I think that's clearly nonsense and not a helpful take (if you lie to your kids, unwittingly or not, that will just erode their trust in you). Of course you can find desperate adult actors, just as you can find desperate investment bankers or desperate software engineers who would rather be doing something else. Do you have any evidence that the number of desperate adult actors is especially significant?
I think a better angle is to discuss dignity and how porn affects the consumer's own world-view.
Well, that's you. Everyone drank Monster at my uni and I don't think there were any reports of sleep issues. Of course it depends on your existing caffeine tolerance, and I guess most students consume quite a lot of caffeinated beverages, but if it was a common issue for those with low tolerance I'm sure we'd have noticed.
It increases the costs, sure, but is the increase significant? It seems to be fairly common to write bots for various online games that only rely on video input. The cost of development is higher, and the hardware requirements somewhat steeper, but how much more expensive is it really? I doubt it's even close to doubling the operational costs.
To add to that (as I guess many will not know this — I certainly didn't until recently), the group of dialects is called Alemannic German, and is not exclusive to Switzerland. There are similar dialects spoken in all of the surrounding countries — including, of course, Germany. Linguistically and historically it's part of the same language continuum as standard German, so the name "Swiss German" is not misinformative as some may assume from the fact that standard German speakers often can't understand Swiss German. There are other (probably many, though I only know of a few) similar examples of languages where people might assume the dialects are mutually intelligible, but they really aren't — Italian also being one. I suppose it's even the case in most countries/languages that there'll be dialects that are only barely mutually intelligible.
Maybe if you already use the things that they are pushing on you, you won't notice anything. But every time I've updated my work laptop Apple have tried to make me opt-in to Siri after restarting with the new update -- they even add the obnoxious Siri button back to the touch bar even though I've removed it several times.
I'm sure this is just a mistake, an algorithmic mishap. It probably flagged the content as possibly racist. Alphabet's interests have always been in supporting social justice, BLM, etc, and censoring the other side. That's not likely to change soon.
What's your logic there? I would have thought that if your eyesight is poor, resolution matters much less as you can't tell the difference. You'd want to scale things 2-4 times anyway.
I think your parent is quite aware of the contents of the article, and is questioning their ontology just like one would question a Jesuit's conception of 'heresy'.
That's assuming the feature even materializes. I don't it's cynical to assume that Google might shelve a "feature" that undermines their own business at the first opportunity.
That's assuming it's their money to begin with (I'd assume it's a loan). With those numbers it takes about a decade to make it back — perhaps more with capital costs. That doesn't sound bad at all? What were you expecting?
Writing a blog post about how you enabled the writing of that blog post is the most fun part! I just happened to write my own today in a very similar vein [0]. I guess using webhooks to automatically deploy might be pretty obvious, but I didn't know how to do it until today.
It's a common line of thought that often surfaces and it is listed in the HN guidelines as one of the things that should not be insinuated. So that's why your parent is getting downvoted.
IQ tests measure the g factor and also happen to be the best way to measure it. So those opposed to IQ should either come up with a better way to measure g or be open about their rejection of the existence of differences in cognitive abilities.
I don't understand how people can say that demand is greater than supply or the other way around. Aren't they exactly matched, using the nifty concept of salaries? Anything else seems absurd. The demand for skilled software engineers working for free is infinite. The supply of skilled software engineers willing to work for one million dollars per month is much greater than the demand for such.
I don't know anything about how they are run, but I would assume you need a large number of on-site engineers and process overseers. What are the low-income jobs? Security?