berryjerry

Personally I think there should be escalating punishments for crimes to avoid the "350th burglary" and I thought often history was taken into account but I don't know California or San Francisco's laws. So, first time caught shoplifting should be a fine, second should be community service, third some jail, fourth could be more jail, etc. That doesn't really address the danger involved in actually catching a shoplifter. You really just need more police or a way to recognize shoplifters (facial recognition?) at that point so that regular individuals don't have to become enforcers of the laws. It seems most of the tools that could be most effective are being banned or defunded in certain areas of the US. There should be ways to account for false positives, such as confirming a facial recognition software's results, that the person actually was in the area etc.

NFTs are mostly manipulated markets. No that picture of a bitcoin symbol did not sell copies to 300 people for $1000 each, netting them $300,000. It sold to the same person who made the picture 299 times and 1 person who got scammed into thinking there is a market for $1000 images on the internet, netting the owner $1000.

No they banned him from posting while he was still in office.

Twitter will ban the American President but is afraid not to listen to the Indian government. I guess they choose what political parties they want to support.

I see this too. Almost every asset class is moving together. When interest rates can't be dropped further then the real problems will begin. Banks have built floors into their loans so that variable rates can't drop below zero already. At the point when interest rates drop below zero, lower interest rates will actually harm the economy rather than help it and then we'll see everything come crashing down.

I don't think there is a time in the last decade where I received a "relevant" ad. The most relevant they have been is spamming adverts for products I already purchased.

We have wealth taxes. They are called property taxes and inheritance taxes.

It appears sites regularly add or remove items from their trending lists, both by manual review as well algorithms which are essentially automated manual review by the person who wrote the algorithm. That kind of control is the same as a Newspaper determining what headlines you read and what stories get the most attention, basically controlling the conversation and making editorial decisions.

Depends how much is being ordered. Some people live off of delivered food now. 3 meals a day at probably a minimum of $10 per order in delivery or 'surcharges', same thing. That's 900 a month.

This is a real issue. I didn't think it was actually forbidden though but maybe that changed. For years Arco gas station had discounts for using cash.

In countries with working currencies like EU and US, yes almost all crypto is speculation. BUT, countries that have poor banking system a poorly managed/trusted economy don't have access to even banks, let alone investments and stocks. Crypto lets those people participate in the global market.

Right. The algorithm should just identify videos that need to be reviewed, not ban them. It should also be a sliding scale. If a video has 5 total views, it shouldn't need a ban or a review because no one is watching it. Places like this chess channel with a million subscribers and hundreds of thousands of views per video should all easily get a manually review. Automating bans for channels with that level of a following is just lack of respect for their content producers.

Sadly I've seen worse for a subscription service. For example, Birchbox, a monthly makeup service will autorenew for you for a full year and won't allow cancellations at all. Also obviously you can sign up online easily but can't cancel there, you have to work through their customer service, like most of these sites that try to steal your money. I guess treating customers who already left you doesn't matter much to these companies and in some cases like Birchbox I'm surprised what they are doing isn't predatory and illegal.

I love excel but it feels like it's UI based abilities have been left in the dust. It's like development of excel and VBA stopped and even reversed to make things function worse. A few new features, forms, buttons, etc. would be a god send for more complex systems.

Tinnitus can be persistent, intermittent, or change sounds, tone or pitch. It is all in the same category.

Things like Trump saying "Be Peaceful" and also telling rioters to "Go Home" cause him to be banned and impeached. Just imagine what stretches they take to say a normal Parler user is inciting violence.

This article gives no basis for it's opinion except for other articles and studies done by heavily anti-conservative media outlets and heavily liberal colleges. It's citations include Vice, Vox, CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, NBC News, Politico, NPR, Medium, The Verge, Media Matters, Gizmodo, Wired and there are some 'independent' outlets. It states that because Trump and main stream conservative outlets still received likes and ratings that that means conservatives aren't censored. And, because YouTube video watch time is close on some larger main stream channels that again this means there is no censorship. Why should there be equal watch time? An imbalance does not mean there is not censorship, it could also mean watch time could have been 90% in one direction without censorship, via lower recommendations, direct banning, or demonetization (people stop making videos when they don't make money). There is already proof that videos from mainstream media outlets get on the trending list with much fewer views than youtubers. This article goes on to say "Conservatives do get suspended or banned for violating Twitter’s rules" as if those rules are not in themselves anti-conservative. One blatantly obvious rule that directly opposes conservative values is twitter's rule against mis-gendering, which many conservatives believe is impossible because someone doesn't choose their gender, and if they did why should it bother someone to be called the wrong one? When you rule directly against a conservative value, then is that still not censoring conservatives? The article continues that even though lawsuits have been brought that all have been dismissed and despite it clarifying that these were dismissed because of section 230, it still uses that as evidence that there is not censorship. It basically says every time a conservative is banned it is justified and even in many cases says data is not available on bans, but somehow the final conclusion is "And as much as they condemn supposed social media favoritism, conservatives appear to relish wielding the bias-claim cudgel, even though it’s based on distortions and falsehoods." Again, they provides little to no data on bans whatsoever, but uses these alternative metrics that supposedly should reflect censorship. It is outlandish that anyone would not see what happens to conservatives on these websites. Hell just visit any of the supposed right leaning alternatives like Parler, Gab, and Rumble see how the conversation is as mild mannered politics and not at all filled with 'white supremacists' and 'nazis.' In fact you would be hard pressed to find those figures on those websites even if you sought them out. Everyone knows that like on Twitter, YouTube, and Facebook you just don't follow people that you don't like and especially 'nazis.'

YouTube moderators are obviously the highest experts in the field of medicine and usually every field. They should be deciding what get seen, promoted, or blocked because they have done the hard research and I have no doubt they have read at least one Snopes article on a subject written by someone who is also clearly an expert in the medicine, not a journalist that may or may not have visited the CDC website for guidance.

the forum normally has hundreds, maybe thousands, of posts each day that all are some stupid bet on an option or another. To act as if SLV was the next hot thing is incredibly stupid and misinformed. It's like if I went into the politics subreddit and found one thing that is anti-Biden (there is basically zero upvoted threads anti-Biden) and everyone reported reddit hates Biden.

IF they are already requiring people to have the cash in their account to cover buys, how can they not have the collateral to cover them. They could have disabled options trading right? But why buying with cash?

You're right, I read that Trump started a populist movement for his own enrichment and assumed he was relating that to the WSB populist movement getting started, since I just read an article stating that.

Edit: Here's the article I was reading: "How Trumpism explains the GameStop Surge" https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/27/politics/gamestop-stock-surge...

His companies have been battered, protested, and boycotted. He also donated his entire presidential salary. No one asked him to. WSB bets top posts are literally AOC, a democrat congresswoman, supporting them right now and somehow someone is still finding a way to blame Trump?

I don't know how much you visited Parler but it was literally the same as every platform. If you don't like someone, don't follow them and block them.

I think that is just the normal 'getting older' syndrome. We all just grew up and for some reason life isn't as nice as it was when we were kids and didn't read the news. We now imagine the world has turned dark and evil, but in reality we just all have jobs and the news now matters.

I think the internet being still in it's infancy essentially has allowed us to not define monopolies narrowly enough. For example, it seems obvious to people when a monopoly exists on a railroad, cars, or planes because they are distinct. However if they were judged the way the technology industry is currently, you would just say they are all travel and so no monopoly exists. I think the technology companies will be in for a very rude awakening when these niches are realized by politicians. It will probably be when young enough to really know the niches in the internet grow old enough to become politicians. The current politicians are just beginning to get a grasp on this so it's going to be some time.

Exactly. We are in the middle of the story now. There always is the person who is last to sell and whoever that is stands to lose the most. It's pretty insane how sustained the rally is. You might expect it to effect prices for a day or even two thanks to the coordination until people catch on and sell, but this has been a sustained buy from various people for almost two weeks. That kind of holding power or more specifically willpower not to sell when the stock already went up 400% is what is really impressive. I wouldn't be surprised if by the end of this every single person that owns GME is from WallStreetBets. It's inevitable that at least some people from WallStreetBets gets hurt.

It takes some effort to blame this on Trump. Trump literally gave up his fortune to serve.

Right, that's my point is that death sucks and it happens a lot. Obviously we would love to prevent all the death we can but just living is not always a good trade off. My grandma for example hasn't been allowed visitors for basically a year and says she would rather be dead.

That number does seem like a lot but in the same time period several million people died from other causes. Death is quite natural.

Right. However, the FBI actually has a very close relationship with all of the tech mega-cap companies. America scolds China for having their companies majority owned by the Chinese government but the effect of the pressure of the FBI is essentially the same. They get access to all information they want and if they don't they call and put pressure. These companies are often essentially forced to comply with FBI orders or requests to halt communication. If it was one company it wouldn't be a big deal but there is huge cooperation between all the mega-cap companies and whether the FBI actually orders it or not, them working together results in mass censorship on a scale that covers 99% of internet traffic.