0ct4via

The OP goes on to genuinely talk about the advantage of being able to leave when they desire (usually only attending day 1), and the observation that their leaving early was worthwhile, as they were first in line to access the car parking area —- so it would seem very much to not be /s.

Hear, hear. Couldn't have put it better myself. 73.

It's not a stressful job

Ignoring the tremendous amount of route training, rules, regulations, etc. — plus if they're delayed (generally through no fault of their own), they're worrying about the per-minute fines levied for delays to the service, and whether they can make the time up. That aside,

— try reporting that comment to any driver who has suffered a fatality... someone appearing on the tracks in front of them and there is no way whatsoever for them to stop in time.

Many drivers end up having to give up their careers after experiencing a "one-under", and don't get back into the cab.

It can be a lot more stressful than you think.

You legitimated Hamas when Starmer recognised a Palestinian state

- *in the middle of a war* - nearly two years after October 7 - while Hamas still have hostages

...it ABSOLUTELY legitimises them, and rewards them for their attacks on October 7 and beyond.

Sounds more like you're "dehumanising the entire Palestinian people" by calling them a dog... and accusing Israel of "euthanising" the Palestinian people.

Hamas' literal goal — which you've conveniently decided to avoid commenting on — is the destruction of the only Jewish state in the world, and the destruction of the Jewish people.

If Netanyahu wanted to wipe Hamas from the face of the earth with no thought for civilians or collateral damage, the IDF could've turned Gaza into sand and glass on October 8.

Yes, how Netanyahu and his government have acted is wrong... but have you gotten daily emergency notifications from incoming Hamas missiles and drones? Have you ever had to live in the only country in the world that literally requires an Iron Dome defence system to protect it from attacks from Hamas and their ilk? Where buildings and public streets are literally required to have strongrooms and shelters as places of safety, and people can have to take shelter from attacks on a daily basis? — and this was going on long before the current war. In the 90's, when Hamas were just getting on their feet, it was Hezbollah firing rockets at Israel... then, when Hamas got its numbers and weapons up, Hezbollah supported _them_.

What's disgusting is you making such an asinine comment without evidently knowing the history or experiencing life in that area of the world, on either side of any manmade line in the sand...

A Palestinian state shouldn't be recognised with terrorists at the helm — that's like deciding to just give annexed parts of Ukraine up as "New South Russia". Hamas need to be removed from terrorising and controlling the local population and acting as an oppressive so-called government... and the Palestinian Authority should be installed as the legitimate government for a Palestinian state.

When you award that status to a proscribed terrorist group (which Hamas was made in the UK in 2001, nearly a quarter-century ago, FYI), while they are the active aggressors of this war, given October 7 —— and while they still hold hostages and oppress their own supposed people — it legitimises them more than anything else.

Mind you don't get arrested supporting PA in Westminster... getting an S13 charge under Terrorism Act 2000 wouldn't look good... but then you've ignored facts and missed the point altogether with your own disgusting rhetoric.

Speaking of disgusting... it's Russia's speaking slot at the UN today. Do you think there will be a mass walkout when their representative goes to the podium to speak? I suspect if there isn't, there's some rather antisemitic hypocrisy going on...

"After the deadly offensive by Hamas against Israel in October 2023, Ismail Haniyeh, who replaced Mashaal as head of the Hamas political bureau in exile, again invoked religious rhetoric. “Today, the enemy has had a political, military, intelligence, security and moral defeat inflicted upon it, and we shall crown it, with the grace of God, with a crushing defeat that will expel it from our lands, our holy city of al Quds, our al Aqsa mosque, and the release of our prisoners from the jails of the Zionist occupation,” he said." [1]

Excerpts from the Hamas Covenant [1]:

"Article 8:

Jihad is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes."

"Article 15:

The day that enemies usurp part of Muslim land, Jihad becomes the individual duty of every Muslim. In face of the Jews' usurpation of Palestine, it is compulsory that the banner of Jihad be raised."

Hamas' *literal* goal is the extermination of Jews and the Jewish people. That's literally genocide.[2][3]

[1] https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/doctrine-hamas

[2] https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/englis...

[3] https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/97801992316...

...now don't get me wrong — I don't side with Netanyahu or what his government have been doing — but that doesn't change the fact that Hamas' goal is the eradication of the only Jewish state in the world, and it's people — actual genocide.

The attacks on October 7, 2023 were much more than a "hate crime" as you mistakenly claim... and your whataboutism is just immature, and isn't conducive to actual discourse.

Non-paywall link: https://archive.is/yMt9Q

Let's take (over) 65,000 starts distributed since 2000 on the Carl's friends site[1] - and call it 65k for rounding.

That's 65k starters, with your negative unhelpful comment assuming $0.05 / 5¢ "profit" per starter.

That's 325,000¢ - or $3250 USD "made" in nearly a quarter of a century.

That "profit" discounts 24 years of:

- PO Box rental - web hosting - domain fees - labels and bags for starters to go out in - envelopes, if the one provided isn't suitable or sufficient - electricity for refrigeration and freezing of starters - ingredients for feeding and maintaining the starters

$3250 over 24 years gives a mean of $135 per year -- obviously this will fluctuate from year to year, and costs have risen since the early 00's -- likewise there have probably been more requests as the internet has grown more popular, and the word of Carl's friend spread further.

If you think ~$135 (or even ~$100 on a slow year) is sufficient for everything above -- never mind the time and work donated by the growers and keeper of the mail box -- then you're very much mistaken.

Furthermore, if you think they're being "paid" for their work out of that, your misanthropic and "negative nancy" response, is sorely mistaken.

Of course, all of this presumes that every item is international shipping, and paid for in the "substituted" two $1 bills, or IRC.

1. For US domestic shipping, they just ask for a 63¢ self-addressed and stamped envelope [2]

2. For your profit-implying "they want you to pay them" comment, see:

"Requests sent outside the US require $1.55 US postage *or* substitute two U.S. one-dollar bills or an IRC (International Reply Coupon)" [2]

Note the "or" part -- it's a choice, not a mandate.

Firstly, you can send them what it costs, $1.55, as you like - via PayPal, cash in an envelope, whatever. Their "two $1 bills" option is handy for places like Canada which may have US note currency -- and the IRC is useful in places that don't have US currency in regular circulation.

Secondly, many places don't actually sell international reply coupons any more. While the UPU mandates their acceptance and swapping for postage, they don't mandate the sale of IRCs [3]. For example, Royal Mail (in the UK) hasn't sold them since December 2011 -- therefore requiring the use of PayPal, finding $2 in bills somehow, or sending the $1.95 in change.

If you think Carl's friends have somehow become massively rich over the past quarter-century by checks notes mailing out carefully-maintained 1847 sourdough starter, likely at a loss... please let us know how you've worked that one out.

[1] http://carlsfriends.net [2] http://carlsfriends.net/source.html [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reply_coupon

While what could well be the panel used in this is cheaper[1], there's obviously consideration due regarding whatever device is driving the panel, making the frame/mount, and coding the software to drive it, etc.

You may be able to get a larger panel for the same sort of price[2], but there's something to be said for having a finished product that's fundamentally plug-and-play... which is arguably a different market to a "buy the components and make one yourself" crowd.

[1] https://www.waveshare.com/product/displays/e-paper/7.5inch-e...

[2] https://www.waveshare.com/product/displays/e-paper/13.3inch-...

From the creator:

"It’s not open source and you need the backend for it to work."

They alluded to open sourcing the software/API if the business ever goes under, but obviously that'd not guaranteed.

Such a shame, I'd be willing to pay more for a product that was actually open.

They're trying to denounce the racial aspect of likelihood of being targeted/prosecuted, by going "African Americans are more likely to be involved in crime already" - which is also inherent on racial biases and profiling in the police and criminal justice systems.

The point is that they can't jump to racist dog-whistles and then pretend like race isn't a factor in targeting to begin with.

Yes, and if person A and B are white American and African American, the AA smoker is much more likely to be actually arrested, rather than given a warning, etc. at the officer's discretion.

Dog whistles about unknowns like previous convictions or criminal history, and fictitious scenarios attempting to justify your point, don't actually help you the way you think they do.

If you're ignorant enough to think there isn't a disproportionately racist response in the WoD and the application of anti-cannabis laws on the citizenry, you need to open your eyes.

Attempting to claim "the prior convictions are known and are a factor" without admitting the disproportionate affect race has on such convictions being sought in the first place, is ignorant.

"Arrests don't occur in a vacuum." - If you deliberately and willfully ignore the existence of racism in the policing and justice systems, then you're not considering all the factors - and are being misinformed at best, and deliberately disingenuous at worst.

For example, see https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-67214409 - a world championship medallist and Olympian sprinter were arrested on entirely fictitious charges of having suspected drugs and weapons - with no basis, and with no evidence of such items being found.

If you can't see how the factor of race fits into the application of these laws against certain citizens more, that's your failure - it's nothing new.

"Application" depends purely on enforcement and the discretion of (a) the arresting officer, and then (b) the justice system further down the line.

You can't deny that the WoD and cannabis prosecutions in particular have disproportionately targeted African Americans and other minorities.

When a number of the very same companies that use X/Twitter have settings that ensure only Verified (i.e. Subscription) users can message them, it fails to be useful for regular customer support like it was.

That aside, scammers and fakes have only gotten worse on the platform post-takeover.

Initially, yes. It later came to be available for notable accounts, or ones Twitter deemed of public interest. That isn't a mark of authenticity, per se.

Because (a) video chat doesn't work brilliantly with sign language (signing can be rather quick, so any latency or artefacts could results in words or expressions being missed, and (b) not every Apple CSA knows how to sign ASL -- most don't.

Most places don't have ASL interpreters on-call or even to any degree among their staff, and often rely on external companies to provide (often pre-booked) ASL interpreter sessions to D/deaf clients.

It's really nice that Apple is making this available so easily and accessibly, and in-house. Just being able to click and connect to an Interpreter is a great improvement in accessibility for ASL users.

So it's a plate matcher, not a "license plate to VIN decoder" - there is no "decoding" between plate and VINm so it's inaccurate.

Interesting that you resort to downvoting basic facts...

Also, is it "I" or "we"? You've said it's just you and a project you made, suddenly when someone points out a mistake it's "we"? Make your mind up...

The license plate isn't incorporated into the VIN in any form though, so this is demonstrably -- and literally -- not decoding.

"Identifier" or "Finder" maybe, but not in any way a decoder...

A "VIN decoder" would take a VIN and identify the World Manufacturer Identifier (country of origin / manufacturer), vehicle descriptor, model year, manufacturing plant, and production number -- but not the license plate.

If you're going to mess with capitalization for the title, it would be better ending with "than two Pi 4s" for pluralization -- there is no "Pi 4S" model.

Yes and no -- yes, theoretically the output should only be based on the input - if you input 1+3 instead of 1+2, the answer given should be 4, not 3.

Optimization exists though, and an interface and search algorithm isn't a simple calculator. Suggesting the correct term when you misspell or mistype something is precision -- it's both identifying the lack of results for your erroneous input, and suggesting the correct input to get the result you're most likely searching for.

That's literally the point of optimization. If Search was still the same as it was in the late 90's, Google wouldn't be able to do half the things it does.

Are you going to make similar gripes about autocomplete, or GPS that reroutes when you fail to make the planned/"correct" turn?

Comparing an intelligent and contextual search interface and result, with simple arithmetic, is a patently false analogy.

If they admit it's "inaccurate" / "does not meet [their] editorial standards" then it's hardly "scrubbing proof"...

Admitting it was trash is proof of inaccurate reporting, whether they remove TFA or not

As for the conspiracy folks, they'll think what they want, regardless of evidence presented to them. That's the whole point.

"Original" submission (different link, but 2 days prior, and with many more comments): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37767796

Yes, I didn't say the information didn't vary - I clearly said sites could gather many metrics depending on cookie consent, and the GA JS only refers to the information you've already given consent to have collected -- but way to miss the point.

I'm aware of what the provisions of "legitimate interest" are, not sure why you're going off like some marketing person fresh off a GDPR 101 course, bro. Chill out, and stop being such a condescending tool.

If the data hasn't been collected in the first place (due to denying cookies for such), there's nothing to pass to GA anyway. You're missing the entire point.

I don't know if you've got a hard-on for attacking Google or genuinely have just finished a Baby's Guide to GDPR and think you're all that, but you're barking up the wrong tree.

Silence doesn't apply, because you have to actively accept or deny cookies in the first place, as well as accepting or denying legitimate interest options. Have you not seen a cookie popup before? These concepts should be obvious to you.

There is no "pre-ticked box" or "inactivity" in this event either, so you're really just grasping at straws to try and justify your attacks.

Try go reading the Swedish case. Firstly, it's about Swedish companies, not Google itself. Secondly, it concerns data transfer to the US, and whether the ECJ deemed the US to have sufficient protections for data (identifiers later deemed to be considered personal, given a lack of sufficient safeguards or anonymisation) at the time of the ruling -- and specifically concerns whether the 4 companies in question did enough to protect that PII. It also concerns how this was handled with boilerplate clauses in said companies' contracts, that weren't up to the provisions required by GDPR.

It's not a declaration that GA is in violation of GDPR, or anything close to that -- it merely concerns how they integrated and used it, and their own mishandling of PII. Additionally, the version of GA in this particular case is over 3 years old, a fact you've conveniently ignored -- like you've similarly ignored that Google has drastically changed how Google Analytics are handling and processing data since then.

It's also worth noting that this was one agency of one country's government audited decisions against how companies implemented and used a service at one time several years ago -- and isn't a declaration of illegality or incompatibility by either the European Commission or the ECJ.

The issue was about how data was transferred to the US, the contractual clauses that were supposedly allowing that, and what protections (or lack thereof) existed for the transfer of this data.

You'd do well to note that the security of this data transfer was during the time of the EU-US Privacy Shield, which the ECJ later declared invalid due to US surveillance concerns.

This isn't an issue with GA specifically -- this is an issue with any US corporation, or entity that is subject to US laws like FISA 702 and the CLOUD act, which can result in companies having to hand information over to US governmental entities. That's not something limited to Analytics, or even Google LLC, or Meta, it's anyone subject to those US provisions.

The fact that you haven't grasped that the issues were the transfers, not GA itself, shows you grossly misunderstand the core issues, and are going off half-cocked, so to speak.

Any tool that collects any personal data or identifiers could violate GDPR if implemented or operated improperly, from analytics to email to a simple website with cookies.

Go read up on the Schrems II ruling that invalidated the EU-US Privacy Shield, and therefore made the data transfers in question illegal -- not the use of GA itself.

If site operators gather data or use tools improperly, or make data transfers that aren't legal, that's what violates GDPR -- as the IMY rulings clearly stated.

Nothing you've said proves the out-out is unlawful, and no EU entity (or member state's government) has declared or even said otherwise -- the GA-related cases have concerned how operators implement the collection and transfer of data, and the ruling declaring Privacy Shield illegal.

It seems you're quick to go off on a rant, but not so quick to actually comprehend the intricacies of the cases involved, or the basis for the case law that concerns them.

The information can be collected anyway under legitimate interest provisions, which is (a) already listed and discussed, and (b) the relevant cookies have their own opt-outs.

The GA add-on is purely about that same data being passed to GA - and the very same cookie pop-up literally tells you what information is sent, why, and tells you how you can opt out (by either blocking the JavaScript, or installing the add-on) -- it literally meets the requirements for informed consent, as you put it, "legally or otherwise."

Might want to go check that out before trying to make baseless claims, "legally or otherwise."

Not even remotely.

The Google Analytics JavaScript (gtag.js, analytics.js) runs on sites using Google Analytics, to share site-usage data (which can be gathered from either consented cookies, or "legitimate interest" exceptions) with Google Analytics.

The EU-mandated cookie box/popup literally lists Google Analytics on sites that use it, and this categorically states you can control refusal of that by using the browser add-on -- which is clearly informed consent, because you can choose not to install it, knowing the data (which could be gathered by other means anyway) will then be passed on to Analytics.

Of course this is for the average non-technical end user, who hasn't -- for example -- already used something like NoScript to block the JavaScript from running in the first place...

Hope they warmed up first, because boy - what a stretch...

From TFA: "According to the report, Bitcoin mining can reduce global emissions by up to 8% by 2030. This can be done by converting the world’s wasted methane emissions into less harmful emissions. The report cited a theoretical case saying that using captured methane to power Bitcoin mining operations can reduce the amount of methane vented into the atmosphere."

"“We have shown that while Bitcoin is a consumer of electricity, this does not translate to it being a high emitter of carbon dioxide and other atmospheric pollutants. Bitcoin can be the catalyst to a cleaner, more energy-abundant future for all,” the authors wrote."

...except unless they're getting their power from green sources, miners consuming so much electricity absolutely does make bitcoin mining a higher emitter of CO2 and other atmospheric pollutants than many other outfits.

The paper in question: https://www.theirm.org/news/bitcoin-and-the-energy-transitio...

"The project will remain free, open source, and liberally licensed..."

Welp, that didn't age well.

MPL 2.0 is traditional "open source," which was fine when they used it -- but switching to BSL is a step backwards -- as it's considered "source-available," not open source in any reasonable sense.

Being unhappy that others are taking advantage of your open source contributions (without giving back) is valid, but this isn't the answer.

[Background: https://www.hashicorp.com/blog/hashicorp-adopts-business-sou... ]

NTV Press Release (JP): https://www.ntv.co.jp/info/pressrelease/docs/20230921.pdf

Ghibli Press Release (JP): https://www.ghibli.jp/info/013778/

English article: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2023/09/21/companies/n...

Why use so-called? It's literally a law concerning data protection. Unless you feel that the empirical truth somehow shouldn't be used to describe the GDPR and colloquial "right to be forgotten" aspects it entails, you're just trolling for trolling's sake -- either that, or you don't even know that you're using "so-called" improperly.

Once again you jump to mansplaining and condescension, followed by failing to even get a username correct when it's literally on your screen.

Your repeated attempts to tell people what they think, what they do or do not know, and where they live, show that every observation of you being arrogant, condescending, and disingenuous, is patently correct.

Unsure if you need a shovel to get out of that hole you've put yourself in, but you're sure backpedaling quickly, yikes.

I understood it fine, but thanks for the assumption.

It was put across in an asshole way, and bringing it up when it has no relevance to commiserating the loss of a great person and engineer, is an asshole move - autistic or not.