These guys make sales through consumers, not the state. It's in their market interest to ensure no one thinks
No one thinks - the most important phrase you used.
What people think, is not highly correlated with reality. So let people think that Google / Facebook etc. are independent of the government, reveal data to governments only grudgingly . But in the background - do all to earn money / favours / monopolies from governments and their agents.
1. Everyone did not die 2. Does it prove that "knockout gas", if used, will cause "everyone to die", whatever it means, in every hostage situation ever ?
If a library's code is not available , dynamic linking is the only way to use that library right ? What are your plans about that ?
It is a similar problem with Linux's lack of a stable ABI : drivers need to create a "open-source" adapter to interact with their binary blob of a driver. For crystal, providers of "closed source" libraries would have to give a crystal adapter for their actual closed source binary blob : which they would write in, say C or C++.
With modern hardware designs, the only way to guarantee making the most of available CPU and other hardware resources is to drop to assembly level or the equivalent
Yes, this is largely the situation at the client side. On server side, don't you agree with the modern software+hardware design, the successful way to ensure best performance is to ensure parallelism ? Coding for parallelism is difficult - so all the help we can get from higher and higher level languages is welcome. Even if it comes at a performance penalty - because doubling the hardware is far cheaper than getting the same hardware twice as fast.
1. A hostage situation can possibly pose no risks at all except knockout gases ?
2. If a huge majority of the arguments against the Russian knockout gas incident are the subsequent mishandling of the project - we don't have much of a conviction here that the knockout gas itself was the problem.
s/conditions that are required for this Russian operation to be called "colossal fuck up". / conditions that required to prove that this Russian operation proves much about knockout gases in hostage situations in general /
Ok, you might be too ashamed of your own logic in using the word Ivan. Let me make you more ashamed of your logic.
It's pretty simple, if you're going to knock people out make fucking sure you tell the medical people how to maximise the chance of them waking up again
Do you remember the context in which this topic was brought in this thread? Someone proposed chemical means to calm down these kids in Thailand - I would say maybe not a great idea. Then someone said this is a bad idea in hostage situations - I am not sure about all hostage situations. Then you linked to this single situation in Russia - I quote "proving your point".
No relevant point is proven by it. The "knockout gas" could have been (partially) effective for the people who used / authorized it. You would be able to decide only if you know their goals. Example goals, with various levels of success, but there could be many more possible goals than are listed here : 1. To show the world that Russians are awesome in "knockout gases". Success if the goal was this can be estimated only by the managers of secret chemical agent stashes of various countries / organizations, and their chemical attack defense planners. Are any of them afraid of Russia as a result of this chemical attack in Russia ? I am not sure. If you are sure, you have so far provided no evidence.
2. To ensure all "terrorists" are killed irrespective of harm to Russian citizens, any Russian citizen surviving is merely a bonus not a hard requirement. If this was the goal, it was mindblowingly successful - though many other alternatives come to mind. This was the best solution only if the goal was this, in addition to some other goals that necessitate it.
Now, even if the goal was a relatively reasonable one as : to save as many citizens as possible while minimizing soldier casualties - you have provided no evidence for some conditions that are required for this Russian operation to be called "colossal fuck up". Note that the relative value used for soldier life vs an ordinary citizen life is still unknown. And being Russia, reasonable goals are unlikely. But still your logic fail shows through :
1. No evidence provided that there were better alternatives after a thorough military reconnaissance of the situation. Let alone thorough, you have provided no evidence of even a half-baked recce. If you were not in the inner circle of Russian military-police-intelligence clique at that time - it would be hard for anyone to believe you have significant knowledge on the subject to have any opinion at all.
Remember, a positive integer number of Russian citizens survived.
2. That releasing the gas itself was the problem instead of the secrecy , and other mishandling after releasing the gas. Since someone recommending release of gases in this Thai context, or some other hostage situation in general, may very well not be recommending to make the same other mistakes that were made by Russians after releasing the gas.
Since you are using most of the words in your post for decrying the Russian decisions after releasing the gas - let me remind you they are irrelevant.
It was basically the equivalent of settings fire to a building full of hostages and hostage takers, having the fire burn the hostage takers to death then walking off without putting the fire out and instead letting it burn the hostages to death too
How would hundreds of hostages survive in this "equivalent" setting ? If the fire is not big / hot / smoky enough, some hostage takers might survive too.
If you don't want to discuss the actual subject, accusing me of trolling would give you a nice excuse for your faults. You could feel smart about yourself without actually being smart.
Whereas I am actually going somewhere with my statements, that too on the actual subject. Let me know in my language, what Ivan means in yours. Then you might actually need to be smart.
Maybe my question meant something else in your English-isque language.
PS : In my language, there is a movie with a famous dialogue. There is a bad word in it, which is regretted, but otherwise it fits this situation nicely : English, Mo-Fo, do you speak it ?
But hundreds of hostages did not die, too. While many things are not known about the incident due to secrecy by Russians - the operation cannot be said to be an absolute failure.
Anyway, do you have a better plan ? How many hostages have you rescued in your life ?
Car driving needs a lot of infrastructure that will break down in most natural disasters - hurricanes, earthquakes, landslides. Most cars would run out of gas within hundreds of miles. Hurricanes might deposit debris , trees etc. on roads making it impossible to drive, or might take away roads where the cars could have driven.
The difference in the pitfalls of a UBI-like scheme are different than those of a scheme where one proves that life is unfair to them, that they have nothing, and are willing to show up and fill out form XYZ attesting to their nothing-havingness. It is actually less intrusive than welfare
Your UBI scheme had 2 aspects : 1. Everybody gets the UBI money : Both of us are saying this part is not intrusive. You just said it again in this post - which is fine.
2. "Poorer" people get less taxed to finance the UBI : I am saying this part is intrusive. You ignored the intrusiveness of this aspect completely in this post, and all your earlier ones in this thread.
You could have ignored it because you agree that it is intrusive - but are willing to accept it because it is the least bad situation. If so , you could be right. I see another equally least bad situation : I don't have enough data on which one is less bad, and a lot will depend on the culture of the country:
Public infrastructure , freely usable : when we have infinite free labour, there could be public places where one could go, live, eat, get healthcare, get lots of free clothes, some other goods and niceties. But no free money.
Other than your ignoring of IRS intrusiveness, we seem to be on the same page. Even the gradual UBI that you propose : given the Americans (US) have, and are resigned to an intrusive IRS - so much so that you ignored it completely yet again - their best bet is likely to let it remain intrusive and use it to finance a gradual UBI.
I know Americans (US) are proud of having IRS catch famous criminals for tax fraud : the criminals that the various security oriented TLAs could not catch. They are used to have an intrusive taxation regime that follows them to the ends of the world, that they don't even notice the intrusiveness.
But its "means tested" ness has fundamentally the same pitfalls as that of a means tested welfare regime : of having a government having too much power , information , control over the citizens.
If Bob likes movie "A" more than "B" and Susan likes "B" more than "C", then Condorcet would rank them like this: A > B > C
If you think movie quality is one dimensional, you have never understood any movie in your life.
deciding whether it's a 3- or 4-star movie while trying to be consistent with the way you've voted on other movies in the past. Too much effort!
If, for a long time, bad movies of a particular genre X were being made available - there might be many consistent watchers of that genre that would very likely rate a following mediocre movie highly. Since they are consistent watchers of the genre X - they are likely to have rated movies of genre Y with thumbs down. Now if a multi-genre viewer sees the rating created in such an environment - he would very likely see the mediocre movie as an extremely highly rated movie. Even though, from just a few months ago, there is another movie of the genre X that was better liked by most people. This wouldn't happen in 1-5 rating - there is no problem rating a movie as 3 after a series of 1 or 2 rated movies of the same genre. So the multi-genre viewer would easily find the earlier 4 or 5 rated movie.
Additionally, if you watch movies from various sources - you might not even remember which movie last you watched on Netflix. Even on Netflix, maybe you watched with a friend with his account and you influenced the rating decision in the ensuing discussion. While not knowing the details of the previous movie that was watched on that Netflix account. If the movie is rated after the ensuing discussion when the account owner is alone with the Netflix account to rate the movie - the finer points and details of the emotions that were experienced at the time might be lost resulting in a wrong rating.
If Netflix reminds you which movie you last watched and how you rated it - you might forget the details of which movie was watched *before* that one, why you rated such a stupid movie with thumbs up. Actually maybe the last-to-last movie you watched was even worse - but you don't remember the details.
At the lowest levels, you'd get to keep all the money from that little job you got for some spending cash....
But it wouldn't have the perverse incentives we see in means-tested income assistance
But at slightly higher levels, why would you tell Uncle Sam that you earned that much ? So again, Uncle Sam is in the business of making sure you earn exactly how much you say you earn. Which is just another name for means testing.
Another suggestion is to post from a public place instead of home while building your initial comment karma, such as a coffee shop.
With Android devices that never got the update to fix KRACK wifi vulnerability - VPN is typically the safest easy security measure , right ? One of my own phones has that problem - and I never thought I would be judged for using VPN.
Slashdot Mirror
These guys make sales through consumers, not the state. It's in their market interest to ensure no one thinks
No one thinks - the most important phrase you used.
What people think, is not highly correlated with reality. So let people think that Google / Facebook etc. are independent of the government, reveal data to governments only grudgingly . But in the background - do all to earn money / favours / monopolies from governments and their agents.
1. Everyone did not die
2. Does it prove that "knockout gas", if used, will cause "everyone to die", whatever it means, in every hostage situation ever ?
If a library's code is not available , dynamic linking is the only way to use that library right ? What are your plans about that ?
It is a similar problem with Linux's lack of a stable ABI : drivers need to create a "open-source" adapter to interact with their binary blob of a driver. For crystal, providers of "closed source" libraries would have to give a crystal adapter for their actual closed source binary blob : which they would write in, say C or C++.
With modern hardware designs, the only way to guarantee making the most of available CPU and other hardware resources is to drop to assembly level or the equivalent
Yes, this is largely the situation at the client side. On server side, don't you agree with the modern software+hardware design, the successful way to ensure best performance is to ensure parallelism ? Coding for parallelism is difficult - so all the help we can get from higher and higher level languages is welcome. Even if it comes at a performance penalty - because doubling the hardware is far cheaper than getting the same hardware twice as fast.
1. A hostage situation can possibly pose no risks at all except knockout gases ?
2. If a huge majority of the arguments against the Russian knockout gas incident are the subsequent mishandling of the project - we don't have much of a conviction here that the knockout gas itself was the problem.
Since you were genuinely curious, here you go. You are welcome.
PS : No Ivan explanation from you, so Ivan cannot be tied to the original story yet.
Even if he is talking about real, living humans, you may have eliminated 2 whole persons from the list. Felicitations for you are in order ?
s/conditions that are required for this Russian operation to be called "colossal fuck up". / conditions that required to prove that this Russian operation proves much about knockout gases in hostage situations in general /
Ok, you might be too ashamed of your own logic in using the word Ivan. Let me make you more ashamed of your logic.
It's pretty simple, if you're going to knock people out make fucking sure you tell the medical people how to maximise the chance of them waking up again
Do you remember the context in which this topic was brought in this thread? Someone proposed chemical means to calm down these kids in Thailand - I would say maybe not a great idea. Then someone said this is a bad idea in hostage situations - I am not sure about all hostage situations. Then you linked to this single situation in Russia - I quote "proving your point".
No relevant point is proven by it. The "knockout gas" could have been (partially) effective for the people who used / authorized it. You would be able to decide only if you know their goals. Example goals, with various levels of success, but there could be many more possible goals than are listed here :
1. To show the world that Russians are awesome in "knockout gases". Success if the goal was this can be estimated only by the managers of secret chemical agent stashes of various countries / organizations, and their chemical attack defense planners. Are any of them afraid of Russia as a result of this chemical attack in Russia ? I am not sure. If you are sure, you have so far provided no evidence.
2. To ensure all "terrorists" are killed irrespective of harm to Russian citizens, any Russian citizen surviving is merely a bonus not a hard requirement. If this was the goal, it was mindblowingly successful - though many other alternatives come to mind. This was the best solution only if the goal was this, in addition to some other goals that necessitate it.
Now, even if the goal was a relatively reasonable one as : to save as many citizens as possible while minimizing soldier casualties - you have provided no evidence for some conditions that are required for this Russian operation to be called "colossal fuck up". Note that the relative value used for soldier life vs an ordinary citizen life is still unknown. And being Russia, reasonable goals are unlikely. But still your logic fail shows through :
1. No evidence provided that there were better alternatives after a thorough military reconnaissance of the situation. Let alone thorough, you have provided no evidence of even a half-baked recce. If you were not in the inner circle of Russian military-police-intelligence clique at that time - it would be hard for anyone to believe you have significant knowledge on the subject to have any opinion at all.
Remember, a positive integer number of Russian citizens survived.
2. That releasing the gas itself was the problem instead of the secrecy , and other mishandling after releasing the gas. Since someone recommending release of gases in this Thai context, or some other hostage situation in general, may very well not be recommending to make the same other mistakes that were made by Russians after releasing the gas.
Since you are using most of the words in your post for decrying the Russian decisions after releasing the gas - let me remind you they are irrelevant.
It was basically the equivalent of settings fire to a building full of hostages and hostage takers, having the fire burn the hostage takers to death then walking off without putting the fire out and instead letting it burn the hostages to death too
How would hundreds of hostages survive in this "equivalent" setting ? If the fire is not big / hot / smoky enough, some hostage takers might survive too.
It helps, thanks. In general, idiots could use any word to mean anything.
But in the context of this thread - I would believe only the user of the word what they meant by it.
Any evidence ?
You do understand that words in a language work in context , right ? In the context
Sorry Ivan, I think you ...
, the way it was used here, what does it mean ?
1. If "a Russian", which Russian is being apologized to ?
2. If "Russians collectively" - why is it in a reply to one of my posts ?
Aren't you forgetting our good friend , "Ivan"? What / who is it/he/she ?
If you don't want to discuss the actual subject, accusing me of trolling would give you a nice excuse for your faults. You could feel smart about yourself without actually being smart.
Whereas I am actually going somewhere with my statements, that too on the actual subject. Let me know in my language, what Ivan means in yours. Then you might actually need to be smart.
Good luck.
No mention of Ivan at the link.
Nor do I find anything at
https://dictionary.cambridge.o...
Maybe my question meant something else in your English-isque language.
PS : In my language, there is a movie with a famous dialogue. There is a bad word in it, which is regretted, but otherwise it fits this situation nicely :
English, Mo-Fo, do you speak it ?
Which language are you using where Ivan means this ? A link to an online free dictionary would be nice.
If an online dictionary does not exist, I am afraid you are talking to yourself.
PS : hoping this means something resembling what I mean in your English-oid (English-ish ?) language .
Who is Ivan ?
But hundreds of hostages did not die, too. While many things are not known about the incident due to secrecy by Russians - the operation cannot be said to be an absolute failure.
Anyway, do you have a better plan ? How many hostages have you rescued in your life ?
Car driving needs a lot of infrastructure that will break down in most natural disasters - hurricanes, earthquakes, landslides. Most cars would run out of gas within hundreds of miles. Hurricanes might deposit debris , trees etc. on roads making it impossible to drive, or might take away roads where the cars could have driven.
Wow!
Write all your software in Rust and you'll never have another bug!"
That sounds like an invented claim.
Ok, maybe.
The problem then is that newbies who don't understand much about programming *think* they're safe because they're using tigers.
Right so we should neuter everything we use to build the major bits of infrastructure in the world because newbies?
This is definitely a an invented claim.
Maybe we are saying roughly the same thing.
The difference in the pitfalls of a UBI-like scheme are different than those of a scheme where one proves that life is unfair to them, that they have nothing, and are willing to show up and fill out form XYZ attesting to their nothing-havingness. It is actually less intrusive than welfare
Your UBI scheme had 2 aspects :
1. Everybody gets the UBI money : Both of us are saying this part is not intrusive. You just said it again in this post - which is fine.
2. "Poorer" people get less taxed to finance the UBI : I am saying this part is intrusive. You ignored the intrusiveness of this aspect completely in this post, and all your earlier ones in this thread.
You could have ignored it because you agree that it is intrusive - but are willing to accept it because it is the least bad situation. If so , you could be right. I see another equally least bad situation : I don't have enough data on which one is less bad, and a lot will depend on the culture of the country :
Other than your ignoring of IRS intrusiveness, we seem to be on the same page. Even the gradual UBI that you propose : given the Americans (US) have, and are resigned to an intrusive IRS - so much so that you ignored it completely yet again - their best bet is likely to let it remain intrusive and use it to finance a gradual UBI.
I know Americans (US) are proud of having IRS catch famous criminals for tax fraud : the criminals that the various security oriented TLAs could not catch. They are used to have an intrusive taxation regime that follows them to the ends of the world, that they don't even notice the intrusiveness.
But its "means tested" ness has fundamentally the same pitfalls as that of a means tested welfare regime : of having a government having too much power , information , control over the citizens.
If Bob likes movie "A" more than "B" and Susan likes "B" more than "C", then Condorcet would rank them like this: A > B > C
If you think movie quality is one dimensional, you have never understood any movie in your life.
deciding whether it's a 3- or 4-star movie while trying to be consistent with the way you've voted on other movies in the past. Too much effort!
If, for a long time, bad movies of a particular genre X were being made available - there might be many consistent watchers of that genre that would very likely rate a following mediocre movie highly. Since they are consistent watchers of the genre X - they are likely to have rated movies of genre Y with thumbs down. Now if a multi-genre viewer sees the rating created in such an environment - he would very likely see the mediocre movie as an extremely highly rated movie. Even though, from just a few months ago, there is another movie of the genre X that was better liked by most people. This wouldn't happen in 1-5 rating - there is no problem rating a movie as 3 after a series of 1 or 2 rated movies of the same genre. So the multi-genre viewer would easily find the earlier 4 or 5 rated movie.
Additionally, if you watch movies from various sources - you might not even remember which movie last you watched on Netflix. Even on Netflix, maybe you watched with a friend with his account and you influenced the rating decision in the ensuing discussion. While not knowing the details of the previous movie that was watched on that Netflix account. If the movie is rated after the ensuing discussion when the account owner is alone with the Netflix account to rate the movie - the finer points and details of the emotions that were experienced at the time might be lost resulting in a wrong rating.
If Netflix reminds you which movie you last watched and how you rated it - you might forget the details of which movie was watched *before* that one, why you rated such a stupid movie with thumbs up. Actually maybe the last-to-last movie you watched was even worse - but you don't remember the details.
At the lowest levels, you'd get to keep all the money from that little job you got for some spending cash. ...
But it wouldn't have the perverse incentives we see in means-tested income assistance
But at slightly higher levels, why would you tell Uncle Sam that you earned that much ? So again, Uncle Sam is in the business of making sure you earn exactly how much you say you earn. Which is just another name for means testing.
Another suggestion is to post from a public place instead of home while building your initial comment karma, such as a coffee shop.
With Android devices that never got the update to fix KRACK wifi vulnerability - VPN is typically the safest easy security measure , right ? One of my own phones has that problem - and I never thought I would be judged for using VPN.