ike77

Maybe for a lot of people the media they consume actually shape their preferences?

But I would steer clear of generalizing, I think a lot of people have a strong preference for stories where the lines between what's moral and not are much more blurry and where you have reversal of preferences for various characters and where the main character is somehow sketchy. I think at the acclaimed Parasite for instance.

It's relatively easy to elicit a strong emotion, but that doesn't make a story, just a news.

When people are exploited systemically, they tend not to turn against their exploiters (which are often hard to identify) but against each other.

I think part of the promise of increasing the quality of life of everyone after WWII wasn't only out of the goodness of the heart, but also to avoid reaching the level of generalized hate that made it possible in the first place.

The major issue with this paper and this protocol is that it is not reproducible.

As the protocol is not accessible / published, we cannot determine how the difference in the set of measures between participants were determined and as such no researcher can independently replicate this study.

This is why those licensed diet / lifestyle change are never science: by definition. Even if they actually produce the desired outcome, all the research is produced either by the creator or by researchers that entered a license agreement and thus have conflicting interests and bias.

Maybe you should also stop being nude at home since an image of you could be captured by a satellite or a drone. It's also probably better to use aluminum shower curtain as those cameras could be equipped with thermal imaging.

Your phone is your home. We tech savvy people know it's unfortunately not really the case so we act defensively, but it doesn't mean that we should tolerate this state of affair.

But it's impossible without a law.

I wonder if Business Insider was paid by Facebook to report a news so absolutely obvious and benign, and package it as if it was part of the serious privacy requests formulated by the public and security/privacy NGOs, in order to discredit those.

You're right of the goal is to lower the temperature of the structure lower than the ambient temperature.

If the goal is simply to lower the temperature of the building to that of the wind, simple radiators such as those is perfectly fine.

Knowing that cities temperature is often a few degrees higher than that of the surrounding air, that would work in contemporary settings as well. But trees could play the same role more efficiently and with additional health and environmental benefits.

What if a stagflation of 15 years starts now?

Will you have to work again?

But not having any of the players able to stand up to TSMC is also not good for competition.

Allowing smaller market participants to consolidate to face the behemoth is not necessarily going to be perceived as anti-competitive.

The issue is that you think about it exclusively when sharipe-less, tape-less, angry and weak.

It seems it formalizes giving a greater weight to the loud minority.

I'm afraid it incentives anger as an effective political signal.

Then you end up like in France, where the perception is that a protest is required for any meaningful change to be enacted.

Yep the title should be edited as it's misleading.

It's not even annualized, according to the WSJ title it's 5% from May 2020.

Using vim as the objectively correct editor.

I'm pretty sure a lot of them really invest in the common good.

The issue is more with the ones that actively promote the interests of their founders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_family_foundations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_Institute

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation

Are just a few examples of far right think tanks that are tax exempted.

I would agree for a physical person name.

But for a brand definitely not. It's the job of the brand creators to make sure that the name can be read and pronounced in the various target markets.

For two reasons:

1) separation of duty: you might not be the best department to invest surplus

2) cost effectiveness: if you're operating with a deficit, as is generally the case with governments these days, this money is not free, so it could effectively be cheaper to give it back and re-borrow it when you actually need it

COVID...

They are "only" up 27% from 14 month ago.

But China's sub-$5000 cars are far from western safety standard

They are even far from Chinese ones, but the government is looking in another direction to give the time to the industry to ramp up.

And Chinese EVs that are up to safety standards are not cheap.

So I'm not sure your comparison is valid.

That's a point of view, and a pretty cynical one.

I would like to point out that regarding moderation, tech companies have been asking for guidelines and new laws for a decade now. Ageing lawmakers have been unable to provide them and we start to see shy initiatives from the EU regarding privacy laws but roughly most of the water in which tech companies operate are still no mans lands.

All that make me think that even tough you're right that the end result will not be democratic, I wouldn't throw them the stone and accuse them of acting in bad faith.

There are plenty and they are easy to find. It's hard to believe that your comment was made in good faith.

I'm pretty sure you'd find an audience, even for an accounting competition reality show. Too bad Netflix hasn't yet produced one

I don't think law would prevent a fully collateralized loan on the basis of borrower/lender risks.

AML seems a non issue too, as the loan only moves the question.

KYC remains one big problem but there are many startups providing those services and they are slowly gaining acceptance in courts.

Don't be impressed if a few years (and maybe even months) from now you start to see classical banks trading mortgages onchain.

I don't get it?

If there is vacuum everywhere:

vacuum --- us --- vacuum --- galaxy --- vacuum

Why would galaxy go away from us? I expect that the vacuum on the left of the galaxy applies the same force on it as the vacuum on its right and thus should have a null net effect on its movement?

If the vacuum is producing a force, why would it push outward from us and not in every directions, including toward us, canceling itself out in the process?

Makes you wonder why she chose the road view angle

will close the circle

Precisely. Even if they are acting in good faith, their current set of rules would make them ban internet if it was to be created now.

Sometimes, when I look at my "smart" robot vacuum cleaner repeatedly banging his head against my table, I think that this poor creature would deserve some of the behavioral innovations that video game characters got.

According to Firefox reader view it should take 11-14min to read it

It's 1/10000th of their global revenues. And 1/3000th of their US revenues.

Assuming a Zipf distribution for their clients spending, it easily place them in the top 1000 biggest spenders.

I wouldn't call it small.

Well yes and no.

FB revenue in 2019 was 70e9$. I also assume that Freebies spending was not constant over the 16 years. So their spending represented almost 1/10000 of FB revenue.

I agree you can probably afford to lose that as a business owner but you probably can't be "meh, whatever" either. I expect that a decision of that scale would have probably be considered by many people / relatively highly ranked employee.

(At least, at that scale, I wouldn't give the authority to two low level support staff and an algorithm to delete 1/10000 of my global revenues...)