stevenAthompson
stevenAthompson on Hacker News
The documents do. However Clinton did not invite Epstein to his wedding, or buy Epsteins jet after his suicide because he liked flying it in so much.
More importantly, Clinton was asked about the release of the files last year, in court. He did not object then and he has recently stated that he does not now. Meanwhile, republicans actually dismissed Congress early, stopping the business of governing, to prevent it.
> redistricting in response to TX
It is "in response". They're trying to STOP the gerrymandering, not make it worse. Gerrymandering should be illegal in all cases. It's not, but I think we can all agree that it does not serve democracy and should be.
> Who set the precedent?
Are you seriously defending concentration camps because someone else has done it in the past? Take a look at yourself in the mirror and really think about this one.
http://math.uchicago.edu/~shmuel/Network-course-readings/Mar...
Very cool either way!
Do YOU feel that it's common for folks to change their minds about such deeply held beliefs? I've met a few over the years that I know of. Maybe there are more, and I just don't realize it.
However, I disagree in two ways.
Firstly, while villainizing them is unhelpful convincing them is utterly impossible when religion is involved. It doesn't matter if we learn to understand their perspective, especially as logic/reason often doesn't apply and they aren't being honest about their goals and motivations.
I think the best anyone can hope for in such cases is for all parties to agree that we all have belief structures, and that we don't get to force those beliefs on others via the law. IE - "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." It's the only rational basis for a society in which different belief systems coexist. The United States used to understand this, but we seem to have forgotten.
Secondly, I do agree that it might be easier to reason with folks the further you get from the top of the ladder. The "true believers" who fly airplanes into buildings or who want to outlaw eating candy because it might lead to smiling on a Sunday didn't start down that path last week.
The issue with the bottom up approach is that the folks on the bottom seldom have any real power, and for good reason. If pawns were allowed to move backwards they would kill their kings.
Most often this doesn't happen because one side fails to understand the other, it happens because one side is dishonest about their motivations or goals.
In this case, the censors would like you to believe that they think pornography is harmful. The reality is that they're religious zealots who feel the need to prevent other people from making their own choices about something their religious leaders have told them is evil. They can't admit their real goal though, or people will realize it's just westernized Sharia law and stop taking them seriously.
Some companies don't see an appreciable difference in performance between those that can easily find work elsewhere and those who are otherwise unemployable. For those companies RTO is a great, though immoral, way to lower headcount without triggering the WARN act.
Market reactions are typically neutral to RTO announcements, which confounds some analysts who imagine that RTO adds some kind of value. However, studies have repeatedly shown that while the short-term impact of RTO is neutral these companies typically fair worse than peer companies over longer timeframes. To make it worse for the analysts, similar studies have also shown that companies which do embrace remote first work have outsized returns. Some estimates show that fully WFH organizations bring in about 7.5% higher annual returns on average than peer organizations that RTO.
Leaders continue to ignore the ever growing piles of evidence in favor of those analysts "common sense", and forget that "common sense" is just a laymans term for what scientists refer to as "making shit up."
Those same executives are most tempted to fall into this trap during times of duress, because being perceived as "doing something" is more important than long term impact on share price.
It never will. By disincentivizing publishers they're stripping away most of the motivation for the legitimate source content to exist.
AI search results are a sort of self-cannibalism. Eventually AI search engines will only have what they cached before the web became walled gardens (old data), and public gardens that have been heavily vandalized with AI slop (bad data).
However, it's pretty bad for local results and shopping. I find that anytime I need to know a local stores hours or find the cheapest place to purchase an item I need to pivot back to google. Other than that it's become my default for most things.
I would answer that the triad IS useful in this scenario and further that if we used an alternative model (The 7-C's maybe?) we would still find inherently contradictory requirements for almost every security scenario. In fact, we would just MORE more of those trade-offs, further proving that security can never be "perfect."
For example, I can think of several fundamentals the triad doesn't cover directly. Privacy and non-repudiation spring to mind as concepts that don't neatly fit into the CIA triad, but they are the antithesis of each other!
Perfect privacy would require that nobody (including data-owners) can identify the user, and perfect non-repudiation would require that no access be granted without 100% proof of the current user. Again, you are forced to choose and this means that some aspect will always be less than perfect.
There will always, for example, be a conflict between availability and confidentiality. Ultimate confidentiality might require that the data be stored in an inaccessible bunker with no outside access. Ultimate availability might involve hosting sensitive data on a publicly accessible server with no access controls.
In the real world we must always balance these needs carefully, and triage available resources to achieve an "ideal" outcome. This means that security will never, and can never, be a solved problem.
I'd wager that it will be AI's using IRC from space, but IPv6 still won't have replaced IPv4. :)
I want to guess Oliver Wendell Holmes for some reason, but it doesn't read like something he said. Sorry I can't be more helpful.
At a certain point we'll all have AI personal assistants that are easier to use, more convenient, and less harmful to us than smartphones have historically been. The cool kids will move to the shinier new format, and the poor will continue to use the moderately dangerous, addictive, less efficient legacy tech for a long while.
Maybe these things will come in smart glasses format that we interact with primarily by voice, better smart watches that don't require a phone at all, or maybe it will be something like the star trek communicator?
People have lost agency to the degree that they're looking to the very tech that stole their agency for answers, and I view that a sign that perhaps the push-back is actually beginning in earnest.
The average person now spends more than 4 hours per day looking at their phone, but only about 60% know that social media companies make their money via advertising. Around 48% know what a privacy policy is.
These massively uninformed, heavily manipulated citizens make up the majority of voters now and democracy may die because of it. Worse, anti-science madness in the form of anti-elitism and populist zero-sum economic lunacy have begun to prevail above reason.
Screens may still spell the end of personal liberty and an abrupt end to the forward march of human progress. It's just taken a bit longer than parents predicated when they tried to ban Beavis and Butthead.
If they're faking it for benefits they are REALLY committed to the bit.
Turns out that the poorer a nation is, the less reported autism they have. That could be because there is no benefit to the diagnosis or it could be because they have less healthcare in general and a real diagnosis can easily take 4-8 hours of clinical time.
Interesting either way.
It's not fun or easy for anyone to find a new job. However, it's usually less painful than staying if you're poorly suited to your current role.
We all have strengths and weaknesses. The secret to living a good life is learning to take an honest inventory of your personal capabilities and then figuring out how to work with what you have.
I truly hope that things improve for you.
That would depend on the jobs requirements, wouldn't it? In some roles that might be a complete deal breaker. For example, anything customer/client facing. If you can't perform the jobs duties with reasonable accommodation, maybe you should find another job?
Similarly, if you are 3 feet tall you'll likely never be the worlds slam dunk champion. Not even if they provide you with a step-stool. It's not your fault, or the employers. Sorry, I guess.