revlolz

I don't understand this logic, just existing means you genocide someone and it's illogical.

Telegram has a major issue with bots and bad actors though. They paywalled privacy features making it truly a terrible experience for users. 3-10 per day random messaging you.

I don't know I have straight up calls for violence against jews on my TikTok pop up and when I report them, TikTok almost always comes back with "No Violations Found"

It was the "greedy corporate fucks" entirely though?

LANs empowered gamers with full ownership and a better ability to self organize player communities and tournaments. The always online model was heavily hamfisted by Activision Blizzard who wanted to launch their esports ambitions with SC2, seeing the KR broodwar scene as missed revenue. Look at the failed Overwatch League (OWL), Heroes of the Storm, Hearthstone and even reforges of classic RTS.

DOTA/League spawned from lan/bnet use map settings games and arguably Dota rise to success started in Lan cafes before hitting mainstream success on bnet.

I acknowledge that many likely don't ship Lan because it's being seen now of days as extra, but I think that's pointing to the consequence as the root cause what the major entities wanting control and ownership on their platforms. It didn't used to be an extra feature 0.1% used, we were pivoted into this to profit larger corps and it's not a tinfoil hat conspiracy, it's just following where the real money was and investors want to be middlemen on platforms.

It's bad because it takes someone's job? However, that job was mundane petty work that seniors didn't want to bother with. Were cars terrible for taking all of those stableboy jobs? Is Excel or data engineering terrible for the obliteration of data entry and low level bookkeeping jobs? Or is it not just a slippery slope argument, when what's happening is IMO evolution of tech? IMO People will adapt. While it's up to any event organizers to decide their rules, AI witch-hunts are a Luddite response. AI/LLM can be major tools in the belt of indies to dethrone AAA. I'd like to be clear that I'm arguing in favor of tooling such as the example of placeholder usage and a pipeline to remove it. I wouldn't defend a scumbag leveraging AI to ripoff another game, artist, or dev. It just seems like the lines are being blurred to justify AI witchhunts.

The game industry, especially AAA, is actually having major identity crisis right now as technology evolves and jobs adapt around the new tool of AI/LLMs. The game awards (not indie) should demonstrate this dolphin committee you fear already exists because the limiting factor in all industries are major resources: time, capital, experience. AI/LLMs will enable far more high skill work to be accomplished with less experience, time, and possibly capital (sidestepping ethics/practicality of data centers).

It's not similar at all, I don't accept your poor framing, and you clearly don't either because you refuse to do anything but low quality adhom attacks. I don't know if you are a troll or what, but clearly you don't have interest in truth or discussion, just bad faith labeling and insults.

what does that even mean? is that a threat? I do not understand.

Such a good faith conversation. I pose legitimately honest questions and your "gotcha" is irrelevant nazi quotes to assassinate my character and points. I challenge the double standard being imposed and you try to relate it to kristalnach when the hypocrisy is 10/7 is closer in relation to the event.

You keep saying it is “indisputably demonstrated” that Israel is targeting civilians, but you have yet to explain anything other than your feeling. If the evidence is so overwhelming, name the specific proof. “Reports” from Hamas-run ministries or partisan NGOs are not indisputable, they are contested like all wartime information. Overstating your case makes it weaker. UN councils with 50 some odd member states share this same bias.

The crux of genocide is intent. Hamas openly declares its intent to erase Israel. Israel declares its intent to eliminate Hamas. If Israel’s goal was exterminating Palestinians, explain why it has repeatedly supported two-state proposals that Palestinian leadership rejected. Explain why over 20 percent of Israel’s citizens are Arab, voting in elections, serving in parliament, even sitting on the Supreme Court. That reality is incompatible with a state bent on extermination.

Your “near-indiscriminate” phrasing is just a rhetorical trick. If you admit it is not indiscriminate, then you acknowledge Israel is targeting Hamas, not carrying out genocide. Civilian deaths are tragic, but tragedy is not the same thing as a systematic plan to wipe out a people.

Israel drops leaflets, issues warnings, and opens corridors. Hamas embeds in schools, hospitals, and residential blocks. That doesn’t absolve Israel of responsibility when civilians die, but it does show intent matters.

“Two wrongs don’t make a right” misframes the issue. Hamas murders civilians deliberately; Israel targets Hamas while taking steps to limit civilian harm. Civilian deaths are tragic, but tragedy is not genocide. The moral difference is intent.

“The fact of the matter is that Israel hasn't merely been attacking Hamas targets that happen to also have civilians present, but rather that Israel is going beyond that to willfully engage in a near-indiscriminate extermination campaign against unjustifiable targets.”

Calling this “indiscriminate extermination” ignores Hamas using civilians as shields and demands an impossible standard of zero casualties. It also drains the word genocide of meaning. The Holocaust was genocide, the systematic extermination of Jews for existing. That is not what Israel is doing to Palestinians.

Pride? That’s your projection. There’s no pride in grief. Only despair at people excusing terrorism with sloppy false equivalences.

Pay a bunch of money to Disney+ to watch any popular release and get terrible streaming quality and functionality. It makes complete sense to me why consumers would toss their hands up and find better and more accessible options.

I believe the issue is Visa PayPal, and Mastercard are capitualating to interest groups bombarding them with complaints and then celebrating censorship on social media posts. I agree with your sentiment, it's ridiculous.

Unfortunately, I strongly believe these posts often get scraped by social media aggregators or sentiment analysis platforms. So, when public sentiment appears to have "dropped by X%" because we all chilled out, it becomes a justification for decisions by non-technical program or product leaders even though users actually disliked what was being done. I see the only way forward through continued expression, so I'm assuming our happy compromise would be to have constructive negative feedback and try to hold our peer commenters accountable to quality over "upboat" mentality.

Seems like it, the user's other comments are an atrocious downgrade to HN standards.

Waymo rides in PHX area were a pleasent surprise. While on our trip, the waymo slammed it's brakes as a precarious event transpired that I'm almost positive if a human was at the wheel, would have resulted in an accident. Very optimistic to see how many lives they can save over the next decade.

Anecdote, but I have to agree with your call-out the author's paragraph about this is detached from the reality I've experienced. I have hired ~45 data roles: ds, de, and analysts. Not once has a PhD been able to outshine any other, less educated, peers. If anything, those that spent excess time in academia enter the roles with a handicap against them, not in favor, for performance. I will admit I've only hired about 3 with PhDs, but each had major soft skill deficiencies. The analogy is honestly quite offensive with hubris and I would encourage the author to not look down on others.It's my opinion you can only make this evaluation on merit of demonstrated skills and academia is an accomplished program. It's supposed to detail skills or assumed expertise, but that's more than ever with the current state of academia : still very assumptive.

If you can cut off or pull off the parts that are bad, but the rest is good

Isn't this untrue for spores and mold? I'm not making the claim, I'm genuinely unsure and remember stern warnings that unseen spores and mold are a threat with moldy bread and fruits.

If "underscore" gets tedious I just say "tac"

But I get that it's confusing with dashes.

Another poster below mentioned Brother. I second this, I've owned cannon most of my life, but my best friend's parents hp. As the "Rev come fix our x guy", hp troubleshooting has 9 out of 10 times come down to crappy software and post purchase monetization. Both hp and Canon companies have gone the route of requiring nasty software to leverage basic functionality. Canon is way less egregious, but the point I'm getting to is support the company doing things you feel best. Brother printers have become the only choice in my household.

Home affordability and or homelessness, inflation, interest rates, layoffs, crime, gruesome jobs reports showing net loss on full time careers, growing defaults in credit, insurance cos pulling out of whole states, a war in Europe, cancer rates... I feel at this point it is common knowledge the general person is not doing well. We're working harder, for less, and everything is more expensive.

No, only my anecdote. The state is offering significantly reduced coverage for more than double the cost of previous coverage. Getting the state plan still requires you to get additional private coverage in order to satisfy mortgage insurance requirements. I think it would be impossible for a layman to just give you "evidence" that will fit whatever arbitrary checkbox is formally needed. I cannot fathom a way the state isn't profiting here and both the state and insurance companies are exposing homeowners to incredible burdens.

Now you frame this like I am too high risk or people in this capacity are too high risk, but that is the whole problem. Insurance cos are inconsistently making these determinations and the state's governance is directly responsible for the lack of regulation and enforcement. Nothing in my area has changed, but the insurance company has enacted the equivalent of ex post facto evaluation due to the state of CA. As example, my roof in great condition, passed inspection when purchase property a few years ago. I don't have certificates or invoices for repairs done to it in the 50 years of my home's life because I've only owned the property for a few years. The insurance company canceled my insurance stating I refused to provide such an invoice. They also claimed I'm now in a dangerous fire zone (I'm not) which I wasn't a year ago. They also claimed to need invoice of repairs for my plumbing, which again, is in wonderful condition. They stated simply providing inspection receipts wouldn't cut it and expensive certificates were needed. Anyways, I doubt you will read this but it's ridiculous and I'm not the only one in this state going through it.

It's because California pushes their FAIR plan which is expensive and has terrible coverage. It's a corrupt and unethical solution for the state to recoup its budget deficit.

A terrible idea when the majority of insured have a requirement to their mortgage. This is an avenue that actually warrants government intervention in the form of regulation. In my case the carrier willfully misinterpreted a map's fire risk in order to cancel me because they want to manipulate higher prices and the government has skin in the game with their own expensive, low coverage, crap plan. Government intervention in the form of state sponsored competition has bred corruption.

That sounds like so much work, I'm just going to water fruit trees and run away to make an orchard.

Mercury insurance is doing the same albeit more scummy in my experience.

The criteria for flagging seems to be houses built before 1985, in areas that have had any sort of wildfire in a x mile radius over the past 20-30 years, and perhaps some other features. The insurance companies will use every possible excuse regardless of the insured's willingness to respond to their bullshit.

Most Californians are finding notice of non renewals and forcing homeowners into a CA state sponsored high cost/low coverage plan. It seems intentional by the state to pickup more money, but that's my tinfoil hat.

In my experience as soon as the airport grew to the next stage. Local enforcement agencies begin staging out of the airport and then everyone gets to hear when the sheriff deputy's are getting their night flight hours in. I'm in agreement with you, calling someone a nimby for not wanting an airport near them is unreasonable.

The data the author presents spells out that aircraft are still twice as loud as passenger cars at their quietest. The majority of traffic through smaller municipal airports is very loud propeller aircraft. I don't believe it makes anyone a nimby to not want a freaking airport nearby. I don't think anyone should have to live with such disturbances without voting and ample regulations. It should be incredibly difficult to get airports built. The commerce benefits to the town/city come at the direct expense of health and quality living of residents. The article fixates on noise pollution, but what about exposure to cancerous chemicals? Actual pollution from emissions? Traffic consequences?

It's not just some affluent boomer's view or lawn getting impacted. Personally, I never want to live in vicinity of an airport ever again in my life.

I use ff/ublock and the chase site works fine for me.

I hate Id.me. I had an interview with them and their hr reps conducting were the most egregious power tripping fools I've met in my career. In their hubris they demanded several hours of psychology testing for a basic, mid level tech role, paying right below market average. They harrased me for two weeks after I had the audacity to tell them "no thank you, I'm not wasting my time."