Driving the push to automation is not a bug, it's a feature. It's always framed as if higher wages will get rid of jobs, instead of the reality, which is that low wages are holding back technological progress.
Now, the economics of how to transition away from human labor is a bit more complicated, although it mostly just means taxing the rich so they aren't eaten by the jobless peasants.
You end up with a close situation with an unhealthy power dynamic. It's not about "real men," it's about reality, and not creating perverse incentives.
No, he means that Nazis were trying to co-opt the name for their own means. They aren't "true socialists" in the same sense that North Korea is not a true "Democratic Republic."
Everyone in this thread should just fucking kill themselves, stop bitching about the left vs right aspect of brutal authoritarian regimes, and come to the realization that if you are a brutal authoritarian regime, you probably aren't anywhere close to any mainstream economic model.
But as things stand there is little reason to think that cryptocurrencies will remain more than an overcomplicated, untrustworthy casino.
So, it's it's only as useful as the US financial market?
They've made an improvement on paper for future vulnerabilities to what they should have done all along. That would seem to fut under the category of 'very little.'
It's not the left, it's the "centrists." This is a huge present to the authoritarian right, first to enable their victim complex, then to silence the actual left in the name of "fairness", then to be wielded by them without discretion.
Wisconsin and Michigan were won by Trump by less than 30,000 votes combined. I don't think influencing 30,000 people costs that much in the age of Facebook.
2. No, I specifically pointed out the only two kinds of voters that would matter. Votes that Trump gained and votes that Clinton lost. The ads were so shitty that the only people that reacted to it weren't on the fence, they couldn't even see the fence.
3. Sorry, my brain skipped over you posting states that didn't matter at all in a presidential election. Now you're citing that voter turnout was greater than the 2012 election, while ignoring that it was less than the 2008 election. You've got to have a few more data points to be meaningful, and an election without an incumbent is going to tend to be more similar. The differences
4.I didn't say that they weren't active. I'm saying that they are the same kind of threat that they've always been. The US intelligence agencies are themselves a bigger threat to the American people and the world at large. We're very active, we're far more sophisticated, and we're definitely more ham-handed.
1. No, you are the one making a strawman, because the thread of discussion was on whether or not they influenced the results in Wisconsin and Michigan.
2. I didn't say conservatives aren't that stupid. I said that nobody was [b]persuaded[/b] by those posts. The relevant persuasions would be non-voter to Trump and Clinton to non-voter. The people that responded and shared this were the most core Trump voters and only the most core Trump voters, so this didn't change anybody's mind.
3. Not sure what your point is. The data puts 2016 VEP turnout between the 2008 and 2012, and voter turnout in Wisconsin and Michigan was roughly the same. If you have a point, maybe try citing whatever data it is you think is relevant.
4. If the public is getting information from intel agencies, it's almost certainly propaganda. Now, in this case, Russians are probably actually trying to hack everything in these countries' politics. Russians are also trying to hack everything connected to the internet, and the Chinese and other major powers are doing the same. Probably a couple of minor powers too, as well as random crime organizations and independent hackers. The point is not whether or not Russian hackers exist and seek certain targets, but that the level of sophistication and frequency is not outside of what has been normal for the entire history of the internet. If the normal levels bother you, than you should be much more concerned about the US and plenty of other countries before Russia even gets a mention.
You are ignoring a few important factors. Code like Stuxnet is probably going to have lots of hints to the identity, but there is going to be considerably less data on low-level phishing, and greater chance of using off-the-shelf tools. That takes the ability to accurately ID from levels similar to someone posting in a very distinct style to an AC who posts "FROSTY PISS."
You are conflating influence through donation and lobbying with active hack attempts and criminal fraud to which more than 20 Russian operatives have been indicted.
It's obviously ridiculous, because donation and lobbying ARE MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE.
According to the examples given by WaPo, the only ads targeted as specifically as a state were in states that weren't even close, like Texas, Missouri, and New York. They weren't even effective posts, and the degree of targeting that public information seems to show is not granular enough to have been the hyperefficient campaign you morons keep babbling about.
Also, if you are arguing that the "armwrestling with Satan" post is something to be concerned about, you are too damn gullible to continue this conversation. It persuaded zero people.
Finally, you claimed that they got the R's to increase voter turnout, but there isn't a big increase for them.
Look, Trump should be shot into the sun, but the Russia angle is stupid scaremongering that is a combination of things that have always happened with rival powers, mountains made out of molehills, covering for the failure of the oligarchs to properly manufacture our consent, and inherent properties of the internet.
I'm rarely one to defend Microsoft what basis do you have to question Microsoft's findings? Microsoft's driver has always been money, so what's their angle in lying here?
They can get gubmint contracts by agreeing to blame things on the big bad scary Russians. It's not even likely that they are outright lying so much as not engaging in proper diligence and verification. Basically, MS would find a Russian IP or a Cyrillic character in a log, say "OMG TEH RUSSIANS," and call it a day.
It's not that expensive if you know exactly what you need, but there is no indication that they had better data than the campaigns, or even that they specifically targeted any important state. You're trying to claim precision shitposting, which while not impossible, is quite unlikely.
Except for the fact that speed tests are orthogonal to the concerns of Net Neutrality, and a single one is not going to be horribly representative. Also, said article ignores that there was a roughly equivalent rate of increase BEFORE Net Neutrality repeal was announced. You haven't demonstrated anything other than something roughly equivalent to Moore's law.
The difference isn't supposed to be competition, it's that we've removed conflicts of interest. Cooperatives/public utilities work very well for domains where you just throw labor at problems, and ISP infrastructure fits that bill.
How is it going to be more unsustainable to cut out useless middlemen? ISPs are basically the only companies that the public trusts less than the government, even the most unpopular parts of the government. It's like saying that we can't replace Kevorkian and Dahmer as babysitters.
Also, it seems like those numbers might be bullshit or in some way deceptive. Already, we are seeing sourced replies that the recent they aren't serving other areas is because AT&T and Comcast banned it.
I suspect that almost any system will result in greater diversity, simply due to the existing biases in hiring, which largely amount to who you know. The "AI" could just be a RNG that just picks candidates, and it'd still probably produce better candidates, more diverse candidates, and less cronyism/nepotism.
A singular term describing those traits is almost certainly going to be perjorative, because they aren't generally desirable traits. I'm not saying that you can't state facts that show trouble in that area, and you can put it briefly by saying it's economically distressed and has lower access to education and economic opportunity. Stating dark facts is not the problem, it's the connotations that 'backwater' has, which extend far beyond statistics and imply a blanket cultural judgment.
Also, those statistics are far from the worst you'll find in the Appalachians. There are people there for whom the standard of living for Spruce Pine would be an aspiration.
Slashdot Mirror
Driving the push to automation is not a bug, it's a feature. It's always framed as if higher wages will get rid of jobs, instead of the reality, which is that low wages are holding back technological progress.
Now, the economics of how to transition away from human labor is a bit more complicated, although it mostly just means taxing the rich so they aren't eaten by the jobless peasants.
You end up with a close situation with an unhealthy power dynamic. It's not about "real men," it's about reality, and not creating perverse incentives.
No, he means that Nazis were trying to co-opt the name for their own means. They aren't "true socialists" in the same sense that North Korea is not a true "Democratic Republic."
Everyone in this thread should just fucking kill themselves, stop bitching about the left vs right aspect of brutal authoritarian regimes, and come to the realization that if you are a brutal authoritarian regime, you probably aren't anywhere close to any mainstream economic model.
They've made an improvement on paper for future vulnerabilities to what they should have done all along. That would seem to fut under the category of 'very little.'
Obligatory Betteridge's Law Post.
And the lesson here is that you should build the world's SECOND largest telescope. Almost as good technically, and far fewer tourists.
It is, at least if what Google censored is similar to what Facebook censored, which has more integrity than a lot of legitimate US media.
It's not the left, it's the "centrists." This is a huge present to the authoritarian right, first to enable their victim complex, then to silence the actual left in the name of "fairness", then to be wielded by them without discretion.
1.Parent of my fist post
2. No, I specifically pointed out the only two kinds of voters that would matter. Votes that Trump gained and votes that Clinton lost. The ads were so shitty that the only people that reacted to it weren't on the fence, they couldn't even see the fence.
3. Sorry, my brain skipped over you posting states that didn't matter at all in a presidential election. Now you're citing that voter turnout was greater than the 2012 election, while ignoring that it was less than the 2008 election. You've got to have a few more data points to be meaningful, and an election without an incumbent is going to tend to be more similar. The differences
4.I didn't say that they weren't active. I'm saying that they are the same kind of threat that they've always been. The US intelligence agencies are themselves a bigger threat to the American people and the world at large. We're very active, we're far more sophisticated, and we're definitely more ham-handed.
1. No, you are the one making a strawman, because the thread of discussion was on whether or not they influenced the results in Wisconsin and Michigan.
2. I didn't say conservatives aren't that stupid. I said that nobody was [b]persuaded[/b] by those posts. The relevant persuasions would be non-voter to Trump and Clinton to non-voter. The people that responded and shared this were the most core Trump voters and only the most core Trump voters, so this didn't change anybody's mind.
3. Not sure what your point is. The data puts 2016 VEP turnout between the 2008 and 2012, and voter turnout in Wisconsin and Michigan was roughly the same. If you have a point, maybe try citing whatever data it is you think is relevant.
4. If the public is getting information from intel agencies, it's almost certainly propaganda. Now, in this case, Russians are probably actually trying to hack everything in these countries' politics. Russians are also trying to hack everything connected to the internet, and the Chinese and other major powers are doing the same. Probably a couple of minor powers too, as well as random crime organizations and independent hackers. The point is not whether or not Russian hackers exist and seek certain targets, but that the level of sophistication and frequency is not outside of what has been normal for the entire history of the internet. If the normal levels bother you, than you should be much more concerned about the US and plenty of other countries before Russia even gets a mention.
You are ignoring a few important factors. Code like Stuxnet is probably going to have lots of hints to the identity, but there is going to be considerably less data on low-level phishing, and greater chance of using off-the-shelf tools. That takes the ability to accurately ID from levels similar to someone posting in a very distinct style to an AC who posts "FROSTY PISS."
It's obviously ridiculous, because donation and lobbying ARE MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE.
According to the examples given by WaPo, the only ads targeted as specifically as a state were in states that weren't even close, like Texas, Missouri, and New York. They weren't even effective posts, and the degree of targeting that public information seems to show is not granular enough to have been the hyperefficient campaign you morons keep babbling about.
Also, if you are arguing that the "armwrestling with Satan" post is something to be concerned about, you are too damn gullible to continue this conversation. It persuaded zero people.
Finally, you claimed that they got the R's to increase voter turnout, but there isn't a big increase for them.
Look, Trump should be shot into the sun, but the Russia angle is stupid scaremongering that is a combination of things that have always happened with rival powers, mountains made out of molehills, covering for the failure of the oligarchs to properly manufacture our consent, and inherent properties of the internet.
They can get gubmint contracts by agreeing to blame things on the big bad scary Russians. It's not even likely that they are outright lying so much as not engaging in proper diligence and verification. Basically, MS would find a Russian IP or a Cyrillic character in a log, say "OMG TEH RUSSIANS," and call it a day.
It's not that expensive if you know exactly what you need, but there is no indication that they had better data than the campaigns, or even that they specifically targeted any important state. You're trying to claim precision shitposting, which while not impossible, is quite unlikely.
Except for the fact that speed tests are orthogonal to the concerns of Net Neutrality, and a single one is not going to be horribly representative. Also, said article ignores that there was a roughly equivalent rate of increase BEFORE Net Neutrality repeal was announced. You haven't demonstrated anything other than something roughly equivalent to Moore's law.
It's also not at all uncommon for the media to just parrot whatever the government says uncritically. that's how we ended up in Iraq.
There are only so many common colors, and 'red' would also have implications for China.
The difference isn't supposed to be competition, it's that we've removed conflicts of interest. Cooperatives/public utilities work very well for domains where you just throw labor at problems, and ISP infrastructure fits that bill.
How is it going to be more unsustainable to cut out useless middlemen? ISPs are basically the only companies that the public trusts less than the government, even the most unpopular parts of the government. It's like saying that we can't replace Kevorkian and Dahmer as babysitters.
Also, it seems like those numbers might be bullshit or in some way deceptive. Already, we are seeing sourced replies that the recent they aren't serving other areas is because AT&T and Comcast banned it.
Comcast sucks. Film at eleven.
To be fair, a few slashdotters with a month of time and existing FOSS tech could probably create a more secure car than the industry as a whole.
Between animation and CGI, they still need a lot of render farms, and render farms have been Linux-dominated for a long time.
I suspect that almost any system will result in greater diversity, simply due to the existing biases in hiring, which largely amount to who you know. The "AI" could just be a RNG that just picks candidates, and it'd still probably produce better candidates, more diverse candidates, and less cronyism/nepotism.
A singular term describing those traits is almost certainly going to be perjorative, because they aren't generally desirable traits. I'm not saying that you can't state facts that show trouble in that area, and you can put it briefly by saying it's economically distressed and has lower access to education and economic opportunity. Stating dark facts is not the problem, it's the connotations that 'backwater' has, which extend far beyond statistics and imply a blanket cultural judgment.
Also, those statistics are far from the worst you'll find in the Appalachians. There are people there for whom the standard of living for Spruce Pine would be an aspiration.