Slashdot Mirror

There is a Google Maps Go app, which is supposed to be lighter than the regular Google Maps. I have never tried it, though.

Another Google app to do something already done by an already existing app. A word of advice to Google: please change the name of this app. If you leave it as it is, it might not be sufficiently confusing.

There is a Google Maps Go app, which is supposed to be lighter than the regular Google Maps. I have never tried it, though.

Nah. Conservatives are the ones who crave fascism. The police state is their comfort zone. They advocate never questioning authority, support the state crushing any form of protest, violently if necessary. No issues with militarizing the police, in fact in favor of deploying troops stateside. All good in GOP land.

You must be one true idiot through-and-through if you believe that bullshit.

It's the LEFT that has literally institutionalized the silencing of opposing viewpoints.

And who is dressing up all in black threatening violence for merely disagreeing with them politically? I give you the LEFT: laughably call yourself "anti-fascist" while dressing up and literally acting just like one.

Gawd, you must have been dropped at birth.

On your head.

Six or seven times.

I know, I'm old. But seriously, they're directly copying this form of advertising from Radio. I actually found it charming when Pat the NES punk started doing it. The clearest indicator that radio is dying was when the advertisers move to the new media.

To be honest I'm not going to be sad to see the old media go. The new media can be just as bad, but it can also be better

some environmental groups say gene drives are too dangerous to ever use.

Sure, and some "environmental groups" are staffed by people who firmly believe that Atlantean DNA has 12 strands.

You can't abort a child. A child has already been born

Yeah that's bullshit. If it's viable outside the womb and you kill it, you've committed murder and killed a child

Look if you don't like the left's actual positions that's fine but don't think crap like this

"Antifa I have no idea what is or isn't Antifa if they are violent they must be someone else".

"Spencer see see he named himself Alt-Right it's got right in it he must be right"

"Nobody I know goes around touting Cuba as how a country provides for its people"

Will convince me or anyone else.

P.S. Just to answer your implied question "Also, look at at whose marches people chant things like "kill all Jews" "

https://www.google.com/search?...

I

Its hard to say if $500M is a lot of money or not to the likes of FB. Their net worth fluxuates a lot more than that on a daily basis. It sure sounds like a lot of money to me, but ive never had anything even close to a million dollars. My gut says it wasnt about the money. Perhaps the lawsuit, but not the $500M itself.

Here is a guy that caused a rift because he was an outlier for his political position. Then the lawsuit concluded and was found guilty of infringing. My first question as a FB exec is,
  - Did we actually buy anything? Or did we find ourself paying top dollar for whst we thought was talent; only to turn out to be a poser that stole the tech and slapped their name on it? -

That would be my first question. Afterall they did pay $3 billion for Oculus. What so they have to show for $3.5B? ($3B plus the $500M lawsuit) If there is no actual *talent* here, why bother keeping him on? Especially one who does make waves among the staff. So his political actions most likely was a few nails, but not the coffin itself.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/a...

They can serve ads directly bypassing many filter apps:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/67hhc4/google_is_using_quic_protocol_to_serve_ads_in/

I searched if this was possible while going through the RFC for QUIC and came across the part where it says HTTP3 will support extensions within individual connection requests.

In that case, that is really dangerous where our machines could be at risk with all types of spying and malwares, this would just further erode our privacy on the web.

There is a draft RFC that specifically addresses this question; A Comparison between SCTP and QUIC.

Among the conclusions; QUIC provides better connection latency by eliminating handshake round trips. QUIC mandates encryption for everything in all phases including the initial handshake. QUIC has better compatibility with existing infrastructure because it rides on UDP and is therefore supported by nearly all "middleboxes," whereas SCTP is not universally supported. The connection ID concept allows QUIC connections to transparently survive IP address changes and NAT rebinding.

Another rationale for QUIC over SCTP appears here: QUIC: Design Document and Specification Rationale

Again, connection latency is cited. Also, "bandwidth efficiency;" basically QUIC has less overhead than SCTP+DTLS and achieves the same result.

They can serve ads directly bypassing many filter apps:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/67hhc4/google_is_using_quic_protocol_to_serve_ads_in/

I searched if this was possible while going through the RFC for QUIC and came across the part where it says HTTP3 will support extensions within individual connection requests.

Indeed. If one didn't want to bury books in a septic tank - an old phone loaded up with PDFs and EPUBs with a small solar panel and charger setup stashed away in a properly shielded and sealed (water tight w/ desiccant in there!) box would be a good substitute

I always chuckle when Krugman goes to his IS-LM graphs and equations, and I think, "You really believe those describe the entire system?"

Considering he always says it does not describe the entire system, that's a rather odd thing to say if you're actually reading what he writes.

Krugman's NYT column is called "The Conscience of a Liberal." Nate Silver and Krugman had a public dispute when Silver left the NYT to form FiveThirtyEight. Silver said, about Krugman, "Plenty of pundits have really high IQs, but they don’t have any discipline in how they look at the world, and so it leads to a lot of bullshit, basically,” Silver said in that interview."

Economic models are data fit to curves. See the 'Philips curve' and 'the breakdown of the Philips curve'. However, this data exists in the context of other systems. "All Models Are Wrong" of course, but it seems to me many economists don't appreciate the error in their models and are willing (and paid) to make grand pronouncements based on highly error-filled models. Often in support of one social narrative or another.

. The economy grows around those sources of money, which aren't geared towards addressing people's needs and wants. They wonder why productivity hasn't improved.

Except productivity has improved. The US, despite that whole "death of manufacturing" thing, is producing 3x the goods we made in the 1980s.....we're doing it with a lot less people because productivity has vastly improved, which is the one of the primary sources of that "death of manufacturing" thing.

Yes, it has since the 1980s, but it started stalling around 2005, and that is the point of curiosity. Here are other links. This is a basic, widely discussed topic.

I think going forward, there's a strong push towards socialist populism. Unless we can come up with a system that is again self-sustaining and self-organizing that allows people to create value and which fairly pays people for their labor. The view is dimming for the latter.

So, your first option is to invent a new economic system that will be highly stable because.....reasons.

No, not because 'reasons'. Because of its fairness and resistance to corruption, cronyism and favoritism. A system which is self-organizing and automatically rewards people based on their contribution would be fair; but then it could lead to vast swaths where people cannot contribute anything of value because offshore labor or machines can do it more cheaply and efficiently. That would be bad for humanitarian reasons and it can lead to social unrest.

Your second option is democratic socialism as practiced by most of Europe. Including Germany that you laud as successful in your post.

There's precisely zero reasons we can't do the latter in the US. The barrier has been the "Me Generation". And they're gonna die soon.

Don't conflate all of Europe as one.

We don't want to emulate France, Spain, Portugal. They have high unemployment and lower standards of living and more volatile economies. We're not like Norway in which we basically rely on vast oil deposits for our national wealth. Not in Europe but

I always chuckle when Krugman goes to his IS-LM graphs and equations, and I think, "You really believe those describe the entire system?"

Considering he always says it does not describe the entire system, that's a rather odd thing to say if you're actually reading what he writes.

Krugman's NYT column is called "The Conscience of a Liberal." Nate Silver and Krugman had a public dispute when Silver left the NYT to form FiveThirtyEight. Silver said, about Krugman, "Plenty of pundits have really high IQs, but they don’t have any discipline in how they look at the world, and so it leads to a lot of bullshit, basically,” Silver said in that interview."

Economic models are data fit to curves. See the 'Philips curve' and 'the breakdown of the Philips curve'. However, this data exists in the context of other systems. "All Models Are Wrong" of course, but it seems to me many economists don't appreciate the error in their models and are willing (and paid) to make grand pronouncements based on highly error-filled models. Often in support of one social narrative or another.

. The economy grows around those sources of money, which aren't geared towards addressing people's needs and wants. They wonder why productivity hasn't improved.

Except productivity has improved. The US, despite that whole "death of manufacturing" thing, is producing 3x the goods we made in the 1980s.....we're doing it with a lot less people because productivity has vastly improved, which is the one of the primary sources of that "death of manufacturing" thing.

Yes, it has since the 1980s, but it started stalling around 2005, and that is the point of curiosity. Here are other links. This is a basic, widely discussed topic.

I think going forward, there's a strong push towards socialist populism. Unless we can come up with a system that is again self-sustaining and self-organizing that allows people to create value and which fairly pays people for their labor. The view is dimming for the latter.

So, your first option is to invent a new economic system that will be highly stable because.....reasons.

No, not because 'reasons'. Because of its fairness and resistance to corruption, cronyism and favoritism. A system which is self-organizing and automatically rewards people based on their contribution would be fair; but then it could lead to vast swaths where people cannot contribute anything of value because offshore labor or machines can do it more cheaply and efficiently. That would be bad for humanitarian reasons and it can lead to social unrest.

Your second option is democratic socialism as practiced by most of Europe. Including Germany that you laud as successful in your post.

There's precisely zero reasons we can't do the latter in the US. The barrier has been the "Me Generation". And they're gonna die soon.

Don't conflate all of Europe as one.

We don't want to emulate France, Spain, Portugal. They have high unemployment and lower standards of living and more volatile economies. We're not like Norway in which we basically rely on vast oil deposits for our national wealth. Not in Europe but

I always chuckle when Krugman goes to his IS-LM graphs and equations, and I think, "You really believe those describe the entire system?"

Considering he always says it does not describe the entire system, that's a rather odd thing to say if you're actually reading what he writes.

Krugman's NYT column is called "The Conscience of a Liberal." Nate Silver and Krugman had a public dispute when Silver left the NYT to form FiveThirtyEight. Silver said, about Krugman, "Plenty of pundits have really high IQs, but they don’t have any discipline in how they look at the world, and so it leads to a lot of bullshit, basically,” Silver said in that interview."

Economic models are data fit to curves. See the 'Philips curve' and 'the breakdown of the Philips curve'. However, this data exists in the context of other systems. "All Models Are Wrong" of course, but it seems to me many economists don't appreciate the error in their models and are willing (and paid) to make grand pronouncements based on highly error-filled models. Often in support of one social narrative or another.

. The economy grows around those sources of money, which aren't geared towards addressing people's needs and wants. They wonder why productivity hasn't improved.

Except productivity has improved. The US, despite that whole "death of manufacturing" thing, is producing 3x the goods we made in the 1980s.....we're doing it with a lot less people because productivity has vastly improved, which is the one of the primary sources of that "death of manufacturing" thing.

Yes, it has since the 1980s, but it started stalling around 2005, and that is the point of curiosity. Here are other links. This is a basic, widely discussed topic.

I think going forward, there's a strong push towards socialist populism. Unless we can come up with a system that is again self-sustaining and self-organizing that allows people to create value and which fairly pays people for their labor. The view is dimming for the latter.

So, your first option is to invent a new economic system that will be highly stable because.....reasons.

No, not because 'reasons'. Because of its fairness and resistance to corruption, cronyism and favoritism. A system which is self-organizing and automatically rewards people based on their contribution would be fair; but then it could lead to vast swaths where people cannot contribute anything of value because offshore labor or machines can do it more cheaply and efficiently. That would be bad for humanitarian reasons and it can lead to social unrest.

Your second option is democratic socialism as practiced by most of Europe. Including Germany that you laud as successful in your post.

There's precisely zero reasons we can't do the latter in the US. The barrier has been the "Me Generation". And they're gonna die soon.

Don't conflate all of Europe as one.

We don't want to emulate France, Spain, Portugal. They have high unemployment and lower standards of living and more volatile economies. We're not like Norway in which we basically rely on vast oil deposits for our national wealth. Not in Europe but

I always chuckle when Krugman goes to his IS-LM graphs and equations, and I think, "You really believe those describe the entire system?"

Considering he always says it does not describe the entire system, that's a rather odd thing to say if you're actually reading what he writes.

Krugman's NYT column is called "The Conscience of a Liberal." Nate Silver and Krugman had a public dispute when Silver left the NYT to form FiveThirtyEight. Silver said, about Krugman, "Plenty of pundits have really high IQs, but they don’t have any discipline in how they look at the world, and so it leads to a lot of bullshit, basically,” Silver said in that interview."

Economic models are data fit to curves. See the 'Philips curve' and 'the breakdown of the Philips curve'. However, this data exists in the context of other systems. "All Models Are Wrong" of course, but it seems to me many economists don't appreciate the error in their models and are willing (and paid) to make grand pronouncements based on highly error-filled models. Often in support of one social narrative or another.

. The economy grows around those sources of money, which aren't geared towards addressing people's needs and wants. They wonder why productivity hasn't improved.

Except productivity has improved. The US, despite that whole "death of manufacturing" thing, is producing 3x the goods we made in the 1980s.....we're doing it with a lot less people because productivity has vastly improved, which is the one of the primary sources of that "death of manufacturing" thing.

Yes, it has since the 1980s, but it started stalling around 2005, and that is the point of curiosity. Here are other links. This is a basic, widely discussed topic.

I think going forward, there's a strong push towards socialist populism. Unless we can come up with a system that is again self-sustaining and self-organizing that allows people to create value and which fairly pays people for their labor. The view is dimming for the latter.

So, your first option is to invent a new economic system that will be highly stable because.....reasons.

No, not because 'reasons'. Because of its fairness and resistance to corruption, cronyism and favoritism. A system which is self-organizing and automatically rewards people based on their contribution would be fair; but then it could lead to vast swaths where people cannot contribute anything of value because offshore labor or machines can do it more cheaply and efficiently. That would be bad for humanitarian reasons and it can lead to social unrest.

Your second option is democratic socialism as practiced by most of Europe. Including Germany that you laud as successful in your post.

There's precisely zero reasons we can't do the latter in the US. The barrier has been the "Me Generation". And they're gonna die soon.

Don't conflate all of Europe as one.

We don't want to emulate France, Spain, Portugal. They have high unemployment and lower standards of living and more volatile economies. We're not like Norway in which we basically rely on vast oil deposits for our national wealth. Not in Europe but

I always chuckle when Krugman goes to his IS-LM graphs and equations, and I think, "You really believe those describe the entire system?"

Considering he always says it does not describe the entire system, that's a rather odd thing to say if you're actually reading what he writes.

Krugman's NYT column is called "The Conscience of a Liberal." Nate Silver and Krugman had a public dispute when Silver left the NYT to form FiveThirtyEight. Silver said, about Krugman, "Plenty of pundits have really high IQs, but they don’t have any discipline in how they look at the world, and so it leads to a lot of bullshit, basically,” Silver said in that interview."

Economic models are data fit to curves. See the 'Philips curve' and 'the breakdown of the Philips curve'. However, this data exists in the context of other systems. "All Models Are Wrong" of course, but it seems to me many economists don't appreciate the error in their models and are willing (and paid) to make grand pronouncements based on highly error-filled models. Often in support of one social narrative or another.

. The economy grows around those sources of money, which aren't geared towards addressing people's needs and wants. They wonder why productivity hasn't improved.

Except productivity has improved. The US, despite that whole "death of manufacturing" thing, is producing 3x the goods we made in the 1980s.....we're doing it with a lot less people because productivity has vastly improved, which is the one of the primary sources of that "death of manufacturing" thing.

Yes, it has since the 1980s, but it started stalling around 2005, and that is the point of curiosity. Here are other links. This is a basic, widely discussed topic.

I think going forward, there's a strong push towards socialist populism. Unless we can come up with a system that is again self-sustaining and self-organizing that allows people to create value and which fairly pays people for their labor. The view is dimming for the latter.

So, your first option is to invent a new economic system that will be highly stable because.....reasons.

No, not because 'reasons'. Because of its fairness and resistance to corruption, cronyism and favoritism. A system which is self-organizing and automatically rewards people based on their contribution would be fair; but then it could lead to vast swaths where people cannot contribute anything of value because offshore labor or machines can do it more cheaply and efficiently. That would be bad for humanitarian reasons and it can lead to social unrest.

Your second option is democratic socialism as practiced by most of Europe. Including Germany that you laud as successful in your post.

There's precisely zero reasons we can't do the latter in the US. The barrier has been the "Me Generation". And they're gonna die soon.

Don't conflate all of Europe as one.

We don't want to emulate France, Spain, Portugal. They have high unemployment and lower standards of living and more volatile economies. We're not like Norway in which we basically rely on vast oil deposits for our national wealth. Not in Europe but

Oh, I've never seen this. And my google skills suck, apparently.

https://www.google.com/search?...

administration imposed the 10 percent duty, which also cover motherboards, graphics cards, and CPU coolers

Could you please post a link to mobos, graphic cards and CPU coolers made out of wood?

He did say cases.

Back in 1986, there was a hit song, "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades", by Timbuk3
In 1990, there was "I'm Free" by the Soupdragons.

Decidedly hopeful songs about the future.

In 2016, the song "Stressed Out" by 21 Pilots was a radio hit.
In 2013, the song "Royals" by Lorde was a radio hit.

Much darker outlooks about the present and the future.

Economists are looking for easy answers. I always chuckle when Krugman goes to his IS-LM graphs and equations, and I think, "You really believe those describe the entire system?" The reality is simple yet difficult and chaotic. Unless you're creating things that people value, like Germany for example, you're not going to have an improving standard of living. But economists can't control that - politicians do. And there's a chaotic element about whether your population will be able to create things that improve the standard of living. Economists can only print money and inject it into the financial sector and government, and hope it has a beneficial effect on the economy. But it doesn't. The economy grows around those sources of money, which aren't geared towards addressing people's needs and wants. They wonder why productivity hasn't improved.

I saw a really interesting debate between David Frum and Steve Bannon ("The Munk Debates" series) about whether populism is the future. Frum was arguing for the old, happy talk globalist (37 genders, open borders and the US as the world policeman) system which held sway till about 2008. Bannon said the future belonged to populism, and the only question is whether it will socialist populism (Bernie Sanders), or capitalist populism (Trump).

Capitalism with controls was good because it was self-sustaining and self-organizing. The value you provided was in line with the remuneration you obtained, with minimal interference by political gatekeepers, who can be easily corrupted. But as the production of value becomes more and more consolidated, as the production of value is off-shored, and money corrupts/warps our political system, gatekeepers have grown in power (via crony capitalism and socialism for the wealthy) and they are not like AI's - they are highly influence-able and corruptible. As in any system where a gatekeeper hands out largesse.

I think going forward, there's a strong push towards socialist populism. Unless we can come up with a system that is again self-sustaining and self-organizing that allows people to create value and which fairly pays people for their labor. The view is dimming for the latter.

Back in 1986, there was a hit song, "The Future's So Bright, I Gotta Wear Shades", by Timbuk3
In 1990, there was "I'm Free" by the Soupdragons.

Decidedly hopeful songs about the future.

In 2016, the song "Stressed Out" by 21 Pilots was a radio hit.
In 2013, the song "Royals" by Lorde was a radio hit.

Much darker outlooks about the present and the future.

Economists are looking for easy answers. I always chuckle when Krugman goes to his IS-LM graphs and equations, and I think, "You really believe those describe the entire system?" The reality is simple yet difficult and chaotic. Unless you're creating things that people value, like Germany for example, you're not going to have an improving standard of living. But economists can't control that - politicians do. And there's a chaotic element about whether your population will be able to create things that improve the standard of living. Economists can only print money and inject it into the financial sector and government, and hope it has a beneficial effect on the economy. But it doesn't. The economy grows around those sources of money, which aren't geared towards addressing people's needs and wants. They wonder why productivity hasn't improved.

I saw a really interesting debate between David Frum and Steve Bannon ("The Munk Debates" series) about whether populism is the future. Frum was arguing for the old, happy talk globalist (37 genders, open borders and the US as the world policeman) system which held sway till about 2008. Bannon said the future belonged to populism, and the only question is whether it will socialist populism (Bernie Sanders), or capitalist populism (Trump).

Capitalism with controls was good because it was self-sustaining and self-organizing. The value you provided was in line with the remuneration you obtained, with minimal interference by political gatekeepers, who can be easily corrupted. But as the production of value becomes more and more consolidated, as the production of value is off-shored, and money corrupts/warps our political system, gatekeepers have grown in power (via crony capitalism and socialism for the wealthy) and they are not like AI's - they are highly influence-able and corruptible. As in any system where a gatekeeper hands out largesse.

I think going forward, there's a strong push towards socialist populism. Unless we can come up with a system that is again self-sustaining and self-organizing that allows people to create value and which fairly pays people for their labor. The view is dimming for the latter.

Here it is: https://play.google.com/store/... Installed and works on my Android phone.

I commute by bike as well. It takes about 25-30 minutes to ride one way, while in the car it takes about 20 minutes. The ride is uphill one way though. I ride in almost any weather except for snow/ice, which doesn't happen too often in Vancouver. I have excellent lighting and reflection as well. Vancouver is excellent for bikes, as we have a good bike lane system. I think we have gotten to the point in Vancouver where 10% of residents (pdf warning) cycled to work. That is in spite of Vancouver's legendary rain. One of the best things about this is that I get an hour per day of good exercise for free.

As for the proverbial asshole cyclists, yes I've seen some. Often they aren't wearing helmets or actual bike gear. They flout the traffic laws and ride in a way that risks both their own lives and the lives of those around them. I find them as irritating as anyone. But to tell the truth they aren't that common. We tend to remember the unusual incidents rather than the more common ones. Over the last twenty years of driving I've observed two incidents of road rage by guys driving white panel vans. That doesn't mean that drivers of white panel vans are inherently angry. I've probably seen thousands of white panel vans in my years of driving, but I don't remember them because they were just driving normally.

> console gamers are some of the most demanding 60 fps even when it doesn't make sense

Frankly, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

1. Dark Souls dipped down to a shitty 12 FPS on last gen consoles before it got remastered and got frame locked to 60 FPS on current gen consoles.

12 FPS is a SHIT experience. PERIOD.

It ALWAYS makes sense for 60 FPS **minimum.** If you can't hit 60 FPS then YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG. I say that as a ex console developer, graphics and UI expert.

2. Many consoles games run at a CRAPPY 30 FPS. Many crappy console ports are framed locked to either 30 or 60 FPS _even_ when ported to PC and are completely broken when run at 120 or 144 FPS.

3. It is NOT _just_ console gamers, nor just PC gamers demanding 60 FPS. Sega's arcade Daytona USA ran at a silky smooth 60 fps back in 1994!! Because frame rate **matters** -- especially for racing games.

Why?

30 FPS = 1000 ms/30 f/s = 33.33 ms input lag
60 FPS = 1000 ms/60 f/s = 16.66 ms input lag.

Next gen phones and tablets are now targeting 120 FPS *precisely* to minimize input lag.

Professional drummers can detect as little as 1 ms input lag I'm told !!

Gamers bitched for years about micro-stuttering: when a game runs at mostly 60 fps and dips for 1 frame down to 30 FPS. (I'm one of the people who can detect this -- and no I'm not special, many others can too.) Benchmarks now show the 99% percentile so we can see when games do this as a result of us demanding GPU manufacturers look into this issue.

SHMUPS are another genre where 60 FPS matters.

Fighting games have traditionally run at 60 FPS such as Soul Calibur on the Dreamcast. Because 30 FPS is shit for competitive play.

4. 60 FPS games do NOT sell any better then 30 FPS. Devs know this and fucking lazy. The majority of gamers don't know, don't care, or can't tell the difference between 30 and 60.

5. Some of us demand 60 FPS because there is a HUGE difference between 120 FPS, 60 FPS, and a crappy 30 FPS. The hardest hits are pans.

* http://red.cachefly.net/learn/...

* http://red.cachefly.net/learn/...

5. Just because YOU can't tell the difference between a shity 24 FPS and 60 FPS doesn't imply no one else can.

6. Your final clue stick would be to ask Hmm, WHY are the VR guys targeting 90 FPS??

Because people get motion sickness at lesser frame rates!

Next time instead of spouting bullshit try RESEARCHING the topic.

--
The holy trinity of graphics:

* 120 FPS
* 12-bit / channel HDR
* 300 DPI

or the stock market crashes and takes out your investments. Or your company outsources your job in your 50s and nobody'll hire you. Or any one of a dozen things out of your control happen.

But it's a good thing we didn't gut the social safety net and that nobody is doing anything that could impact your plans to retire.

I'm sure knowing all that is a real load off the old minderooni.

I did retire by selling my company. But if I hadn't why the fuck would I hand it over to a millennial or train up someone who is literally waiting for my generation to hurry up and die ?

https://www.google.com/search?...
 

I used to think it was just trolling until I actually met one of these guys.

Some (many) of them are simply that stupid, arrogant and angry. But there have definitely been trolls in the older, better sense of the word. You have a rather low UID. Perhaps if you were on usenet, you remember this chap, an elegant troll from a more civilised age:

https://groups.google.com/foru...

Egg Troll was IMO a master of the art. Possibly one of the finest trolls on the internet. It's delightful, his posts are very very carefully written to wind up people on both sides of several debates (C vs Java, Linux vs Windows, etc) and despite transparently trolling (his name is a bit of a clue), he still got people to rise to the bait like a shoal of little fishes.

I miss that guy and I miss the dulture where that was trolling.

They say that if you do (c) it removes access to the internal storage. But you didn't fucking read because YOU hate apple being in the wrong somewhere or somehow.

They say no such thing. English may not be your first language but common there is only one sentence discussing option c). To help you along, click the below link to Google Translate and select a language you do understand:
https://translate.google.com/#....

Since when? Even if Google has dropped Oracle Database, it's still using Oracle MySQL and Oracle OpenJDK, and now it has to pay Oracle billions of dollars after losing its fair use defense in Oracle v. Google on grounds that Google impeded interoperability rather than pursuing it.

Put yourself in a politician's shoes. You love the power. How do you keep it? You make your constituents lives better and make sure they know about it. But cut to the chase even further - really, you only need to make your constituents think you're making their lives better. If you are, it's secondary. The most important thing is making them think that. That's how you get the precious votes.

Cue a sports stadium or a megacorp like Amazon. Big headline jobs numbers, construction spending, infrastructure spending. But how do you pay for it? Taxes, redeploying money from other priorities, and bond sales. Maryland for example, created a nearly 9 billion dollar subsidy/incentive package for Amazon. Baltimore, in Maryland, has two spectacular stadiums at the gateway to the city. But the rest of the city is a mess, with the highest murder rate of any large city in the country, on a par with Ciudad Juarez, a cartel war zone in a semi-failed state.

Who really knows for sure what the net economic benefit will be? I suspect it's a lot like sports stadiums. Realize that the economy is a competition for resources and Amazon is a very successful competitor. And that politicians are not spending their own money, only trying to make their constituents think they are making those constituents' lives better.

Ultimately I think it's like a blood transfusion to yourself - diverting resources away from other priorities and taking on debt to pay for the shiny now. Ultimately, the source of wealth is creating things that people value. Does Amazon create value? I guess so. But they are also very good at retaining that value for themselves. Think of the WalMart effect. Or Facebook lights-out datacenters. These competitors are much better at retaining value they generate than any politician, whose primary skills like in raising money and getting votes. And they're also quite good at sloughing off costs on others, like the environmental polluters of yore. But this is "financial pollution" - company keeps the profits and socializes the losses, like WalMart and foodstamps. Or most famously, Wall Street after the financial crisis and bailouts.

Don't get me wrong, technology increases the productivity of people, which leads to the "Consolidation of the production of value." It's been going on since before the Industrial Revolution, but it leaps forward with the various technological revolutions. But just because a company is big doesn't mean that landing in your area is going to bring a prosperity windfall, and should get vast subsidies in anticipation of such.

Put yourself in a politician's shoes. You love the power. How do you keep it? You make your constituents lives better and make sure they know about it. But cut to the chase even further - really, you only need to make your constituents think you're making their lives better. If you are, it's secondary. The most important thing is making them think that. That's how you get the precious votes.

Cue a sports stadium or a megacorp like Amazon. Big headline jobs numbers, construction spending, infrastructure spending. But how do you pay for it? Taxes, redeploying money from other priorities, and bond sales. Maryland for example, created a nearly 9 billion dollar subsidy/incentive package for Amazon. Baltimore, in Maryland, has two spectacular stadiums at the gateway to the city. But the rest of the city is a mess, with the highest murder rate of any large city in the country, on a par with Ciudad Juarez, a cartel war zone in a semi-failed state.

Who really knows for sure what the net economic benefit will be? I suspect it's a lot like sports stadiums. Realize that the economy is a competition for resources and Amazon is a very successful competitor. And that politicians are not spending their own money, only trying to make their constituents think they are making those constituents' lives better.

Ultimately I think it's like a blood transfusion to yourself - diverting resources away from other priorities and taking on debt to pay for the shiny now. Ultimately, the source of wealth is creating things that people value. Does Amazon create value? I guess so. But they are also very good at retaining that value for themselves. Think of the WalMart effect. Or Facebook lights-out datacenters. These competitors are much better at retaining value they generate than any politician, whose primary skills like in raising money and getting votes. And they're also quite good at sloughing off costs on others, like the environmental polluters of yore. But this is "financial pollution" - company keeps the profits and socializes the losses, like WalMart and foodstamps. Or most famously, Wall Street after the financial crisis and bailouts.

Don't get me wrong, technology increases the productivity of people, which leads to the "Consolidation of the production of value." It's been going on since before the Industrial Revolution, but it leaps forward with the various technological revolutions. But just because a company is big doesn't mean that landing in your area is going to bring a prosperity windfall, and should get vast subsidies in anticipation of such.

Put yourself in a politician's shoes. You love the power. How do you keep it? You make your constituents lives better and make sure they know about it. But cut to the chase even further - really, you only need to make your constituents think you're making their lives better. If you are, it's secondary. The most important thing is making them think that. That's how you get the precious votes.

Cue a sports stadium or a megacorp like Amazon. Big headline jobs numbers, construction spending, infrastructure spending. But how do you pay for it? Taxes, redeploying money from other priorities, and bond sales. Maryland for example, created a nearly 9 billion dollar subsidy/incentive package for Amazon. Baltimore, in Maryland, has two spectacular stadiums at the gateway to the city. But the rest of the city is a mess, with the highest murder rate of any large city in the country, on a par with Ciudad Juarez, a cartel war zone in a semi-failed state.

Who really knows for sure what the net economic benefit will be? I suspect it's a lot like sports stadiums. Realize that the economy is a competition for resources and Amazon is a very successful competitor. And that politicians are not spending their own money, only trying to make their constituents think they are making those constituents' lives better.

Ultimately I think it's like a blood transfusion to yourself - diverting resources away from other priorities and taking on debt to pay for the shiny now. Ultimately, the source of wealth is creating things that people value. Does Amazon create value? I guess so. But they are also very good at retaining that value for themselves. Think of the WalMart effect. Or Facebook lights-out datacenters. These competitors are much better at retaining value they generate than any politician, whose primary skills like in raising money and getting votes. And they're also quite good at sloughing off costs on others, like the environmental polluters of yore. But this is "financial pollution" - company keeps the profits and socializes the losses, like WalMart and foodstamps. Or most famously, Wall Street after the financial crisis and bailouts.

Don't get me wrong, technology increases the productivity of people, which leads to the "Consolidation of the production of value." It's been going on since before the Industrial Revolution, but it leaps forward with the various technological revolutions. But just because a company is big doesn't mean that landing in your area is going to bring a prosperity windfall, and should get vast subsidies in anticipation of such.

Put yourself in a politician's shoes. You love the power. How do you keep it? You make your constituents lives better and make sure they know about it. But cut to the chase even further - really, you only need to make your constituents think you're making their lives better. If you are, it's secondary. The most important thing is making them think that. That's how you get the precious votes.

Cue a sports stadium or a megacorp like Amazon. Big headline jobs numbers, construction spending, infrastructure spending. But how do you pay for it? Taxes, redeploying money from other priorities, and bond sales. Maryland for example, created a nearly 9 billion dollar subsidy/incentive package for Amazon. Baltimore, in Maryland, has two spectacular stadiums at the gateway to the city. But the rest of the city is a mess, with the highest murder rate of any large city in the country, on a par with Ciudad Juarez, a cartel war zone in a semi-failed state.

Who really knows for sure what the net economic benefit will be? I suspect it's a lot like sports stadiums. Realize that the economy is a competition for resources and Amazon is a very successful competitor. And that politicians are not spending their own money, only trying to make their constituents think they are making those constituents' lives better.

Ultimately I think it's like a blood transfusion to yourself - diverting resources away from other priorities and taking on debt to pay for the shiny now. Ultimately, the source of wealth is creating things that people value. Does Amazon create value? I guess so. But they are also very good at retaining that value for themselves. Think of the WalMart effect. Or Facebook lights-out datacenters. These competitors are much better at retaining value they generate than any politician, whose primary skills like in raising money and getting votes. And they're also quite good at sloughing off costs on others, like the environmental polluters of yore. But this is "financial pollution" - company keeps the profits and socializes the losses, like WalMart and foodstamps. Or most famously, Wall Street after the financial crisis and bailouts.

Don't get me wrong, technology increases the productivity of people, which leads to the "Consolidation of the production of value." It's been going on since before the Industrial Revolution, but it leaps forward with the various technological revolutions. But just because a company is big doesn't mean that landing in your area is going to bring a prosperity windfall, and should get vast subsidies in anticipation of such.

Put yourself in a politician's shoes. You love the power. How do you keep it? You make your constituents lives better and make sure they know about it. But cut to the chase even further - really, you only need to make your constituents think you're making their lives better. If you are, it's secondary. The most important thing is making them think that. That's how you get the precious votes.

Cue a sports stadium or a megacorp like Amazon. Big headline jobs numbers, construction spending, infrastructure spending. But how do you pay for it? Taxes, redeploying money from other priorities, and bond sales. Maryland for example, created a nearly 9 billion dollar subsidy/incentive package for Amazon. Baltimore, in Maryland, has two spectacular stadiums at the gateway to the city. But the rest of the city is a mess, with the highest murder rate of any large city in the country, on a par with Ciudad Juarez, a cartel war zone in a semi-failed state.

Who really knows for sure what the net economic benefit will be? I suspect it's a lot like sports stadiums. Realize that the economy is a competition for resources and Amazon is a very successful competitor. And that politicians are not spending their own money, only trying to make their constituents think they are making those constituents' lives better.

Ultimately I think it's like a blood transfusion to yourself - diverting resources away from other priorities and taking on debt to pay for the shiny now. Ultimately, the source of wealth is creating things that people value. Does Amazon create value? I guess so. But they are also very good at retaining that value for themselves. Think of the WalMart effect. Or Facebook lights-out datacenters. These competitors are much better at retaining value they generate than any politician, whose primary skills like in raising money and getting votes. And they're also quite good at sloughing off costs on others, like the environmental polluters of yore. But this is "financial pollution" - company keeps the profits and socializes the losses, like WalMart and foodstamps. Or most famously, Wall Street after the financial crisis and bailouts.

Don't get me wrong, technology increases the productivity of people, which leads to the "Consolidation of the production of value." It's been going on since before the Industrial Revolution, but it leaps forward with the various technological revolutions. But just because a company is big doesn't mean that landing in your area is going to bring a prosperity windfall, and should get vast subsidies in anticipation of such.

Put yourself in a politician's shoes. You love the power. How do you keep it? You make your constituents lives better and make sure they know about it. But cut to the chase even further - really, you only need to make your constituents think you're making their lives better. If you are, it's secondary. The most important thing is making them think that. That's how you get the precious votes.

Cue a sports stadium or a megacorp like Amazon. Big headline jobs numbers, construction spending, infrastructure spending. But how do you pay for it? Taxes, redeploying money from other priorities, and bond sales. Maryland for example, created a nearly 9 billion dollar subsidy/incentive package for Amazon. Baltimore, in Maryland, has two spectacular stadiums at the gateway to the city. But the rest of the city is a mess, with the highest murder rate of any large city in the country, on a par with Ciudad Juarez, a cartel war zone in a semi-failed state.

Who really knows for sure what the net economic benefit will be? I suspect it's a lot like sports stadiums. Realize that the economy is a competition for resources and Amazon is a very successful competitor. And that politicians are not spending their own money, only trying to make their constituents think they are making those constituents' lives better.

Ultimately I think it's like a blood transfusion to yourself - diverting resources away from other priorities and taking on debt to pay for the shiny now. Ultimately, the source of wealth is creating things that people value. Does Amazon create value? I guess so. But they are also very good at retaining that value for themselves. Think of the WalMart effect. Or Facebook lights-out datacenters. These competitors are much better at retaining value they generate than any politician, whose primary skills like in raising money and getting votes. And they're also quite good at sloughing off costs on others, like the environmental polluters of yore. But this is "financial pollution" - company keeps the profits and socializes the losses, like WalMart and foodstamps. Or most famously, Wall Street after the financial crisis and bailouts.

Don't get me wrong, technology increases the productivity of people, which leads to the "Consolidation of the production of value." It's been going on since before the Industrial Revolution, but it leaps forward with the various technological revolutions. But just because a company is big doesn't mean that landing in your area is going to bring a prosperity windfall, and should get vast subsidies in anticipation of such.

One of the best guides I ever read was the Prima one for Uru: Ages Beyond Myst. Since Uru was a meta, alternative reality game taking place in the real world -- in which the original Myst games were put out by Cyna to help spread the word about the "real" D'ni civilization discovered underground in New Mexico -- the Prima guide was written as a completely first person account, leading others through the journey that the writer (a "former games guide writer") had taken.

It was really rather imaginative and very well done... And remember, this was 2003, before some of these other meta-tricks became more common place. RIP Prima :/
https://www.amazon.com/URU-Beyond-Primas-Official-Strategy/dp/0761544704/

Thing is, there is a community called Helltown about 2 miles north west of Paradise. Going there would have been a bad idea as that is burning now. Best bet would have been to go west to Chico, or south to Orville (actually scratch that, stay away from Orville for other reasons, lookup Orville Dam evacuation).

Google Maps

right wing media bias. Step out of your media bubble. The hard right have bought up so much (re:Sinclair media) that it's tough to get away from them.

I'm not saying excessive Political Correctness and over eager SJWs and hucksters like Anita Sarkeesian aren't a problem (they're fanning flames to make quick cash). But I _am_ saying that a safe work environment is a good thing and that sexual harassment is a real problem. Men can be predatory. Not always, not even in a majority of the time. But that doesn't mean we don't need protections in place. You put locks on your doors, right?

Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

"Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

Adam Schiff (gosh s

Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

"Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

Adam Schiff (gosh s

Khazar Talmudic Jews believe this of all they call goyim/gentiles (any non-jew): Jews = biggest racists of all (for which they "jew guilt" you for no less! They're hypocrites known as thieves all thru history or were Argentines in the 1940 under Peron, Spanish inquistion, France (1306), Egypt (despoiled/robbed by jews), Arabs (pre & post 1948), England (1330 Edward longshanks), Romans under titus, Russia pogroms and Germany who got rid of them from their nations nazi german's too? No. Driven into DESERTS ages ago! Don't wonder why after all those exilings above.

Should anyone doubt any of this see Jacob Javits' crony Rosenthal spill the beans on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4zMVZ8HnFI/ where he called all Christianity fools for helping Israel and the biggest scam of all time per their beliefs below from their Talmud.

This is the province of the synagogue of Satan (Pharisees whom Jesus Christ himself kicked to the curb out of the temple & they killed him for it. Jeremiah did the same to them also + the Essenes could not stand them either breaking away from the pharisee corruption):

Mark Zuckerberg stole the Winklevoss twins' code for Fakebook (figures as he is a thieving low jew too).

Maria Abramovic satanist spirit cooker pal of Hillary Clinton the Voodoo queen is a jew https://www.google.com/search?...

Like Hillary Clinton's mentor Saul Alinsky author of rules for radicals book dedicated to Lucifer

"Most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer Â- so I wasnÂ't lying Â- and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much aliveÂ" Harold Rosenthal http://www.thetruthseeker.co.u...

Jewish rabbi openly admits to satan worship use white children's blood they kill for passover bread, infiltrating and subverting the catholic church, creating the Jesuit order https://www.youtube.com/watch?... and https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Barbara Spectre, a jew, tells everyone it's jews orchestrating the muslim migrant problem in Europe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFE0qAiofMQ/ . No migrant raping of women in Poland. Tons in Sweden. Do the math. Use common-sense. This is to get muslims and other goyim/gentiles to wipe one another out as incompatible cultures that will clash and always have.

Rabbi A. Finkelstein ADMITS their greatest enemies are ARABS and WHITES (blacks too) whom they wish to kill one another in a 'theater of war' which they find AMUSING https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Finkelstein also admits JEWS DID 9/11 (perpetrated by the Mossad & Bebe Netanyahu of ISRAEL) https://www.youtube.com/watch?... profiting by it (and that 3,000 jews employed there did not show up for work that day knowing about it beforehand).

Finkelstein also admits JEWS are going to destroy the U.S. Dollar and dumping it for other world currencies and gold to destroy the United States.

George Soros who funds groups to create division in the USA?? A jew. One who sold his own jew people into death for the nazis.

Zucker now FIRED @ CNN is another frying publicly for lying about "russians" and John Bonifield a producer @ CNN said it is bs. Van Jones did also.

Bernie Madoff (who made off with everyone's money, especially construction union pensions) shows the thieving nature of the JUDEN!

Eric Schmidt had to step down @ JEWgle (a jew).

Adam Schiff (gosh s

iirc 5x was fixed - 6p problem showed up much later (mine developed a problems after 13 and 6 months of use), and was never fixed
see https://issuetracker.google.co...

Every time ghost cities are brought up, the poster can never give locations.
Now you claim China has 1000 large ghost cities.
Surely you can list off say 10 out of 1000 so we can verify through satellite imagery of few cars on the streets?

TFTFY.

LAHSA also found, but did not publish, that the percentage of homeless people who were housed in Los Angeles County when they became homeless increased to 84 percent

You can find plenty more to disprove that myth on google.

That's the problem with reality, it doesn't work the way people think.

That's not how this works. that's not how any of this works

If everyone has enough money to buy food, housing, transportation that wouldn't make your wealth any less valuable.

OTOH it would diminish your power. For example, when you show up at a strip club with a wad of $20 dollar bills those girls aren't glomping on to you for your good looks for winning personality. Give those girls UBI and a lot of them wouldn't bother becoming strippers; and they'd never give you the time of day.

we should deport them?

When you add "while I was at the farm", google translates correctly to french.

EN: While I was at the farm, I put the pig in the pen.

FR: Pendant que j'étais à la ferme, j'ai mis le cochon dans un enclos.

I actually think it's logical for the AI to only translate like this with the extra context. I mean, are you sure nobody puts pigs in writing tools?

I usually laugh when Americans use grams to tell me how much fat is in (eg.) a 12oz steak.

https://www.google.com/search?...

>"I was responding to the above comment about using what tools we have available. Not saying that we do not need intervention to stop the robocalls. "

Sorry, wasn't jumping on you, in particular. But many have suggested that just having it not ring (and going to voicemail) results in a solution and I was trying to point out to those reading that it might help, but leaves a lot to be desired. As you can tell, I am pretty passionate about the issue :)

On my phone, I am using https://play.google.com/store/... "calls blacklist" with some success. I really wish I could have it challenge unknown callers and then deny even voicemail if they failed to prove they are not spammers (with some simple questions). Alas, Android won't "allow" that (thanks, Google).

read the defintion before you answer:
https://www.google.com/search?...
gain or acquire knowledge of or skill in (something) by study, experience, or being taught.
"they'd started learning French"

A system that 'only' categorizes , sorts, and manipulates data , does not actually relate to it as representational of the real world, in other words it
still has no 'knowledge' of the objects. They don't ACTUALLY learn they are trained. They no more learn any topic the a parrot learns to talk.

Not to say they aren't extremely useful tools, but to be useful you must keep in mind what a tool is and isn't.

we've been cutting State & Federal funding to colleges since the 90s. See here

If you want nice things you've got to pay for them. Well, unless you're rich. Then you just get the taxpayer to pay for it.

It does not matter if it uses more energy. It matters if the cost is worthwhile. Look at e.g. aluminium. That uses a shitload of electricity to to turn Bauxite into aluminium. Yet people still make money of it.

It is worth pointing out that aluminum is eminently recyclable, too. In fact, it takes only 5% as much energy to recycle existing aluminum than to refine new aluminum from ore. Because of this, most of the aluminum produced in the history of humanity is still in use. One could think of that energy as a one-time cost, unlike cryptocurrencies, where there is no end in sight.

Most of the energy cost of refining aluminum comes from the fact that aluminum, unlike gold, is bound up in various oxides. To break the oxides and purify aluminum metal requires massive amounts of electricity - it's a lot like a battery in reverse. Until we had access to large amounts of electricity, the alternative means of purifying aluminum were so costly and time consuming that aluminum was treated like a precious metal. Napoleon III had aluminum tableware to flaunt his wealth and power (which is just laughable today, especially when you consider how soft pure aluminum is). The tip of the Washington Monument in D.C. is aluminum. At the time (1884), it was the largest chunk of aluminum in existence.