mypastself

Sounds like great idea, but can’t seem to find some key info: which “public ledger” is used here? A blockchain? If so, there would need to be a massive fee overhead. If not, then how are we not relying on trust?

Also, is there some kind of ownership structure based on investment?

That’s exactly it. I view it almost like Newtonian physics. Sure, it’s inaccurate at some level, but until we find a superior model, it’s safer to make your investment decisions based on it.

Same here, with the caveat that Google has managed to successfully bully me into paying for Premium some time ago. Not sure if any Premium users are affected.

Are you disagreeing with the “chilling effect” section of the article, or are you implying the effect could not have been real due to the current length of the article?

If a major government agency repeatedly requests you follow certain guidelines and gets frustrated when you don’t, it might be reasonable to feel pressured or threatened, even if they’re your own guidelines. I know I’d be, even by what was revealed in the Twitter files.

I assume he’s familiar with the transparency standards of his own site. And he still calls whatever happened pressure. So it’s entirely possible it wasn’t as innocuous as you suggest.

Did Zuckerberg himself support conspiracy theories? Or does he regret succumbing to government requests for censoring that type of content? Sounds to me like he wants to allow certain kinds of speech on his platform, regardless of whether or not he personally agrees with them.

Can’t find the claim about the statement not being political anywhere in the linked article. But there’s this:

Meta’s CEO aired his grievances in a letter Monday to the House Judiciary Committee in response to its investigation into content moderation on online platforms

Sounds like he wasn’t the initiator of the discussion, but I may be misreading the paragraph.

Also, it will likely only improve. I expect that none of us here will be able to get a 10/10 on similar tests a decade from now. Or much sooner.

I wonder if companies are now more likely to keep those postings open despite not actually hiring. I’m personally (and of course anecdotally) aware of a number of such cases.

“deceives” users into believing such accounts are safe when “there is evidence of motivated malicious actors abusing” the check mark system

In what way do they deceive and abuse? The article doesn’t say.

a number of high-profile public figures distanced themselves from verification on X

Hashtags such as #BlockTheBlueChecks trended on X in the backlash, while several celebrities decided to leave the platform

If the public perception has indeed turned against the blue checks, surely there’s no longer a reputation to uphold. What’s X’s legal obligation here?

The article is from 2019, so its claims about Ethereum are outdated. But even so:

We start by collecting data on emission rates… for four pollutants commonly created by burning fossil fuels to produce energy

Wait, why focus on fossil fuels alone?

And why focus on cryptocurrency specifically? Did they produce a similar study for e.g. entertainment?

Also, did I miss the part where the impact of traditional mining is estimated and compared? I can’t find anything about the headline’s claim in the body of the article.

I hope he flushed the DNS afterwards.

It's similar to SSH works, but with SSH you'd need your Pi exposed to the Internet.

How does Pi Connect’s access differ from regular port forwarding? Isn’t the device still exposed to the Internet?

The article mentions Cloudflare tunnels near the end. Does this work on a similar principle as Argo? (I haven’t watched the video yet.)

It is inaccurate to say “Boeing has retaliated” if some employees among over a hundred thousand did so.

Given that size, I’m sure there are plenty of illegal or unethical acts you could attribute to the company on account of individual employee behavior.

Is there any indication in the quoted statement that the retaliations were initiated or supported by the company management? If not, the headline remains inaccurate.

I obviously have no insight into whether or not the company engaged in whistleblower retaliation or intimidation practices. But that is a different argument from whether or not the headline accurately interpreted the statement.

So, according to the actual statement, the perpetrators were employees who were subsequently disciplined or fired. There’s no indication that the practice was company policy, encouraged, or even tolerated by the management. The headline is clickbait.

To my knowledge, organizations like the WHO and countries like Brazil reported weaker effectiveness of the Chinese jabs compared to the likes of Pfizer. I’m not familiar with even China claiming otherwise these past few years. Are you saying the CCP fell for the anti-CCP propaganda?

So part of what you’re angry about is not based on known facts. If the leak never comes, will you retract your comment?

Per the article, the China vaccines are not as effective:

Although the Chinese vaccines were found to be less effective than the American-led shots by Pfizer and Moderna, all were approved by the World Health Organization.

Is this a false statement?

Setting aside the ethics of propaganda being targeted at any group and the loathsomeness of this particular campaign, they were pretending to be foreign nationals and posting in foreign languages. It’s unlikely many Americans ever read any of it.

I’d be interested to hear your thesis, if you’re planning to invest. Substantially increased industrial use?

I own quite a few Pis (although mini PCs have largely replaced them in my homelab), but I’m not sure why we should be expecting major growth.

Is there any evidence indicating that mental health issues have increased during this period? Or that there is higher incidence in more developed nations?

What do we do?

Continue letting them utilize it, among other things because it saves lives and helps people find employment, at least according to the article.

But perhaps dying is preferable to “learning the ways of the white people”. And quoting hysteria is preferable for journalists because it can be turned into a more clickable title.

The only people who could benefit are the producers, and I could imagine an unscrupulous manufacturer shortening the date on their food so that people will sigh, throw out a half-eaten package that has “expired,” and go buy some more.

Baffling argument. I’m sure producers would be much happier with indefinitely fresh products.

Distributors fear legal threats if someone eats past-dated food and becomes ill (something that has rarely happened, but it’s still a looming threat).

That’s basically it. No scams or conspiracies needed.

As for the proposed solution about labeling standardization, I haven’t read the linked Harvard study in full, but I also haven’t managed to find the methodology by which they estimated the $1.8 billion benefit.

Same here, I only ever see any Pi graphics during the initial setup.

I guess the use case here is something like a remote workstation easily accessible from any device.

I’m not horrified by humans being intelligent cooperative omnivores.

Only if all those animals are treated poorly. Or at least if they’d be likely to pick non-existence over such existence if they had the choice.

What’s the conspiracy theory? The practice in UAE has long been a matter of public record.