curiousgeorgio
What I see missing most in discussions around immigration is what it does to the home countries of the people trying to move to the United States. I know a lot of families who have come into the country from Mexico, and I don't blame them - I'd probably do the same. But if you look at the towns they're leaving (which I've done many times), it's creating a vacuum of good, hard-working people. As a result, crime and drug lords fill the vacuum, making it even more unsafe.
If you ask a lot of those people (which I've done), they'd really like to stay in their home countries - provided that there weren't growing concerns over crime. As Americans, why do we have to act like this is the only place in the world where people can be successful, and the only safe haven? What if we instead supported those countries and encouraged their brightest and best citizens to stay so that their communities can thrive?
I love immigrants, and I also love a lot of the countries they're coming from. I just wish we could stop pretending that everyone needs to move to the United States to be happy, productive, or successful.
And yes, markets tend to be affected by supply and demand, the labor market included. If you have an almost unlimited supply of people looking for work and willing to work at very low wages, of course we're going to see wages stagnate.
Here's my theory: they aren't concerned with the movies and TV shows shown in the video (which are presumably obtained legally as Jeff mentioned), but rather the brief use of what looks like [plugin.video.youtube] (https://github.com/anxdpanic/plugin.video.youtube) at about 12:10 in the video.
The plugin is an alternate frontend to YouTube, and as such, allows bypassing ads. He never mentions the plugin explicitly in the video, but I'm pretty sure that's what it is; he mentions YouTube and is clearly watching one of his own YT videos in Kodi. Just today, I noticed YouTube getting more aggressive in its anti-ad-blocking measures. They got really strict a year or two ago, backed off a bit, and seem to have ramped up again. My guess is that someone in management needs to show better numbers and is looking for ways to punish anyone even hinting at accessing YouTube without the obligatory dose of advertising.
The repository linked from the article (https://github.com/Circuit-Digest/ESP-Drone) has some issues claiming there's malware in it, and the commit history looks a little suspicious, but I could be wrong.
It's basically the modern equivalent of "turtles all the way down" because it pretends to explain the nature of reality by extending our definition of reality to fit within an all-encompassing mental model that only makes sense on a surface level.
Granted, the words "universe", "multiverse", etc. are insufficient in describing everything in a way that includes everything we currently want to include, but giving a new name to that abstract idea of "everything" isn't itself a compelling argument to also say that everything exists as a static construct and that everything is computationally irreducibile and deterministic at a fundamental level. Yes, that makes sense in a physics simulation, but in reality, we don't know what we don't know. Placing the unknown in a conceptual box doesn't imply that it's now known.
It's an interesting topic in light of generative AI art. In many cases, the generated stuff can look nearly identical to some really talented artists' work. So are the artists themselves irrelevant? Is their work more or less valuable, given that it took much more time and effort for them to produce?
Why do people line up to see the real Mona Lisa when they can see essentially the same result on their smartphone or tablet?
But this project wasn't about making a Netflix logo animation; it was about using a fun, low-tech method for achieving a similar result. The whole point of the project was the method, not the result.
So if he had taken shortcuts when making the original Netflix logo animation, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with that. But claiming that he used a specific, unconventional approach to do this (focusing on how he did it, not what he did), then lying about that for clicks... that's pretty disgraceful in my opinion.
You have more dollars, but they're worth significantly less, so you're really not much better off.
1. When he cut the post-treated wood and the middle looked very much like untreated wood. He kind of glossed over that and explained that he thought the chemicals were penetrating all the wood, but that shot looked really suspicious. I’d be surprised if the chemicals were really effective for that thick of a piece with only one soaking (which left a very dirty by-product by the way, suggesting the solution’s effectiveness may have deteriorated before it had time to work on the innermost part of the wood).
2. There didn’t seem to be any bullet-stopping until he decided to glue more than one piece together with a fairly strong glue. And oddly enough, the bullet seemed to stop near the boundary between pieces that had been glued. I’m sure the wood was strong, but how do we know the glue itself wasn’t a substantial barrier stopping the bullet? I can imagine many very thin slices of untreated wood with enough glue interfaces binding them together (depending on the glue) also potentially stopping a bullet.
In either case, it was a cool experiment and looked like it took a lot of time to pull off.
If pandemic-related supply chain issues are really a major factor in the inflation we're seeing, with time we'd expect most prices to be returning to pre-pandemic levels, or at least close. I don't think I've heard anyone seriously suggest that could happen. Instead, we're celebrating a small reduction in the slope of a line that has been and continues to be moving up at an alarmingly steep angle.
And while you could argue that fiscal stimulus isn't a direct action from the fed, it's certainly related and can ultimately be attributed to the same group of delusional people in the driver's seat.
Don't spam APIs. That said, if you're determined to do so, there's not much this or any other tool can do to stop you from trying.
The value of Twitter has nothing to do with the product, and everything to do with the name and market share. For that reason, it's been almost impossible for any other alternative to call itself a real Twitter competitor.
Maybe he has departed from his usual trajectory towards success, but at this point (given his history), the burden of proof falls on the people who think he's lost his mind to explain precisely why they assume they know more than he does.
• On day 1, Elon probably talked privately with some of the head engineers at Twitter. He told them he wanted to trim the fat, and asked them how much could be cut while basically keeping the lights on and the website up (accepting some risk of temporary outages).
• I'd bet money that some of them told him something like 80-90% of the staff could be cut. I think that's true of a lot of large companies.
• Then Elon had the balls to actually move in that direction. Rather than make arbitrary cuts, he's letting people self-select. Obviously the company will lose some really good engineers as collateral damage, but for the most part, the dead weight will reveal themselves through silly shenanigans like this. Elon knows it's silly, but there's no graceful way to make such drastic moves.
He's painting with broad strokes to clear the canvas and re-imagine Twitter as a startup. And I think it's brilliant.
If you think he's out of his mind (as many commenters appear to think), show me your billions of dollars and multiple successful companies as proof that you know more about success than he does.
Cars, phones, and many critical pieces of infrastructure are quickly becoming impossible to service or fix by anyone but their manufacturers. Even normal operation relies on services that can be shut down which the flip of a remote switch. Not a huge problem in the individual case, but when our farming relies on similar technology, threats like cyberattacks, bugs, datacenter outages, chip supply issues, political disagreements, etc all become major national threats really quickly. Granted, farming has had sophisticated technology for quite a few years now, but smarter AI systems will inevitably involve more interaction with cloud services, and at that point, we're setting ourselves up for some scary possibilities.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12122-016-9229-0
https://academic.oup.com/aler/article-abstract/19/2/391/3066...
Like many things, there's substantial evidence on both sides of the argument. The devil is usually in the details, and this is a case where success or failure seems to be greatly affected by the quality of the programs themselves and the people who administer them.
Nope. You'd be wrong. It's the trillions of dollars unnecessarily printed by the fed. A large part of that went to business owners who didn't actually need it, but took advantage of all the "free money" (and who could blame them when the gov't practically gave it away). That money was quickly invested into real estate and equities markets, leading the way for inflation in the rest of the market, albeit with some delay.
And we're not even at the worst yet.
The magical device on which you're reading this comment would not have been possible without companies employing people they thought would help make the company richer. It's not a zero-sum game; we all benefit as a consequence of capitalism – from the richest of the rich to the poorest of the poor.
Have you ever owned a business or hired someone? If so, did you deliberately select employees who would not help the company be successful, and if so, did that somehow help prevent societal collapse?
I hear so many lies about the "evils" of capitalism (from all sources, not just here); I fear people are starting to believe them, as we're slowly being brainwashed into joining the next reboot of "let's see – again – how badly we can screw up the world with communism".
> It'd be much freer with guarantees for basic necessities
You do know that would literally just make the problem worse, right? I mean, it sounds good to someone who can't work for legitimate reasons (small percentage of the population), but it also sounds good to everyone who has the capacity to earn their necessities, but would rather have it handed to them instead. It also sounds really good to politicians who seek (re)election by promising everything for free, knowing perfectly well that nothing is truly free. That kind of reasoning is what got us into this inflation mess.
Also, the "free" in "free market" doesn't mean what you seem to think it does.
I'm not sure you understand how a labor market works. There may be (and often are) local/temporary inefficiencies, but if "hoarders" are taking most of it, then why are there so many unfilled jobs across the country – including high-paying jobs?
Similarly, if employers aren't compensating employees fairly (which may be the case while the market adjusts to inflation + recession), they can only do that for so long before the market effectively forces them to pay/treat employees more favorably (no government intervention necessary).
As someone who operates a service that allows people to create and share lists of links on a public site, I can tell you from experience that it's not as innocuous as you might think. Scammers routinely use a trusted domain to host a link to their malicious final destination since the initial, trusted domain in often the one given the most scrutiny (e.g., from an email). It sounds silly to more technical users who understand how the web works, but unfortunately it's effective and super popular in phishing campaigns.
To your point, yes - a list of phishing URLs would be useful in a lot of cases, but it's difficult for automated tools to tell the difference between those legitimate use cases and the much more common cases used for phishing, so they err on the side of caution. As mentioned, the human review / appeal process surely has room for improvement.
> "These restrictions were put in place because this content violates Google Drive's Phishing policy."
> There is no indication of why the file was flagged.
Isn't your answer in the warning (albeit lacking some specificity)? If you have a bunch of URLs in there and admit not knowing about their legitimacy, it seems reasonable that at least one of them matches a database of known phishing URLs. Isn't it also reasonable to expect (and in many cases want) a company hosting publicly-shared files to notify users when content matches some heuristics for unsafe content, especially given the prevalence of phishing attempts?
That said, there may still be a case to argue that the review process, heuristic, lack of transparency, and other implementation details are flawed. But I don't have a problem with them posting a warning message on content that looks suspicious.
Complete removal, on the other hand (as in the case of OP) is another story, especially given Google's laughable process (or lack thereof) for appealing such cases.
Wealth equality != fairness. Effort, sacrifice, and contribution to the well-being of society is not – and never will be – equal for everyone, so rewarding everyone equally would be inherently unfair.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference...
Don't have to. He's been pretty clear about it already (bible, modern prophets, etc).
If faith isn't your thing, science confirms the living humanity of the human fetus. Most of us also have an innate sense that killing one of our own is wrong, full stop. No amount of social or political rhetoric added to the conversation ("but health care...", "my rights...", etc) will change the fact that it's wrong.