vanusa

It's an emotional/rhetorical ploy -- an appeal to WW2-era patriotism, and the relative sense of greatness and prosperity that flourished in the SU after the sacrifices made in that war, specifically.

It's not supposed to be rational or correct or make any other kind of sense.

Source needed, please.

True. But I think Google's point is that the invasion of Ukraine is (several) orders of magnitude more problematic and needs to stop.

I get that there's a downside to boycotts of all forms. What I don't get is the livid emotionalism in this thread ("absolutely ridiculous and shitty") directed towards the decision to boycott certain companies in response to the current situation -- rather than towards the invasion of Ukraine itself.

Seems pretty obvious that the whole point of taking such an action is that it be made public.

History is full of huge counterexamples to this claim: the sanctions against South African apartheid. Oh and this whole business of "punishing people in Germany, Italy and Japan for the mistakes of their leaders", known otherwise as WW 2.

Sounds like you're stretching a bit, in particular with the last point:

Ultimately it has enough forces to overwhelm the Ukrainians on every front.

“There’s already a bit of a rush to take money out of ATMs, but no cash machine is designed for the lines that will appear at sanctioned banks.”

Archived version: https://archive.fo/Ems9w

Other than having their identities made public. But that's a risk one should expect to take when invading a foreign country.

But the interrogations themselves (while stern) are not humiliating as such.

I was just trying to get back to the point of the original article.

No, it's just a "want" (based on price point) like the other commenter said. Europe has other needs, like long-term security and stability. If these become threatened, it can easily (enough) find ways to offset the rise in prices caused by climbing down from Russia's teat.

They need to sell it to us.

On that point you are absolutely correct.

In terms of civilian deaths per capita, the loss in Grozny was easily 20x, for example.

Then again, some people just want to make reasonably good pancakes for their kids or before heading off to work, without too much thought or effort. Or having to be "creative" or think about how they compare with other people's pancakes. Are you OK with that?

More to the point, it is strong indication that the management at this "well funded and very reputable" company is basically incompetent as far as "managing down" is concerned -- and/or suffers greatly from cognitive dissonance.

Not that that means they shouldn't take the job, of course. Just that they should have no illusions as to what that 300k salary is really paying for, in this particular case.

Which is: for your willingness to keep your mouth shut and pretend you aren't being lied to. And to be slowly but incrementally pushed to an early grave by the 12+ hour work days, and the damage to their mental health and relationships from not being able to make use of a reasonable PTO throughout the year.

But again, no judgements here. If that's an arrangement you think you can put with for a year or two before justly quitting this company and finding another one that offers similar salary but with reasonably sane work conditions -- go for it.

Multiple sources are now coming in with live video of explosions in Kyiv, Kharkiv and other cities, for example CNN's Matthew Chance:

https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-news-02-...

This is utterly insane, and the single worst news event of my lifetime.

In other words: in the Venn diagram of the two buckets - the measure of overlap is quite small.

And perhaps in the face. Or with worse outcomes I don't need to go into detail about.

But basically off the page as regards to the specific UX patterns under discussion in this thread.

Right - the results themselves aren't manually edited. There's need to do so, and of course it wouldn't scale.

But if theirs is like any sufficiently featured search architecture we've ever seen -- the training data themselves have been almost certainly curated to favor certain baseline expected outcomes. It's quite likely a good portion of the metadata (read: allow/block lists, in GoogleSpeak) have been manually edited and ranked at some point in the process, as well.

That's a strange use of "adapted", there. The logic here seems to be:

"Sure, salmon and trout numbers have gone down -- but not all runs have been completely wiped out. Therefore, they have "adapted" and there's really nothing to worry about. All so-called scientists talking about a 98 percent reduction in return counts since 1880, and warning that some runs are on the verge of extinction due to the combined effects of habitat reduction and climate change -- they have no idea what they're talking about, really."

It's just a question of what are the true net costs of these services - and who ends up really paying for them.