
Edit: I use 'you' in the general sense here, not specifically the person I'm responding to.
You ar correct, "Microsoft Region Director" is an award, not a certification like the others mentioned so they aren't quite the same class, but the analogy still holds. Neither being given an award nor a certification makes you an employee.
You might think the award has a confusing name, and you would be correct. What you cannot be correct in asserting is that an award makes someone an employee because that award has a confusing name. That isn't a question of "semantics", if you assert that award makes him an employee, you are simply wrong.
Just because the name for something is confusing, that doesn't change the nature of the thing named.
You lost hope because they used an industry standard term?
The apparent issue is that the data appears to have been entirely fabricated and is a lie. The author appears to simply be a fraud
> If an AI reads 100 scientific papers and churns out a new one, it is plagiarism.
That is a specific claim that is being directly addressed and pretty clearly qualifies as "good faith".
Any suits would be based on the degree the marginally new copy was fair use. You wouldn't be able to sue the savant for reading and remembering the text.
Using AI to creat marginally new copies of copyrighted work is ALREADY a violation. We don't need a dramatic expansion of copyright law that says that just giving the savant the book to real is a copyright violation.
Plagarism and copyright are two entirely different things. Plagarism is about citations and intellectual integrity. Copyright is a about protecting economic interests, has nothing to to with intellectual integrity, and isn't resolved by citing the original work. In fact most of the contexts where you would be accused of plagarism, would be places like reporting, criticism, education or research goals make fair use arguments much easier.
Tesla has yet to get good enough to achieve level 4 so they can't actually run a robotaxi yet. Tesla's bet is that if they can reach level 4 with their approach, they'll be able to roll out robotaxis much more widely than Waymo can.
So far, the bet has not paid off and Tesla needs it to pay off before Waymo's slower rollout gets too far ahead.
The millions that own beach front property should accept the value of their land will decrease as it becomes harder to insure. If they don't want to lose equity, sell it sooner than later.