Worrying that nonsense like this gets modded "+5 insightful".
A recent documentary on Channel 4 showed that Facebook is very reluctant to censor anything, often allowing really extreme material to remain up. That's because such material is profitable, and Facebook's main goal is to make money.
The fake news and propaganda is making Facebook lose money because people don't want to go there and don't trust them any more. Plus Zuck got hauled in front of Congress which has bad optics, so they are doing something about it. Granted, it's mostly marketing.
So the claim that their purpose is censorship is clearly, demonstrably bullshit. It's part of a conspiracy theory that maintains that all the real news is censored, and everything you see is fake and what the shadowy all powerful leftist censors want you to see.
Facebook doesn't decide what is true or otherwise. It does two things.
1. It has some material fact checked by external sources. Unfortunately these include bullshit factories like The Weekly Standard, but also more reliable ones like FactCheck.org.
2. It deletes accounts that are deliberately misleading, i.e. they claim to be from Alabama but always log in from a Moscow IP address during Russian office hours, and mostly post known Russian memes.
So really the danger isn't Facebook becoming the Ministry of Truth, not least because Facebook is far from the only source of information available online. The problem is that they don't seem to be doing a very good job of it.
Hyundai has the Kona out, which has better-than-Tesla range and much higher spec at a fraction of the cost. Includes reliable autopilot and better driving aids. Kia is releasing their Niro soon too, which is similar but a bit larger.
Outside of the US Nissan and Renault really pioneered EVs. The widespread charging networks in Europe and Japan are mostly down to demand that they created with the Leaf and Zoe. Tesla is a small player in those markets and the M3 isn't anywhere in sight for them.
In China you have BYD. As well as some very good long range cars, they have a massive business supplying commercial vehicles like busses and trucks. Again, they really pioneered it and something like 80% of new busses in China are pure EV now thanks to them. Whole cities have moved to pure EV public transport.
Don't get me wrong, Tesla make some nice if unreliable cars, but they are not at all affordable or even that big of a deal outside of the United States. And I don't think their Model 3 platform will ever really get down to truly affordable levels, like the $20k range, while Renault are already there with a pretty decent (if small) 40kWh car.
The difference now is that Russia doesn't have to put people on the ground in the US, they can do it all over the internet, up to and including organizaing events that Americans unwittingly attend. The scale is also completely different, with their reach being to millions of people via social media.
Fortunately it does look like social media companies are starting to get on top of this and it's working. Or maybe the Russians just didn't think it was worth putting too much effort into this election, because it was already divisive enough and any of the likely results would have suited their ends.
My MacBook has 16 GB of RAM. 2GB of that is in active use, mostly by the browser.
It doesn't work like that. Applications and the kernel might be using 2GB of RAM, but a lot more is used for caching. Try running MacOS on 2GB of physical RAM.
In any case, the other issue with virtualization is that it tends to wreck battery life because the host OS doesn't have enough information to do a good job of power saving. You can mitigate some of it with settings but it's never going to be as good as running that OS natively.
It really helps to open the little menu and tell YouTube you are not interested.
However, the response is delayed. It seems like YouTube has a cron task that regularly sets up new recommendations for you, and it only runs once or twice a day so you have to wait for it.
Freeze Peach Warriors don't actually want free speech, they want to be able to say whatever they like and not get criticised. In other words, no free speech for critics, just those who already agree.
That's not the "other way", that's the same way. Lack of clear statements on what is acceptable and lack of clear procedures for resolving disputes cause both these issues.
Google had to get involved because a relationship between a superior and their subordinate is always a problem. At the very least the superior should excuse themselves and move to a position where they are no influence over the subordinate, and that didn't happen.
Otherwise it presents two problems. Firstly other employees may feel that the subordinate is getting unfair treatment. Even if a promotion is deserved, there will be suspicion that it was influenced by the relationship. Secondly if the relationship breaks down it could create an extremely awkward situation, and makes it hard for the company to avoid accusations of a hostile environment if the superior later needs to give a bad review or discipline the subordinate.
For that reason many companies have an explicit policy on this, requiring people to declare relationships with subordinates and be moved to resolve the issue. In the case of C level execs moving is often impossible so if they want to pursue it they have to resign.
Making lewd sexual comments about someone is generally not a crime in most places I think... I'm not an expert on US law but isn't that something you cite on a hostile work environment lawsuit, not something you take to the police?
And note that even to get to the lawsuit stage it would have to be a pattern of behaviour, not just a one off or something that stopped when raised with HR/your boss. The barrier is actually quite high.
Most seem to be simple support backdoors. Customers losing passwords and guys arriving on-site without the right info is a big problem for support, so they like backdoors.
For support security is the enemy, it's something that makes their job harder. The customers don't really care about it, they just want stuff to work.
Or maybe because HR or your boss quietly asking that you please stop doing X is better for everyone involved than launching an immediate forensic investigation and hauling you into court to defend against a criminal conviction.
And in any case, it's often not a crime, it's a civil employment issue.
Even the law isn't as black and white as crime/not a crime. There are misdemeanours, and law enforcement has leeway to stop you doing stuff without actually charging you of a crime. Some stuff is processed as a civil matter, like parking fines.
Slashdot Mirror
Crash survivability. If enough people were willing to sign a wavier we could have bunk beds or something.
That would just make it worse, because they would train those people to evacuate quickly and orderly.
A better solution would be to simply mandate certain seat sizes. Minimum width, minimum legroom.
Worrying that nonsense like this gets modded "+5 insightful".
A recent documentary on Channel 4 showed that Facebook is very reluctant to censor anything, often allowing really extreme material to remain up. That's because such material is profitable, and Facebook's main goal is to make money.
The fake news and propaganda is making Facebook lose money because people don't want to go there and don't trust them any more. Plus Zuck got hauled in front of Congress which has bad optics, so they are doing something about it. Granted, it's mostly marketing.
So the claim that their purpose is censorship is clearly, demonstrably bullshit. It's part of a conspiracy theory that maintains that all the real news is censored, and everything you see is fake and what the shadowy all powerful leftist censors want you to see.
Facebook doesn't decide what is true or otherwise. It does two things.
1. It has some material fact checked by external sources. Unfortunately these include bullshit factories like The Weekly Standard, but also more reliable ones like FactCheck.org.
2. It deletes accounts that are deliberately misleading, i.e. they claim to be from Alabama but always log in from a Moscow IP address during Russian office hours, and mostly post known Russian memes.
So really the danger isn't Facebook becoming the Ministry of Truth, not least because Facebook is far from the only source of information available online. The problem is that they don't seem to be doing a very good job of it.
Unfortunately due to the price it attracts the kind of arseholes who normally buy a BMW or Audi.
And some of them actually have.
Hyundai has the Kona out, which has better-than-Tesla range and much higher spec at a fraction of the cost. Includes reliable autopilot and better driving aids. Kia is releasing their Niro soon too, which is similar but a bit larger.
Outside of the US Nissan and Renault really pioneered EVs. The widespread charging networks in Europe and Japan are mostly down to demand that they created with the Leaf and Zoe. Tesla is a small player in those markets and the M3 isn't anywhere in sight for them.
In China you have BYD. As well as some very good long range cars, they have a massive business supplying commercial vehicles like busses and trucks. Again, they really pioneered it and something like 80% of new busses in China are pure EV now thanks to them. Whole cities have moved to pure EV public transport.
Don't get me wrong, Tesla make some nice if unreliable cars, but they are not at all affordable or even that big of a deal outside of the United States. And I don't think their Model 3 platform will ever really get down to truly affordable levels, like the $20k range, while Renault are already there with a pretty decent (if small) 40kWh car.
It was only without proof if you shut your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and started singing "la la la la" as loudly as possible.
The difference now is that Russia doesn't have to put people on the ground in the US, they can do it all over the internet, up to and including organizaing events that Americans unwittingly attend. The scale is also completely different, with their reach being to millions of people via social media.
Fortunately it does look like social media companies are starting to get on top of this and it's working. Or maybe the Russians just didn't think it was worth putting too much effort into this election, because it was already divisive enough and any of the likely results would have suited their ends.
My MacBook has 16 GB of RAM. 2GB of that is in active use, mostly by the browser.
It doesn't work like that. Applications and the kernel might be using 2GB of RAM, but a lot more is used for caching. Try running MacOS on 2GB of physical RAM.
In any case, the other issue with virtualization is that it tends to wreck battery life because the host OS doesn't have enough information to do a good job of power saving. You can mitigate some of it with settings but it's never going to be as good as running that OS natively.
Shame they don't do AMD based laptops.
What if you hate USB ports and prefer your hard drive soldered in?
More seriously a lot of people want to run MacOS and Linux on the same machine.
I'd still like to see an actual, verifiable example of this happening in real life. Until then I'll just assume it's paranoia.
It really helps to open the little menu and tell YouTube you are not interested.
However, the response is delayed. It seems like YouTube has a cron task that regularly sets up new recommendations for you, and it only runs once or twice a day so you have to wait for it.
Of course you don't have to subscribe to them all at once. Do a month or two of Netflix, then switch to something else for a bit.
If you do it that way the cost isn't bad really, you can get several complete series for under $10.
They are probably hoping that kids pestering their parents will get them lots of subscriptions. Shameless.
Freeze Peach Warriors don't actually want free speech, they want to be able to say whatever they like and not get criticised. In other words, no free speech for critics, just those who already agree.
That's not the "other way", that's the same way. Lack of clear statements on what is acceptable and lack of clear procedures for resolving disputes cause both these issues.
Google had to get involved because a relationship between a superior and their subordinate is always a problem. At the very least the superior should excuse themselves and move to a position where they are no influence over the subordinate, and that didn't happen.
Otherwise it presents two problems. Firstly other employees may feel that the subordinate is getting unfair treatment. Even if a promotion is deserved, there will be suspicion that it was influenced by the relationship. Secondly if the relationship breaks down it could create an extremely awkward situation, and makes it hard for the company to avoid accusations of a hostile environment if the superior later needs to give a bad review or discipline the subordinate.
For that reason many companies have an explicit policy on this, requiring people to declare relationships with subordinates and be moved to resolve the issue. In the case of C level execs moving is often impossible so if they want to pursue it they have to resign.
Making lewd sexual comments about someone is generally not a crime in most places I think... I'm not an expert on US law but isn't that something you cite on a hostile work environment lawsuit, not something you take to the police?
And note that even to get to the lawsuit stage it would have to be a pattern of behaviour, not just a one off or something that stopped when raised with HR/your boss. The barrier is actually quite high.
Most seem to be simple support backdoors. Customers losing passwords and guys arriving on-site without the right info is a big problem for support, so they like backdoors.
For support security is the enemy, it's something that makes their job harder. The customers don't really care about it, they just want stuff to work.
A hostile work environment is not a crime, it's a civil employment matter. The police will tell you to get a lawyer and sue.
The crimes are just the worst examples.
It's the new puritanism, a great excuse to make guys who get rejected feel better. Sad!
Or maybe because HR or your boss quietly asking that you please stop doing X is better for everyone involved than launching an immediate forensic investigation and hauling you into court to defend against a criminal conviction.
And in any case, it's often not a crime, it's a civil employment issue.
Even the law isn't as black and white as crime/not a crime. There are misdemeanours, and law enforcement has leeway to stop you doing stuff without actually charging you of a crime. Some stuff is processed as a civil matter, like parking fines.
I find the touchscreen is really unresponsive on those things.