drecked
The reason you think “they don’t know” is a media ecosystem that hypes weak minor contrary results that usually disappear in further research and an entrenched trillion dollar food industry that spreads misinformation to get you to continue eating the foods they sell that have the highest markups, such as processed foods, meat and dairy.
Memory makers, for example, have sold out their inventory for several years, but instead of investing to manufacture more, they’re shutting down their consumer divisions. They’re just transferring their consumer supply to their B2B (read AI) supply instead.
Thats likely because they don’t expect this demand to last past a few years.
All the reporting I’ve seen indicates that he left of his own accord and that Apple was blindsided, indicating that they didn’t even consider getting rid of him.
Another brilliant humanitarian crisis caused entirely by the U.S. for no good reason at all.
> It is objectively bad to feed your children ultra processed foods
It’s not “objectively bad” To feed your children ultra processed foods.
Once you do the work of defining what ultra processed food is in the first place (which you cannot because there is no definition and your argument is already lost), you will find that many ultra processed foods are objectively good for children and adults.
But then your comment only tells you what parents shouldn’t feed kids. It doesn’t tell you anything about what they should.
And when you look into that things get a lot harder. Meat? Not ultraprocsssed but almost certainly bad for health, especially in anything more than minor amounts. You know what else isn’t ultra processed? Alcohol.
And I can’t help but comment on the ridiculousness of pointing to the percentage of children being the outcome of rape being less than 1% as a somehow low njmber, while ignoring that it was 64,000 children. And rape isn’t the only way parents may struggle or regret having kids. And you’re pretending post partum depression doesn’t exist. Then you ignore all the children born with illnesses that may make it difficult or impossible for parents to manage them. Then you’re ignoring all the states that allow abortions but parents may still not opt for them because of cultural, religious, or even personal ethical considerations. Then you’re ignoring the fact that so many American marriages end in divorce and even the ones that don’t may not remain as tight knit as they were when the parents made the decision to have a child.
Your entire comment is a whole bunch of wrong based on your personal experience, which thankfully appears to have been positive.
They wouldn’t disagree with what you say. The point they’re making is we don’t know. Maybe 92% of the remaining money is being spent usefully towards programs and 0% as overhead. Or maybe 0% usefully and 92% as overhead.
The IRS disclosure requirements are not sufficient to know. And yet we will give those donating to both organizations the same tax breaks.
The argument is to increase disclosure requirements for organizations through which so much money is passing so that we have a better idea as to how nether those tax breaks we’re giving are actually giving us any value in return.
20 years ago one would have written the same post on Blogger but the odds are it would have been framed as “here’s how you can clean up the Firefox menu”.
It’s not like vitriolic content didn’t exist. But the vitriolic content was usually limited to holy war posts, when a Mac user was disparaging PCs or vice versa, or if it was a vim vs emacs conversation. And even then there was an understanding that no one was being entirely serious.
But in today’s social media/political environment, every post is turned up to 11.
At first I scoffed at your idea that computing itself may not have been a good advancement.
And then I saw your example of where computers have helped and I’m wondering that even there, did the lives saved and the quality of life improvements from the accelerated drug research, outnumber the lives lost and the worsened lives quality of life because of hundreds of millions of people’s work now becoming being stuck in a chair behind a monitor and keyboard all day?
The only reason you see Indians is because Indians knly hire Indians. It can’t be anything else.
Completely unrelated, have you walked into a non nuclear/biomedical engineering engineering department in any IS college in the past 2 decades? I’m guessing those are also filled with Indians because their managers are insisting that only Indians can study engineering.
Except that’s not why the majority of clothes are thrown away. The real reason they are thrown away is because of size changes and fashionability.
HN probably has an over representation of the types of people who wear out clothes and even here it’s likely a minority that actually do wear out clothes.
How does Google know whether or not the sender has a valid reason? They cannot know that so for them to reject an email for it means they would reject emails that have valid reasons as well.
As long as this was the court approved status quo (this has been through the Supreme Court before) a future reality based administration could re-implement it.
However, now that they’ve removed it a new administration would have to add this or similar language back which could go through the legal process again (citing changed circumstances or something), allowing the current Supreme Court to knock it down.
It’s never meant that.
So people can “believe” in Democracy just fine and still think direct voting is bad.
Also, Democracy doesn’t even mean “if a majority of people believe X, therefore X”.
> In Blade Runner, the true horror was not the technology. The technology worked fine. The horror was the deployment and the societal implications around making people disposable. I wonder what underclass of people like that exists today.
That underclass is non human animals. We breed tens of billions of them into existence every year. They have the ability to feel, think, enjoy life, understand and even likely empathize. They don’t want to suffer and they want to live. And they are enslaved, tortured, and then brutally killed all for a few minutes of pleasure, when alternatives exist in abundance.
I also like these parts:
> Culleton testified that he did not sign the Notice nor did he write “I’m married to a citizen and have a work permit” on it.
> Secore testified that he remembered serving the Notice on Culleton, but not watching Culleton sign it.
> Secore also testified that the paperwork was riddled with mistaken dates because of the way ICE’s computer system operates.
> Secore testified that he should have caught those errors when processing the paperwork, but that he “missed” them.
Lol.
Yeah, that sounds like a great way to run a country.
People’s inability to comprehend the need for basic legal rights like Habeas Corpus is incredible. We literally have leaders who don’t know what that means and when challenged on it, don’t even bother to look it up and remain uninformed when asked months later.
And fools defend them.
Once upon a time (ie 2 years ago) the President following the law, living up to both implicit and explicit agreements made with foreign nations, not wanting to plaster their own name onto everything, not lying about the citizens of the country, etc would be considered a good thing.
Today, doing the opposite is considered praiseworthy because “at least he’s doing something”.
This is exactly the “anything goes” mentality the author is critiquing.
Isn’t this sufficient to keep it around, even if the facts themselves may be available on Wikipedia?
It’s terribly broken, which is unsurprising since it was never designed to do what it does, and ends up placing healthy, non addictive foods under the ultra processed category 4, while including hyper palatable foods that are not healthy at all in categories 1-3.
Hyper palatability, which is much better defined and is designed to capture what the NOVA system is actually used for, is likely a better categorization.
In the early days they were social networks. The idea was to connect people. (The Facebook movie is called the Social Network…)
Now they’re social media. The idea is to push messages to you but this time the message is coming from a person you know so you’re psychologically more inclined to believe it.
1. In 3rd world countries everyone has a phone, usually android, no matter how poor the are. Irrespective of whether or not it has desktop capabilities. So any phone purchase is already part of their baseline expenses.
2. Any desktop/laptop purchase, even if it is $1, is an extra $1.
3. The screens/keyboards/mouse again will not likely be purchased by individuals themselves. They will have “Internet cafes”, libraries, schools, etc where those screens will be provided.
This ratio gets worse because American students are disproportionately more likely to follow up their engineering undergrad with law or business school, so even if they may be engineers they’ll get into business and/or something like patent attorney going forward.
Meta and Amazon doubled their headcount in the 2-3 years of the pandemic.
Others like Google increased by 60+%.
You’re also forgetting about this little thing popularly called AI that happened in the intervening years.
There may be an argument that H1B isn’t fit to purpose in a post AI world (although that argument is also false if we think software engineering will remain a viable job going forward, but that’s a different topic).
But it’s much harder to argue that H1B hurt US employers when thr industry they hired the majority of H1B employees in the first 2 decades of the 2000s, also saw some of the highest growth in jobs while simultaneously posting the highest growth in salaries (there may have been certain minor industries hiring a few thousand people, like Oceanographer that had a slightly higher increase, but even that was likely not true because BLS data doesn’t factor compensation in the form of stock options which disproportionally provided wealth for SW engineers relative to other workers).