boublepop

This is also covered here by “People make games”

https://youtu.be/vTMF6xEiAaY

You mean Roblox and the games the kids make on Roblox to make more pretend money in Roblox to use in the roulette market hoping to win it big?

Yes, there’s a lot there to be worried about.

Sending kids out to deliver papers or work in burger restaurants is also a good experience for them, even if it’s unpaid.

The reason child labor is illegal is not because we’re under the wrong assumption that work experience itself is bad for them.

Sounds like you’ve not read anything into the details at all. At face value, yes there could be nothing wrong with a game allowing kids to be creative and share what they build.

But if LEGO started coming with lottery tickets in the kids sets, had adds for exploitative devs that ran real businesses with 7year olds on payroll in “pretend money” that can be exchanged on black sites that LEGO approved of by not taking any actions, well you start to get in to problems.

The thing is that Roblox is not just a unsuspecting pawn here. They are deliberately fostering this, they know about the toxic development environment, so they closed their own forums to avoid legal implications, they knowing promote gambling to kids, they allow sites that exchange in game currency for money because it helps grow their game.

It also lets kids learn a lot of entrepreneurial skills if they have that bent, which I view as a massive plus.

I’m sure the experience of working as an underage kid for a grown man sexually targeting underage girls will very valuable in the startup world, especially the part where the company gets informed and doesn’t do anything more than the bare minimum because his child labor ring is making them money.

It’s a game for kids, but it’s not made or owned by kids. We can hold them to a higher bar of responsibility.

Amazing, we might finally be able to solve the great university diploma verification problem.

It’s really held back society that we haven’t been able to verify diplomas issued by centralized trusted institutions in a decentralized trustless fashion. /s

Sounds like a situation where there would be absolutely no doubt that the auction house would be liable for the error in a classical case. Also a case where the error would have been discovered or the transaction rolled back quickly perhaps with a small compensation to the buyer who would not receive the work.

So reading between the lines, the commercial aspirations won out over the core ideals of the creator who is now being pushed out completely, likely with some form of compensation package to not make a big fuzz, so they can now dive headfirst in a pool of money while abandoning any open source ideals?

So natural question, how long until they start squeezing more money out of users and how severe will it be for hobbyists and small companies?

The misuse of Autopilot, which can control steering, speed and braking, has occurred on numerous occasions

It feels wrong to call it misuse when you’re literally using it the way Tesla has previously, is currently, and will continue to market it.

So someone in the know. Is this a false speculative article hyping Bitcoin, and if so when will we see the Coria ponding hike before the predictable fall after the intel makes a release denying it. And how many short positions are going to be liquidated and how high do we expect the thin spike to be?

I really hate the biased terminology and implied accusations that always follow these articles. Imagine McDonalds getting similar coverage back in the early 90’ies with them talking about their “dangerous growth at all cost strategy” and evil “psychological tricks of putting billboards on the roads that pass by the restaurants locations” Or the ever present toy commercials sprinkled in between childrens tv shows.

There’s no grand conspiracy or evil masterminds here, and teens aren’t being exploited. It’s just marketing targeting the target audience.

If we bought into the premise that adverts for teens where bad for them or that Facebook itself is harmful. We should not be discussing which ways they carried out their advertisement, we should be discussing how the government outlawed all forms of advertisement, print and media for teens and children and shut Facebook down along with all other social media.

NFT isn’t art, its a digital receipt vaguely related to the ownership of something in some cases.

If you buy the Mona Lisa and get a certificate of ownership with a reference to the painting, you would not say that this certificate was art.

What conflicts of interest does a CEO or the board of directors have from holding individual stocks? And why do you believe that to be as problematic as politicians holding stock in companies they are passing laws about?

Seems to contain some good links but also blatant marketing just carelessly regurgitating claims from product producers of unproven medical benefits. So calling this even just “mostly marketing free” is extremely dishonest.

Movies that have strategic product placement isn’t “mostly product placement free” it’s just plain marketing, and should own up to it.

I don’t understand why it’s even there, it doesn’t seem to tie into anything and is a sharp contrast to the rest of the content which actually references studies and actual results, and then it just switches to “Oh, and there’s this product the owner claims works” seems very odd unless it’s a paid add, but it seems unlikely to be a paid add due to placement and context.

Certainly there is value in having an antagonistic press, but the “gotcha” here is a lie.

Throughout the pandemic numbers have reported how many people where hospitalized with Covid. Because that is the important number to be concerned about, since this is the number that is pressuring the hospital system. This articles is Henrik Qi’s personal “gotcha” saying “haha, I told you so, actually only 3/4 of those hospitalizations are because of covid!!” And then trying to paint a picture of the media collectively having failed the readers for not “discovering” this earlier.

Now this is a lie for two reasons, it implies incorrectly that there was previously a statement that 100% the people in the hospital with covid where there solely because of covid, which was never the case. And secondly it is a lie because the hints that covid is actually 27% less severe is an implicit accusation that someone who has covid and heart failure and is admitted does not stress the system exactly as much as someone admitted only because they have covid.

The punkis wasn’t lied to by the government. The media didn’t fail the people. What actually happened was that the most important number was reported accurately and now Henrik Q finally got another number that he thinks is more important. Why does he think that one is more important? Because he doesn’t care about the healthcare system failing, what he cares about is only his personal risk of ending up hospitalized if he gets covid. And that’s fine, it’s not illegal to be selfish, but it’s not a failing of the government for not focusing on metrics you personally align with your own hypothesis.

It was quite clearly communicated and makes perfect sense that during covid we where looking at number of hospitalizations with covid compared to the capacity to support hospitalizations with covid, and lockdowns and other actions where planned based on ensuring those didn’t collide.

If the hospital system had broken down, it would have helped no one that Henrik could jog along and go “Well actually 27% of the people that can’t get treatment for covid or other illnesses only need that because of the other illness not because of covid”

Anyways I appreciate your perspective but I’ll stand by my viewpoint. The truth contained in this reporting is incidental to their agenda, it’s not the focus of it at all.

While this is a “major” newspaper in the sense that it has a large readership, it’s also the Danish equivalent of the Sun. And they are know for chasing whatever they can to get a story and having no morals. Their editor in chief spent a year in jail for buying credit card transaction information about celebrities to stalk to spy on them.

This doesn’t mean they don’t have truth in their reporting, only that whatever truth is there is accidental and just seen as a tool to get attention or exact revenge on the governments which he has a personal vendetta against.

In y opinion that would be better served with ‘’.join( ‘hello’, ‘world’)

No footgun potential, and as others have mentioned the “good usage” would often be bad simply because it ends up looking like a mistake even if it’s intentional.

Oddly enough no. I would have though that had been thought I to the design since it’s such a natural extension. But no, the CEO has TikTok’s playing Valorant, and he’s using a mouse and only the left side. Which also makes it slightly odd when he makes claims like “characorder helped me win” because when has the speed of keyboard entry ever been the limiting factor in an FPS?

All of that has to to exclusively with techniques for improving speed when playing with the traditional controller. As soon as you can use another input device there is no need for that.

It is also clear that digital photography from phones is far from an accurate representation of events.

True, but if you exclude any evidence that is “far from an accurate representation of events” then we have no legal system left. Eye witness reports isn’t reliable, DNA evidence isn’t reliable. A case is built on the sum of many unreliable parts, and there a smartphone video or photo is at least significantly more reliable than eye witness accounts.

“If a $1000 PhD side project could kill millions of people, we must end viral [gain-of-function research], or it may end us.”

This sentimental reminds me of a talk given by a government bomb expert where a naive student asked “why do we allow the ingredients for bombs to be sold in store, shouldn’t we ban them all?”

The answer of cause is that if we do that, then we suddenly don’t have gasoline, orange juice, basic electronics, fertilizer or even just basic sanitation products available anymore, but of cause anyone who wanted to make a bomb would still be able to do so easily.

If it really is the case as pitched that 1000$ gets you a virus that will bring down nations, why on earth would we leave the field only to bad actors? Would that not just make it ever so more important that such researched happened openly and under well funded, strictly controlled conditions so we know what to expect and so we can start to develop plans for counter measures for when the next 9/11-like fanatic driven attack comes along?

- Apple will release the first gen of its VR/AR-headset.

- Google will buy Tiktok

- Meta/Facebook will release some VR solution that fail to gain traction

- Roblox will face legal pressure due to its use of child labor and child gambling

I think it’s ok to select jurors based some basic abilities. I don’t know if this considered discrimination based on IQ in the US. But if a grown person has the mind of a 5year old or doesn’t know how to walk up stairs I think it’s fair to say “you shouldn’t be in a jury”. Likewise if a person doesn’t understand the concept of zooming an image or slow motion, then I think it’s quite fair to exclude them from jury duty.

Care to elaborate? I would expect most solids are filtered in the primary treatment, so what would be the issue with trying to filter micro-plastics in or after the secondary filtering?

You are conflating cause with diagnosis. And your conclusion is quite offensive to those living with depression, which is a well established diagnosis. You might want to consider rephrasing it, unless you really mean to imply that you believe that people suffering from depression are all collectively just making up excuses. If that is truly your belief, I have to wonder how you interpret the results of this study?

This is extremely typical, I once had a head of production raise big concerns and initiate a lot of activities because: “Half the production orders take longer than the estimated time to produce!” Like this was some huge problem in our company. The real problem was that there was a lot of uncertainty, and in the line of communication “on average it takes 3 months to produce” got turned into “yes, dear customer we can guarantee that you’ll have the product in 3 months”.

Over time we got management to change this, but not enough that they wanted accurate data based estimates which we could of cause calculate from the well known distributions, but instead they just always added a buffer they pulled out of thin air. Why you ask? Because they felt that the original state of “half the orders taking longer than average” showed that “you can’t always trust the data”

Its just confirmation bias in relationships. If a person really wanted to stay with their SO, they would be saying “omg, our personalities are so incompatible on paper, but we’re just so great together despite that”

But since they want to leave and can’t find a good reason or don’t feel that they can stand by whatever reasoning they have, it becomes “We have to break up because you’re yellow and I’m red” rather than: “we have to break up because I’m shallow and your body doesn’t look like it did when we met” or “we have to break up because after you got fired you haven’t been able to spend as much money on me”. Etc.

Lomborg never denied man-made climate change. Though he certainly was a controvercial Voice in the debate. The reason was however that he challenged key predictions and strongly critized the proposed solutions as being cost ineffective.

But it’s true that those who opposed him tried to paint his criticism as a if it had been denial because that’s a strawman that is easier to argue against.

If someone comes out saying “climate change is man made and unless we do something the Oriana going to boil away in 2 years, our only option is to start throwing ice cubes into the ocean!” Then it’s perfectly resonable to argue that the prediction is wrong, and that even if it was accurate the proposed solution isn’t cost effective and that better solutions exist, that doesn’t mean you are arguing against the main premis of manmade climate change.

Now the meat of the debate around Lomborg is really if his predictions stack up against the predictions he criticized.

I highly recommend reading the hacker news guidelines.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The most relevant part for you is:

Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."

But i suggest reading the entire thing, there are a lot of good points.

The two job setup is just a brilliant way of exposing the fact that almost every tech worker is in a position where pay/effort is falling as pay increases. We all know there are 10x’s but you’ll never see anyone getting 10x the pay no matter how productive they are.

So for most its better to take two jobs at 50% the effort at 75% the pay each.

shining a light on the way that apps like Instagram and YouTube use algorithms that pick and choose what content to show us (and not show us) in order to keep us scrolling and clicking, to sell more ads. These dangerous algorithms use our own personal data to manipulate us

I think we should start somewhere more practical first. Did you know that Walmart designs their store layout and inventory to maximize purchases? They deviously use our own shopping patterns to manipulate us!! We need to stop retailers from being able to analyze what people are buying right now!

ok, so this is definitely hyperbole, but come on, the fact that Facebook builds its product such that they optimize for the chance that you want to spend time on their platform is not itself evil. If the same sort of simplistic logic had been driving policies back in the “video games are making kids I to violent criminals”-days, the narrative had been just “Evil game developers are making games entertaining in order to get kids to play them! We need to stop this!” And furthermore they would have won that political battle and video games would have been forever outlawed, because apparently the narrative that anything that causes a kid to look at a screen is inherently evil has becomes a given these days, and you don’t even need to argue for anymore you can just assume it.

Now don’t get me wrong, I think that stronger private data laws are a great thing, but you can’t just argue that companies using engagement data to optimize their services is itself evil. They are businesses, of cause they want the better product and of cause the better product is the one that provides what people want. We don’t want congress making it illegal for Walmart to stock more food during Christmas because they know from data that they sell more during Christmas. Now if walmart was asking to see your social security information during checkout, that would of cause be an issue, but that’s an entirely different thing.