smaryjerry

Deceptive title and report as this is ranking based on factors like like “company's vision, go-to-market and production strategies, partners, tech, commercial readiness…” Basically everything except for actual driving ability, which makes this highly subjective and biased.

That’s missing the point, that some jobs you lose a portion of your PTO at year end. So you “earned” that benefit over time but it was taken away.

Yea this also. Colorado, one of the major state producers requires all chickens who produce eggs for sale to be cage free as of January 1st.

Activist purchasing is something I will never understand. If a car is a better car for the price than anything else then you are only hurting yourself by not purchasing it. It seems like pure hatred of someone to hurt yourself to make them somehow feel worse because you don’t like them.

Seems like the FBI is trying to confiscate the boxes themselves, and in the process of getting the boxes only, they happen to take out the contents. I could see that line of reasoning, effectively letting them search the boxes, but why keep all contents that weren’t suspected of a crime, and why not return contents once found not to be part of a crime?

Reminds me of the account on Reddit that used to get huge karma and tons of top comment claiming to be an expert on everything, but everything they commented on was a different subject and in every comment they claimed a phd or master from a different university and some years of experience studying X. It was actually very entertaining to look at their comment history of every comment having thousands of upvotes because they started it out with a completely phony “I got my PhD at ______ in _____ and spent ___ years working for the largest ______ researcher…” In order to build fake credibility and it totally worked. Hundreds of thousands of karma from that and insane amounts of bad information as top conments.

This is important, he can fund it but not forever. He’s owned it what 2 weeks now? In the current market I’m lucky if I can order paint for a small building and have it arrive in 2 weeks - these days it takes more like 3-6 months. He appears to be moving at lightning speed with these changes. The thing is, when you are moving 10 times as fast as normal you can trip up 10 times as much and still arrive on time.

I didn’t say it was a closed system. I’m just saying one might be better than the other, I don’t know how you do that other than compare the possibilities. If everyone had a private driver then yea that options is also better but we live in a human world not a perfect world.

I don’t think it has to be a bad thing. It be an interesting statistical problem. What is worse, a person who drives sleepy for 5 hours each day or a person who gives up control to a computer for 5 hours each day. Point being we are attempting to compare FSD to complete perfect driving, when the comparison should be with current drivers. If it is an improvement or reduction in crashes why not use it? Maybe it’s because we aren’t sure who to blame in case something goes wrong? I know back seat drivers that get uncomfortable as a passenger a lot even with a driver with zero accidents and would rather drive themselves, yet have crashed several times themselves at their fault. They misjudge their own abilities and the situation, a need for certain aggressive driving. I think many are misjudging the average drivers ability without self driving and we could be causing a lot of loss of life by not taking a statistically better option out of human hubris.

I agree. Self driving, VR, and 3D printing all feel like they are in the same boat together. It’s tech that if it was a little better it could get full adoption but the current solutions feel like they aren’t enough for full adoption. Self-driving lacks because what’s the point if you have to self monitor at the same time, VR because the resolution and frame rate are barely better than a desktop computer so the immersion isn’t there, and 3D printing lacks because it’s extremely slow, struggles with certain designs, and needs sanding after - again all are missing the primary problems they mean to address and are only half-fixes. Why do I want to 3D print something when it’s going to take me 2 hours to sand down the ugly edges also? Why do I want full self driving when I have to stay just as alert? Why do I want immerse myself in a virtual reality that feels so fake?

I think this is only confusing because most people’s only understanding of autopilot is what they watched in movies when the pilot flicks a button and leaves the cockpit go fight a villain so they imagine autopilot means FSD which it isn’t at all in its original use in planes either.

If you consider 17 an adult and that the report is correctly identifying those games. This is no different than cheating in a video game online. It’s playing random people from matchmaking for rating points tied to that game. Maybe there were multiple tournaments as well for small prizes (probably under $1000 prize money) if the report on the report is correct though. I’d compare it to an NBA player cheating in a pick up game of basketball.

He already admitted to cheating a lot. He didn’t say he cheated in two games, he said cheated at two times in his life. He even detailed how his second time was pumping up his rating, you can’t pump a rating with only one game. Sounds like if it went to 2020 then he would have been 17 at least, not 16 but that’s pretty close at least.

That’s obviously not what I am talking about, I said multiple times places that are 100% user generated content.

I don’t know what red state is, a social media company?I am referring to places where none of the content produced is made by the owner. Places where all content is user created.

I made none of those points so I’m not sure where this is all coming from. I understand you want to take your arguments with others and bring them to me but that’s not at all what I’m saying. It seems you are making assumptions that I have these assumptions.

In a way yes, if that website reaches a certain size, say 100 million users or whatever point makes that service more important to businesses than even the phone company. There is blurring of the line between user and employee when many content creators make their entire living from their posts. They get paid by these companies to run ads on their content, so the comparison to an employee is actually a good one. Even if they weren’t paid all the time they created something of value there, a following, and a malicious ban needs to be protected against. Again, say my company gives advice or the phone, and the phone company’s CEO decides my advice is bad and shuts down my service, that would be wrong. You see companies blame say Facebook for being toxic but in reality it is the people on it they should be blaming. They just don’t like what their own friends, who they decided to follow, have to say. Blaming Facebook for toxicity is like finding a guy sitting in their own house and knocking on their door I hear what they have to say then complaining about what they said, and calling the police to make them shut up. All of these sites have blocking tools, or just don’t follow them.

I don’t think that is a common carrier issue. I’m just saying the impact of bans from social media companies, often coordinated among several at once, are more impactful than other companies already listed as common carriers. It’s not like social media is created by these companies, every piece of content shown on the websites was user created and the users deserve protection from malicious and biased actors within the companies.

Exactly. There is much lower hanging fruit but if you ask someone what is more valuable to their business, phone service or social media, many would choose social media.

This is idealistic thinking however there are countless cases where a ban was done by a bad actor or bad algorithm, with the only recourse being a user taking their ban to another platform to complain, and if they gain enough traction on another platform then they get the ban reversed. Unfortunately that only works for large creators while small creators have zero recourse for unjust bans.

That’s partially true. Reddit assigns moderators to your subreddit as well and if you don’t moderate in a way they like will force you to remove certain moderators or even ban your community.

And 100% of people could live without phone companies with no impact to their daily lives, we’ve got internet right? Of course I would be the one defining impact here. You may consider impact to daily lives not substantial, but others see the substantial impact of not being able to reach their family, friends, and customers and the disadvantage that comes with others having that access but you not. It’s not like Facebook actually is making the “social media” you see in your feed, it is 100% carrying social media from users, the same way a phone company aren’t the one making calls.

How do you differentiate crypto from any other video game currency. You can buy in game currencies for real money and literally gamble with it inside a game with literally slots or loot boxes or whatever, then trade it to others as well, in exchange for real money. Every game is different though. I’m just struggling to find the difference between crypto and any other digital in a video game in regards to gambling. Both are code driven and if anything in game gambling seems worse because rather than paying a market value where everyone has the same risk, you are paying the game creator for loot boxes or info and currency which they can print infinitely. Of course if they did print too much of an item or currency it would crash their in game market and destroy the rarity of those items. Anyways it seems like if Twitch is going after crypto gambling websites they need to go after in game gambling as well.

Meta has already screwed up Facebook from a UI perspective which is 2D. It feels clunky and ugly in my opinion, and was better designed when it originally came out. Now they seem to be on the same path with their Metaverse apps - low quality Wii like graphics that feel 20 years old already.

Access to banking is limited by the countries governments. If the governments want to make buying US dollars illegal they can make buying stable coins backed by dollars illegal too. Sure it’s a quick way to do forex currency trading, but that is available on the internet already and these coins require access to the internet to be bought and sold as well. They take the same risk that their “dollars” or rather these tokens that represent dollars could be taken from them by their government’s enforcement.

I thought bitcoin was incredible un that it allowed anonymous transactions. That turned out to be false. Well it is anonymous, but you still need on and off ramps for crypto to fiat and fiat to crypto which is basically impossible to get because somewhere you need a bank account to transfer the money that has your name on it. Not enough vendors accept bitcoin where you can survive within the ecosystem without converting back to cash, and typically losing a large percentage of your money in the process. I think there are a few tokens that at least have anonymized transactions, like Tornado, but again you can’t get money out still, and it might be illegal to use those cryptos. Basically the use case is dead in my eyes. Sure darknet is still a thing because they are doing illegal things already and don’t care about the on and off ramps being legal either, so it works, but if the potential to go mainstream disappears then bitcoins price could drop to practically nothing again as well.

I think assuming people are too dumb to make a decent choice would also be a problem you could blame democracy for and be an argument for a dictatorship. That’s kind of what misinformation management by the company who is controlling your method of communication feels like, a dictatorship of ideas. It gives Black Mirror vibes controlling truth, and sort of comes down to the basic argument of what is better you, safety or freedom as well. Slippery slopes are an actual thing and just having any of that power available opens up the door for abuse especially like in the case of this article where there is perceived pressure from the government, the only entity allowed to use violence, on stopping the spread of anything but their idea of the truth. Just imagine if these particular vaccines actually weee dangerous, even to a specific people with specific conditions - trials aren’t the same as mass adoption. The levels of information blocking in place could have hindered research as you literally would get banned for mentioning you had a bad reaction. In my opinions ideas should stand on their own, and if good enough eventually people will come around.

Sure but how many schools teach, get your best information from Facebook? Any? I look at Facebook more like the phone company facilitating communications, and I wouldn’t blame the phone company for what people say or want the phone company to cut people off.

This has been a problem since the White House announced they were working with Facebook and other social media companies to ban people for “misinformation” and later when the White House created a Disinformation Board that was only in place for a few months before the bad publicity got it shut down. It should be no surprise any platform has misinformation, even Wikipedia or your encyclopedia is not the end all be all of truth and there shouldn’t be expectation random people on these sites aren’t pushing their own beliefs. I don’t know a single person who believes Facebook is the best place for research despite claims that it’s the primary cause of misinformation. Politicians themselves are famous for lying, in just one example, the “if you get the vaccine you can’t spread the virus” was very widely spread at the start and espousing the opposite of this statement would get people banned from social media sites for saying so, despite later being found to be false regarding these specific vaccines. It is arrogant to think that 1. people are too stupid to debate amongst themselves to let the good information rise to the top and 2. that the person in charge has all available information. It’s like imagining because your CEO is in charge of your company that they always make the best decision. It’s delusional that being in power should make you any more correct, even if there are more resources available to them, increasing their odds of being correct. It should be obvious my opinion, but social media should stay out of the business of determining what is and isn’t misinformation and especially at the governments direction. It was done in the name of “saving lives” but in a world of 8 billion people, how many lives did being incorrect and forcing bad information to be the only allowed information also cost? I doubt more lives were saved than cost by the misinformation management done by social media.

This is correct. Many are conflating oil and natural gas. Both have increased significantly, but natural gas has increased the most.