tchaffee

Source? The vast majority of people do not use that definition. Ask the average person for a list of races and they will easily answer with something like: African, Asian, European, etc.

And by your definition, many humans don't even have a race.

Define race. You seem to be using a definition of race that the vast majority of people don't use.

Race however is a social construct and that's where your tidy conclusion falls apart.

It's trivial to find an African person with more genetic similarity to an Irish person than he has in common with a different African person. Genetic diversity in Africa is massive. Think of the various Pygmy people as just one example.

The problem is trying to attribute that to race.

Almost all the best runners in the world come from one Kenyan tribe. Meaning there are a LOT of Africans who are average or below average at running. Race is far far too broad to attribute to much of anything.

It's easy to find an African person more genetically similar to an Irish person than he is to another African person.

Race doesn't even have a scientific definition.

> lighting money on fire

It's almost as if money is just paper and has little economic value. The same criticism you made of crypto.

"Keep reading and writing bugs" sounds a little off. Maybe change that to "writing bug reports"?

> given the pro-privacy stance of crypto

Maybe I'm missing something, but what pro-privacy stance? Crypto is far easier to trace than cash. And US companies like Kraken follow KYC laws.

Have you used it before or you just found it now doing a search?

> you absolutely have to show why you’re better for this role than a bunch of other people you’re competing with

Of course. But let's define "better" and question your assumptions.

It is definitely not your sloppy heuristic: that heuristic is ageist and should be discarded.

Is it "interested in the field" vs. "interested in money"? That's highly debatable and depends on the company. For a big corporation that moves slowly and has a lot of grunt work, I'll most likely choose "interested in money" over someone who is going to get bored with the work there and focus on their side projects instead. For a startup early hire, probably "interested in the field". But I'd have to keep a very close eye on burnout.

There is a reason most engineers hate the interviewing process and one of those is the endemic abuse of heuristics. Consider improving your interviewing process instead of defending it. Some of your competition already is improving it, and they will hire the excellent folks that you pass by. Ineffective tricks in an attempt to shortcut an actually thorough process are probably never going to go away. But that doesn't mean you need to continue to participate in that. You could in fact "show why you're better".

You are using a poor heuristic that favors young people. That is age discrimination. It's illegal in many countries, and unethical in all. You should try to throw out the heuristic and find a better way to determine interest.

For what it's worth, some engineers who are "just in it for the money" consistently pump out high quality code. They just go home at 6pm. While some of those who love it are working towards burnout. I have hired both. Both have their pros and cons.

Like I said from the very beginning, you can only provide links that are highly edited and leave out the context. At the end of the day only the naive and gullible will trust those videos. Your choice of course.

That's a really long way of saying you don't have the "literal hours of continuous footage" that was claimed.

Several Republican friends are dead now due to Covid because they believed the anti-truth ideas being spread by GOP media about the vaccines. Darwin awards are indeed one of the ultimate fact checkers.

> Most municipalities in industrialized countries regularly publish water quality tests and reports.

Well yes, that's why I mentioned reports in the first place.

> And industrial farming isn't the only way (literal) shit can contaminate your water supply.

Agreed. Don't drink water out of fresh looking mountain streams unless you want to risk being sick for weeks.

But the topic is tap water & bottled water. In rural areas in developed countries and where there is little risk of industrial farming contamination, there should be no hesitation in drinking the tap water as a visitor. If you live there, then of course get the water tested. Trusting any water long term without tests is a risk. And since lots of testing is either free or very cheap, there is no reason not to.

> Can you impersonate someone as a joke? No. Parody is not identity theft.

Can you point to case law that makes this clear? Intent highly matters and I don't see anyone facing legal repercussions for impersonating someone for comic intent or even politically motivated intentions. Not to mention, Twitter already has a mechanism identifying verified accounts, doesn't it?

> Making a hyper-realistic deep fake video of a politician saying absurd stuff is not free speech without appropriate labelling.

Lying is mostly not against the law and is covered under free speech. In fact in 2012 the Supreme Court ruled that lying can be Constitutionally protected under free speech. [1] Whether or not such video would be ethically wrong is another matter. But I think you are wrong is in saying it is not free speech.

https://www.npr.org/2012/02/22/147257716/is-a-lie-just-free-...

> I don’t think anyone claims to be a “free speech absolutist.”

"Starlink has been told by some governments (not Ukraine) to block Russian news sources. We will not do so unless at gunpoint.

Sorry to be a free speech absolutist." [1]

[1] https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1499976967105433600

And hate speech can be harmful. But hate speech is free speech. Is unlabeled parody free speech?

"Free speech absolutist" didn't last very long did it?

You went from saying the security risks are gaslighting to saying you need to make usability and risk compromises.

The claim:

> literal hours of continuous footage

You gave links to highly edited videos. That is a fail.

> If you would rather be in denial about the nature of Twitter

I almost never use Twitter so I don't care. If you're naive enough to believe highly edited video from a source with a strong history of deceptively editing videos, [1], that's certainly your choice. But don't be so shocked that others are not as gullible and have a higher standard of evidence than you.

[1] https://www.snopes.com/news/2016/10/18/project-veritas-elect...

No such video exists. Got it now.

All that you've got is a quotes taken out of context that distort the original meaning. Ignorable.

That's a pretty bold claim that I'd have to see evidence to believe.

I do get your point though: it's quite probable that some users are very interested in the feature even if some or many average users ignore it.

> It's another form of gaslighting people into not believing their own eyes & ears...

How are we supposed to believe our eyes and ears when you haven't provided any links to video for us to watch?

> Commentary aside, the video does not lie.

Ok, but what video? You didn't give any links.

> Also the entire unedited interview is available.

Where? People keep claiming unedited video is available but no one can produce a link to such video.

That was also my experience staying with a Swiss friend in both her city home and mountain home. Drinking tap water at home and then ordering bottled water at the restaurant literally next door to the house. I'll have to ask her about it next time.

Yes, of course. That was my point. That the heuristic of "developed country" is not effective just because it's sometimes right.

Also take a look at the number of contaminants in the water for each those cities in your source. It's not zero for any of them.

> from my travel experience

You can't taste many industrial chemicals or even biological contaminants. Tap water can taste great and be unsafe. And taste horrible due to minerals and be perfectly safe. You really need to see regular reports on water tests to understand if the local infrastructure provides safe drinking water.

I wouldn't trust the water in any industrialized country unless I could see the reports. Especially city tap water. Mountain resort or any rural area without industrial farming is probably a safe bet. Germany possibly gets it right.

It's not clear from your post what the restaurant norms are in any of those countries.

Having lived in Italy, my experience is that Italians are pretty obsessed with bottled water. Well really bottled spring water to be exact. At restaurants especially. The exception would be in areas where you can get spring water from the source like a mountain resort. Spain is quite similar although I've only spent months at a time there so I'm less experienced in their views on water.

In the US it varies, but it's still fairly easy to find restaurants that bring a glass of tap water without even asking you. Big city restaurants and upscale restaurants will try to sell you bottled water but asking for tap water is not frowned upon like it would be in Italy.

I haven't spent enough time in Switzerland to comment on that, so maybe you could give more details on your experience there.