Everyone here is all about "Net Neutrality," because they are against monopolies, yet pile on something like Uber which is an alternative to the licensed taxi monopoly.
Good lord, there's a lot wrong with this sentence:
Net Neutrality is a solution to a problem that is exacerbated by telecom monopolies. It is not a problem that even purports to prevent monopolies.
Taxis are not monopolies. They are however highly regulated.
The appropriate analog would actually be that people like Taxi services over Uber for the same reason they like Net Neutrality: A small oligarhical set of providers held in check by governmental regulations.
f Uber is a crappy, dangerous way to get a ride, that reputation is going to spread and the company is going to fail. If it's as safe as a regular taxi and provides benefits that people would not find with normal taxi service, it'll prosper.
An in between, if it is dangerous, people will die. There's a reason we invented regulations. It wasn't for shits and giggles. It was because we, as a society, and Korea, as a society, decided that waiting for a sufficient number of people to die to start a class action suit to gain attention for the problem and punish Uber was an inferior solution to just making up some rules designed to prevent that and forcing people to live by them. This isn't Uber using speech to try to change the law. This is Uber trying to undercut the will of the democratically elected government.
what is the practical difference from me asking a person if they will give me a ride for gas money and an extra $20 for their time, even if I don't use an app?
Scale of the operation. Ability to prevent it. Anonymity of the transaction. False perception of safety.
Look, no one cares about a one off like that. Certainly no one cares about friends sharing rides for gas money. Or people carpooling (hell, the government sponsors carpooling matchmaking). But Uber is doing it a ton. And it's pushing a lot of externalities on the system, so they can make a buck.
If Uber sees that people don't have confidence in the trustworthiness of their drivers, then they are going to have to respond to that, or lose business.
Over what timeframe, at what cost? A system that corrects itself after a decade of bad acting isn't a system that we allow.
If you say it is "X", FedEx has to treat it like "X". It you say it is not X, you (the liar) will bear the liability. So FedEx doesn't care. If you say it is "X" when it is "not X", why would FedEx risk it?
. Do not do anything on the internet you would not do in your front lawn.
There's lots of stuff I feel fine doing on my front lawn, but not on the internet. Well... felt fine. Fucking invasive Google cars show up at the most inopportune times.
Well, why not? I mean, if you are making an empirical observation, sure I agree with you. But if you are claiming there is no reason to aim for more fairness, I wholeheartedly disagree.
You're making a case that you with you got paid more money, but not any kind of case that that would be more fair.
But fundamentally, we can all agree that morals exist. And fairness seems to be a natural outgrowth of said morals.
But demanding people spend billions of dollars to try to "fix" the whole climate situation? That just seems like a REALLY tall order...
Well, you made a large jump: that it's not worth spending billions of dollars even if there is no problem. There are people who suggest just that as an economic stimulus. But heck, people certainly disagree about economics.
I've read enough compelling information from both sides of the argument to feel like the "best stance" to take is one of questioning everything
Which is kinda meaningless. You're trying to say you're a skeptic. But anyone can say "I need more info to make a decision" The question is, what decision do you make today.
If you really question everything, if you really are undecided, a few billion at the government level to prevent an ELE seems like a no brainer.
I should have no reasonable expectation that a farmer (Nye wrote "regular software writers and farmers") would have expertise in astrophysics for example.
Farming is hard and pretty science driven. I mean, not for the person who owns a small farm that doesn't earn enough to pay the bills. But for someone who's making a living off of it, they have to know a lot about weather, seed types, interactions with a whole range of chemicals (fertilizers, pesticides, etc.). In general, a farmer is going to be more impacted than most by climate change, and should have enough of a background to be able to understand it (in the high points).
Re:Brought to you by the same government
on
Fedcoin Rising?
·
· Score: 1
I have no sympathy for idiots who think bank tellers are able to give tax advice. But certainly, if they do, their recourse should be against the bank if they trained the teller to answer like that.
Do I think they should get screwed... no. But am I concerned that they have to prove where the money came from if they are obviously trying to skirt the regulations? Not really. I like the idea of a law that says "don't go out of your way to avoid these reporting regulations."
Hide it? They're advertising voice controls now... at least some of them. And they all will soon.
Re:Government sanctioned monopolies don't want com
on
Fedcoin Rising?
·
· Score: 1
They certainly would love to shut down bitcoin like they do with other competing currencies
Dude, there are tons of competing currencies. You just cannot call them things like a "dollar" or a "quarter". You can also make a soda. You just cannot call it a "Coke" or a "Sprite".
Re:Brought to you by the same government
on
Fedcoin Rising?
·
· Score: 1
If someone tells me, if I make deposits worth more than 10,000, I will be taxed a second time, I for sure will stop making deposits above 10,000.
Then you are an idiot. Because that person is wrong. 10,000 just means it gets reported to the IRS. And if the money was in paychecks or whatever, it already is, and they cross-reference.
However, it is illegal to try to skirt the 10,000 reporting limit (by making many 9,999.99 deposits, for example). That's prima facia evidence you are trying to avoid reporting... and therefore the funds are likely untaxed. Therefore, taking the advice of someone making minimum wage... the legal advice of a non-attorney and the tax advice of a non-CPA, will cost you a lot.
IANAL and IANACPA, so you probably want to double check a random person on the internet before making tens of thousands of dollars decisions.
If machine learning is such a great thing, why is Microsoft giving it away?
Because Google, esp. with their investments in DeepMind, are investing in Machine Learning. Giving away what Google's been investing in is a great way to try to encourage lots of start ups to compete with Google's 20% projects.
These startups will be relying on Microsofts services, not Googles. Which has at least some benefit.
Besides, they have had a few huge machine learning projects (Dozens of PhDs... they've invested far far more than that, and built giant stacks of hardware optimized for machine learning) that they may as well leverage somehow.
Did anyone ever use average to mean "mode"? I really truly doubt it.
I think that's probably one of the more common uses of average in a non-technical use. The "average" person, meaning typical, is the most likely person you will meet.
The average family has 2.4 kids is one of those funny statements that sounds wrong, mostly because people are not expecting the mean, but instead the typical value.
maybe because they're privately held but they don't do stupid moves just to squeeze a tiny bit more cash out of consumers.
They don't make stupid moves that make $5 off of you today. Instead, they want to keep you a happy paying customer, and make $0.25 a month off of you in perpetuity.*
*Actual timeframe and dollar amounts used are illustrative only, and likely have no relationship to the real numbers. Except the perpetuity one, actually.
It's quarter-itis, where everything needs to happen now.
Those billions of dollars of American property having been stolen blatantly from Cuba in the first place with the help of a corrupt crony dictatorship
WTF? America won Cuba in a war with Spain. They then offered Cuba their Independence. Obviously, there was a lot of private American ownership of Cuban resources, from the fact that it was an American territory.
Stack and heap are different because of the use case. A stack has a much simpler memory manager. So you want to use a sstack whenever you can.
Now, if there's a language that lets you think as little as you have to when using the heap and get the performance of using the stack, please do let me know which.
In theory, at least, the market response to easily stolen cars puts pressure on the carmaker to improve security.
I was under the impression that most people purcahsed cars every 3-5 years. So I'm not sure why you think that market pressures will force them to fix the problem on existing models. On future models, sure...
It seems to be a fairly well established principle that "without the user's knowledge" means "without the user's knowledge", not "if they user had tried harder, they could have found out."
None of Snowden's revelations seemed new to people who cared about privacy already. (Maybe I missed something?) But most people didn't care til they were spoonfed it.
I'm not expecting you to do anything, individually. I do expect society to take care of people who are sick. I expect insurers to live up to their obligations as well.
I have, quite literally, no idea why you oppose that. You seem upset. I'm not sure why. Why is helping sick people such anathema to you?
Slashdot Mirror
Good lord, there's a lot wrong with this sentence:
An in between, if it is dangerous, people will die. There's a reason we invented regulations. It wasn't for shits and giggles. It was because we, as a society, and Korea, as a society, decided that waiting for a sufficient number of people to die to start a class action suit to gain attention for the problem and punish Uber was an inferior solution to just making up some rules designed to prevent that and forcing people to live by them. This isn't Uber using speech to try to change the law. This is Uber trying to undercut the will of the democratically elected government.
Scale of the operation. Ability to prevent it. Anonymity of the transaction. False perception of safety.
Look, no one cares about a one off like that. Certainly no one cares about friends sharing rides for gas money. Or people carpooling (hell, the government sponsors carpooling matchmaking). But Uber is doing it a ton. And it's pushing a lot of externalities on the system, so they can make a buck.
Over what timeframe, at what cost? A system that corrects itself after a decade of bad acting isn't a system that we allow.
Well, I didn't want HTML5, because I didn't see any benefit (to me). Instead, it was obviously about ads and SaaS.
If you say it is "X", FedEx has to treat it like "X". It you say it is not X, you (the liar) will bear the liability. So FedEx doesn't care. If you say it is "X" when it is "not X", why would FedEx risk it?
But why go towards eliminating lifelong earnings for artists, as opposed to extending it to programmers?
Well, less than 20% of the prison population is in jail for all drug crimes. So... probably not.
There's lots of stuff I feel fine doing on my front lawn, but not on the internet. Well... felt fine. Fucking invasive Google cars show up at the most inopportune times.
True of most people for most rules. After all, it isn't the fact that murder is illegal that stops most people; it's the fact that it's repugnant.
Well, why not? I mean, if you are making an empirical observation, sure I agree with you. But if you are claiming there is no reason to aim for more fairness, I wholeheartedly disagree.
You're making a case that you with you got paid more money, but not any kind of case that that would be more fair.
But fundamentally, we can all agree that morals exist. And fairness seems to be a natural outgrowth of said morals.
Well, you made a large jump: that it's not worth spending billions of dollars even if there is no problem. There are people who suggest just that as an economic stimulus. But heck, people certainly disagree about economics.
Which is kinda meaningless. You're trying to say you're a skeptic. But anyone can say "I need more info to make a decision" The question is, what decision do you make today.
If you really question everything, if you really are undecided, a few billion at the government level to prevent an ELE seems like a no brainer.
Farming is hard and pretty science driven. I mean, not for the person who owns a small farm that doesn't earn enough to pay the bills. But for someone who's making a living off of it, they have to know a lot about weather, seed types, interactions with a whole range of chemicals (fertilizers, pesticides, etc.). In general, a farmer is going to be more impacted than most by climate change, and should have enough of a background to be able to understand it (in the high points).
I have no sympathy for idiots who think bank tellers are able to give tax advice. But certainly, if they do, their recourse should be against the bank if they trained the teller to answer like that.
Do I think they should get screwed... no. But am I concerned that they have to prove where the money came from if they are obviously trying to skirt the regulations? Not really. I like the idea of a law that says "don't go out of your way to avoid these reporting regulations."
Hide it? They're advertising voice controls now... at least some of them. And they all will soon.
Dude, there are tons of competing currencies. You just cannot call them things like a "dollar" or a "quarter". You can also make a soda. You just cannot call it a "Coke" or a "Sprite".
Then you are an idiot. Because that person is wrong. 10,000 just means it gets reported to the IRS. And if the money was in paychecks or whatever, it already is, and they cross-reference.
However, it is illegal to try to skirt the 10,000 reporting limit (by making many 9,999.99 deposits, for example). That's prima facia evidence you are trying to avoid reporting... and therefore the funds are likely untaxed. Therefore, taking the advice of someone making minimum wage... the legal advice of a non-attorney and the tax advice of a non-CPA, will cost you a lot.
IANAL and IANACPA, so you probably want to double check a random person on the internet before making tens of thousands of dollars decisions.
Because Google, esp. with their investments in DeepMind, are investing in Machine Learning. Giving away what Google's been investing in is a great way to try to encourage lots of start ups to compete with Google's 20% projects.
These startups will be relying on Microsofts services, not Googles. Which has at least some benefit.
Besides, they have had a few huge machine learning projects (Dozens of PhDs... they've invested far far more than that, and built giant stacks of hardware optimized for machine learning) that they may as well leverage somehow.
I think that's probably one of the more common uses of average in a non-technical use. The "average" person, meaning typical, is the most likely person you will meet.
The average family has 2.4 kids is one of those funny statements that sounds wrong, mostly because people are not expecting the mean, but instead the typical value.
They don't make stupid moves that make $5 off of you today. Instead, they want to keep you a happy paying customer, and make $0.25 a month off of you in perpetuity.*
*Actual timeframe and dollar amounts used are illustrative only, and likely have no relationship to the real numbers. Except the perpetuity one, actually.
It's quarter-itis, where everything needs to happen now.
WTF? America won Cuba in a war with Spain. They then offered Cuba their Independence. Obviously, there was a lot of private American ownership of Cuban resources, from the fact that it was an American territory.
Processors aren't likely to be any faster. Your single-threaded code or race conditions when run on 8096 cores are likely to be the major bottlenecks.
Stack and heap are different because of the use case. A stack has a much simpler memory manager. So you want to use a sstack whenever you can.
Now, if there's a language that lets you think as little as you have to when using the heap and get the performance of using the stack, please do let me know which.
The integral of e^x^2 from -inf to +inf happens to just as solvable as e^-x^2. Kinda trivially obvious.
Although I could've sworn it's unbounded... need to think about it.
Pretty sure the "brake by wire"is a reference to the Prius's problems.
I was under the impression that most people purcahsed cars every 3-5 years. So I'm not sure why you think that market pressures will force them to fix the problem on existing models. On future models, sure...
It seems to be a fairly well established principle that "without the user's knowledge" means "without the user's knowledge", not "if they user had tried harder, they could have found out."
None of Snowden's revelations seemed new to people who cared about privacy already. (Maybe I missed something?) But most people didn't care til they were spoonfed it.
I'm not expecting you to do anything, individually. I do expect society to take care of people who are sick. I expect insurers to live up to their obligations as well.
I have, quite literally, no idea why you oppose that. You seem upset. I'm not sure why. Why is helping sick people such anathema to you?