reliabilityguy

Who cares? I prefer to spend way less and get better quality product than in our local supermarket. If you have a bough money to overpay because you do not want to “pay Bezos” — be my guest.

Where are you located? I think even NYCs groceries are not that expensive.

In NYC Amazon fresh is cheaper than most of the grocery stores, except maybe some things like frozen food in Trader Joe.

We simply stopped buying food in the grocery store across the street: Amazon fresh on many positions can be like 50% cheaper.

in this case you can always start a business without cameras and sell it as a feature of your workspace. If workers really want no cameras, they will come.

There are a lot of choices between “under the bridge” and “cameras are evil”.

This is extremely once-sided view. Cameras protect employees from unfounded accusations.

Cameras provide alibi to those who may be suspects, saving time and money.

And so on.

You are only seeing the negative side of cameras, but there are positives as well.

Their landlord forces them. A tight labor market forces them. Time pressure forces them. Bills force them. Hunger forces them. Our entire system forces them.

Nope, they are free to walk away, rent without cameras, etc, etc.

imposing what’s effectively a panopticon state on those with less power than us

I would say that cameras are protecting the honest worker as much as they help the homeowner.

The answer to this is if you don’t trust your domestic worker to not steal from you, either hire one you do or go do your own damn domestic work

Why only these two choices? The worker is free to not take the work at a place with cameras. No one forces them.

Maybe because the models keep getting better and the tools are slowly getting good enough to replace people?

I am not sure we are there yet.

In my experience even the SoTA models are faaaaar away from replacing humans, maybe making them a bit faster.

What happens if you criticize the government of Japan?

and spit out swathes of optimizations to try.

Without any guarantees of functional correctness.

11% capacity is not 11% MFU. The first is about actually using the hardware for something in the first place, the latter is about how efficiently you compute. Different things.

It’s good enough to find one known function from libc in programs memory to mount the attack. Moreover, there are automated methods how to leak pointers to functions, etc., without having access to the binary itself.

damning indictment of the mindset of the vast ineffectual mess that is the cybersecurity industry

Cybersecurity is not about stopping issues but about compliance and liability. Attend RSA once, and you will see it yourself.

Is Iranian infra centralized on the similar fashion like in Belarus?

Imho IQ scores aren’t a sufficient measure of intelligence

You may be correct. However, if the methodology of IQ scoring didn’t change, the change in score itself is worth of investigation.

AFAIK, the one in Qatar was paid by Qatar and operated by US.

it might not be worth the effort since production will catch up.

Sounds unlikely.

Unless RAM use would impact financial metrics, it would be hard to justify the work on memory footprint if customer doesn’t complain a lot.

Aid to Ukraine adds to the debt too, as many other things.

For what reason IR attacked Cyprus?

At the end IR does have nuclear material enriched to 60%.

So, he was right?

2008 Financial Crisis was triggered by Oil prices.

Not by the subprime mortgages given to anyone with a pulse?

And what is your evidence?

Here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/us/politics/iran-israel-m...

What is your evidence that given all we know about Iran, and the fact that they have 60%-enriched uranium, they are not building a bomb? Why do they need 60%-enriched uranium?

Is that your claim?

No. My claim is that from a geopolitical point of view containment of China is the goal, and the war in Iran is just one step. Politics never about telling the truth -- it's about achieving goals.

You may not like the reality of it, but it is what it is.

You know there are Shia Arabs, right? Do you think all Shia are Persian?

What does it have to do with anything? Can you form a coherent argument?

I mean, really? Let's just rattle off a few that anyone with basic information literacy over the last few years would be able to come up with: <...>

Little to no evidence of recent civic institutions or culture of responsible governance.

Iran has no civic institutions and no culture of responsible governance?

Sizable minorities who even if aligned against the common dictator, will inevitably disagree with each other on the direction of the state.

The sectarian dynamics in Iraq, Syria and Lybia do not exist in Iran.

Yeah, "reports" about CIA are real. Sure.

Great track record of intervention here.

There is no intervention though.

Where did you pull Greece from? The Iranians can barely hit anything next door.

Have you seen the map? Open it, and then see where Cyprus is located.

Barely hit next door. Yeah.

you don't think it's a gamble?

Of course it is. Like any other decision. You make the calculus and decide if the reward is worth the risk.

I am not sure any answer of mine you will find satisfiable. In your view, only 100% result justifies the risk. The reality is that you will never have 100% guarantee. For you inaction regardless of the consequences is the answer, for me it's better to act with uncertainty.

Finally, you assume (without evidence) that Iranian Regime is a rational actor. Once you change this assumption, the calculus will change.

But I do not see them as the international turbo villains they've been painted as.

Iran founded Hizbalah in Lebanon. You can read what Hizb had done to Lebanon on the internet. Iran exported its ideology all over the Middle East right now: Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, etc. It is a mistake to thing about Islamic Revolution as something not interested in spreading itself.

North Korea had not oil income like Iran did.

That being said sanctions did made Iran poor. So, it is not clear from the point of view of a regular Iranian if it was worth it.

Iran didn’t. For example, read this NYT article: https://archive.ph/jVJxr

It has plenty of commentary on the subject of how Iran moved its program into the shadows, how Iran concealed equipment, etc.

What?

I can’t image 2 millions gazans going by boats into international waters. To what end? Where would they get so many boats?

The sad part is that Egypt has an obligation under international law to allow refugees into its territory. But Egypt refused.

but maybe next time we try to prevent Saudis from killing their neighbours first, to avoid creating yet another resistance group that use terrorism and asymmetrical warfare?

It was not us that said to Iran to fund Houthis. Some things are due to choices that are made by others, and not the US. I do not get this whole idea of denying agency.

The same can be said of Iran re creating off-ramps from conflict or bad outcomes. That's what the "nuclear deal" was meant to be about.

It was a bad deal that structurally did not prevent IR from building a bomb. This deal did not allow for "Anytime,Anywhere" inspections, had a sunset clause, and simply put provided financial relief to IR for the next 20 years or so. You can read the conditions yourself, and you will arrive to the same conclusion.

Afaik the administration has not articulated that view. It's not appropriate to take a scenario that might be plausible and put it into the President's mouth. You don't get to say what the war is about "from the US standpoint". That's the President's job.

No, it is not. Politics are not about putting all the cards on the table, especially geopolitics.

We may not like it, but it is the way it is.

This is simply incorrect on so many levels

Like what?

But since you invited elaboration, please by all means.

Sure, first of all, Iranians see themselves as one nation despite their ethnic differences. Even in areas with separatist ideas, like the Iranian Kurdistan or Baluchistan, separatists are an absolute minority. Unlike Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Libya do not see themselves as one nation. These countries had minorities ruling over majorities under the idea of pan-arabism, which is not a nation-centric movement at all. Obviously, when the regimes fell you have a situation where majority is pissed at minorities for years of oppression, and neither the minorities not the majorities do not see themselves as one nation. Add to this external funding, and you get prolonged civil war.

In Libya you have Qatar vs. UAE.

In Syria -- Turkey vs. Iran

In Iraq -- you have Iran vs. US (that backed transitional government).

Iran is nothing like that. Iranians see themselves as one nation for the most part. You can see it via the Women Life Freedom movement, which is supported by most of Iranians and is centered about women rights. Nothing like that can ever exist in Syria, Iraq, or Libya due to insane cultural difference between these countries and Iran.

My point was that NJ has places with higher property taxes, and people still move into those places by choice.