I find it interesting that the story repeatedly references "the Trump" administration in attack sentences, but later buried in the text we find out the Amazon exec doing the surreptitious advising...used to be in the Obama administration? (My suggestion is that she's likely simply leveraging personal contacts for personal/corporate enrichment.)
Do you really think Trump had a hand in making Bezos richer? Really? Because there's some cognitive dissonance here: Trump can't be a complete know-nothing boob nincompoop AND ALSO a criminal mastermind meticulously micro-managing the development of an Amazon-favoring web portal?
"But the behind-the-scenes lobbying by Amazon officials underscores how the company has quietly amassed an unrivalled position of power with the federal government. " TBH Amazon has generally amassed an unrivalled position of power WITH ALL OF AMERICAN COMMERCE.
I'm 6'4", 360 lbs, former defensive lineman...you want to try to sprint past me on some 24" wide escalator, you go right ahead and try...but if you try to shove me, slam me, or crank your bag into my leg to get past because you can't wait the 4 minutes to get to the top, that may not work out well for you.
Except it DOESN'T. I fully get the point of the article, but the example is just sophomoric semantics: do parachutes make you safer jumping from airplanes? "No!" claim the "researchers" feeling they've proved something meaningful...only if they dismiss the always-implied language "airplanes....ACTUALLY FLYING IN THE AIR AT A MEANINGFUL HEIGHT AND SPEED".
It would be as stupid as someone claiming that putting strychnine into your breakfast wouldn't kill you (because they never said you actually ATE the food!), or that Jessica Alba has never hesitated to cheerfully perform even the weirdest kinky crap I've asked her to (because I've never talked to her, much less asked her for kinky sexual favors).
These "researchers" think they're clever, rediscovering syntactical gimmicks that were tiresome by 3rd grade.
Their point, of course, was that what in these examples I dismiss as "commonly assumed" implications, in medical trials is critical...the details and assumptions SHOULD be both laid out explicitly and examined by those building upon/interpreting their conclusions.
What's funny is that in their satirical experiment, those "clever scientists" themselves fail spectacularly at their own analyses.
From tfa: "...Yeh says. "The real answer is that that trial did not show a benefit because of the types of patients who were enrolled." No, the trial didn't show a benefit because the basic experimental parameters were such that the (difference in) safety equipment chosen was inconsequential, not AT ALL because of the types of patients enrolled.
They couldn't even analyze their joke correctly - perhaps the most breathtaking failure of that day.
This is the same issue with the Great Barrier Reef; our farmers here are dumping massive amounts of phosphorus runoff which is negatively affecting the reef. In tests where this runoff has been abated, the Reef has bounced back with surprising resilience.
Again, ZERO to do with climate change. Everything to do with farmers, and in most cased industrialized farming.
I mean seriously, I get it: Bitcoin is a 'tech' thing but we don't need to have a NEWS story every time it goes up or down, do we? We're not regularly seeing postings when RAM skyrockets or falls, are we? (Please...don't.)
It's an imaginary commodity that some people have agreed to treat like money; by its very nature it's going to be volatile.
There are a lot of rage filled comments here about him being a liar, when it seems to me his main crime was gullibility?
I've occasionally watched his videos for years, and he seems to be a fairly decent, very smart guy. He did formerly work for NASA as an actual engineer - his interactions with current NASA personnel are proof of that.
His story is that obviously he couldn't get that many thief interactions on his own doorstep, so he loaned the build out to friends, and friends of friends with a cash reward for interactions with recoveries...I think that was his mistake. Once you bring money or fame into it, people are assholes; with both involved it's almost guaranteed. So some of them staged the reactions, ostensibly for the cash, but imo more for the internet fame...and now that's screwed him over.
His "crime" if anything isn't lying, it's being gullible and trusting.
..both as a former student and now as a business owner, colleges are pretty shitty at preparing students for actual work NOW. Maybe they should focus on that before trying to prepare students for jobs that don't exist yet?
The only thing creepier is a friend of mine in the military that said there is some speculation that these empty cities could be relocation destinations for refugees from other cities in the event of war...which would then make one wonder what does China expect?
...the point is to leverage western guilt into recycling their water bottles or some shit.
But isn't the BULK of ocean plastic waste pollution (90%+) coming from 10 rivers? (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stemming-the-plastic-tide-10-rivers-contribute-most-of-the-plastic-in-the-oceans/)
2 are in Africa, 8 are Asian. The Yangtze alone dumps more than all the other rivers/sources combined.
Let's be objective then: wealthy suburban Starbucks customers could literally throw every scrap of plastic they use into the ocean directly, and they wouldn't even tickle the needle vs the megatonnage pouring from these 10 rivers. Carry all the stupid stainless-steel straws you like, you're at least giving people an idea of a cheap dumb gift they can give you at Christmas...but you're not doing *anything* for the environment.
So these sorts of public flagellation programs - if they're produced in English, basically - amount to nothing more than virtue-signaling guilt-assuagement.
Because in a civilized place, people don't take shit that doesn't belong to them.
There are vast swathes of the USA (and, I expect, the world) where people don't lock their doors or their cars, and live their whole lives where nothing ever gets stolen. For generations. When we moved into the house we live in, the exterior locks were skeleton keys, and the previous owners didn't have any...in 40 years they'd never locked up.
Personally, I believe it's the anonymity of large cities that encourages this sort of "fuck everyone else" behavior. They should be shot or painfully trapped like the annoying vermin they are.
...that we live in a society where ambushing these pieces of shit is punished. You should be able to beat them with, say, up to a broom-handle.
I mean, no, I don't think it's justified to go all the way to kill them (although let's be clear: they're the sort of human trash that prevents us from having nice things), but honestly a booby-trap that blinds/maims them would be entirely justified in my book.
I guarantee you that these sorts of opportunistic thefts would decrease significantly.
The Clinton campaign admitted that early in the top primary process, they had identified Trump as the candidate they most wanted to run against, so where they were able they promoted him too. Are we considering that as pernicious as "Russian interference".
"Considering exaggerated violence more acceptable than sexuality is a peculiarly American disease" Fuck off with your ethnocentric crap. One might in turn point out casual nudity and sexuality is a particularly European disease ("go ahead dear, show your tits in a television ad, it's liberating you, right?"). If my children have to be prepared to cope with one or the other that they are confronted with unexpectedly, I know which is more likely to keep them alive?
In fact, neither of us is "right" because there is empirically no clearly better system - it's just two different systems. You're just being puritanical in another way.
Honestly, I agree with you as long as we're not talking 'predictive punishment' or simply punitive 'you're rich, I'm not' revanchism.
But yes, absolutely I think that $1 million is a pretty decent number to say that is a death-penalty offense: theft of that or greater (by any means - robbing a car, or selling overrated derivatives*) should be up for a death result.
*this would include anyone paid over $1 million in pay, bonus, options, or other compensation whose acts are knowingly illegal.
I'm wondering how we could have this massive crash of the economy 10 years ago, and I still don't see anyone really punished for it?
Slashdot Mirror
....that this is a re-hashed thread.
What, did someone return it for a refund, and now you're shilling it as 'new content?
Ever play Call of Duty on public servers with voice chat enabled?
I get called a "motherfucking faggot" around once per second by random 12 year olds there, does that count as 'abuse'?
I find it interesting that the story repeatedly references "the Trump" administration in attack sentences, but later buried in the text we find out the Amazon exec doing the surreptitious advising...used to be in the Obama administration? (My suggestion is that she's likely simply leveraging personal contacts for personal/corporate enrichment.)
Do you really think Trump had a hand in making Bezos richer? Really? Because there's some cognitive dissonance here: Trump can't be a complete know-nothing boob nincompoop AND ALSO a criminal mastermind meticulously micro-managing the development of an Amazon-favoring web portal?
"But the behind-the-scenes lobbying by Amazon officials underscores how the company has quietly amassed an unrivalled position of power with the federal government. " TBH Amazon has generally amassed an unrivalled position of power WITH ALL OF AMERICAN COMMERCE.
I'm 6'4", 360 lbs, former defensive lineman...you want to try to sprint past me on some 24" wide escalator, you go right ahead and try...but if you try to shove me, slam me, or crank your bag into my leg to get past because you can't wait the 4 minutes to get to the top, that may not work out well for you.
Except it DOESN'T.
I fully get the point of the article, but the example is just sophomoric semantics: do parachutes make you safer jumping from airplanes? "No!" claim the "researchers" feeling they've proved something meaningful...only if they dismiss the always-implied language "airplanes....ACTUALLY FLYING IN THE AIR AT A MEANINGFUL HEIGHT AND SPEED".
It would be as stupid as someone claiming that putting strychnine into your breakfast wouldn't kill you (because they never said you actually ATE the food!), or that Jessica Alba has never hesitated to cheerfully perform even the weirdest kinky crap I've asked her to (because I've never talked to her, much less asked her for kinky sexual favors).
These "researchers" think they're clever, rediscovering syntactical gimmicks that were tiresome by 3rd grade.
Their point, of course, was that what in these examples I dismiss as "commonly assumed" implications, in medical trials is critical...the details and assumptions SHOULD be both laid out explicitly and examined by those building upon/interpreting their conclusions.
What's funny is that in their satirical experiment, those "clever scientists" themselves fail spectacularly at their own analyses.
From tfa: "...Yeh says. "The real answer is that that trial did not show a benefit because of the types of patients who were enrolled." No, the trial didn't show a benefit because the basic experimental parameters were such that the (difference in) safety equipment chosen was inconsequential, not AT ALL because of the types of patients enrolled.
They couldn't even analyze their joke correctly - perhaps the most breathtaking failure of that day.
This is the same issue with the Great Barrier Reef; our farmers here are dumping massive amounts of phosphorus runoff which is negatively affecting the reef. In tests where this runoff has been abated, the Reef has bounced back with surprising resilience.
Again, ZERO to do with climate change. Everything to do with farmers, and in most cased industrialized farming.
I mean seriously, I get it: Bitcoin is a 'tech' thing but we don't need to have a NEWS story every time it goes up or down, do we? We're not regularly seeing postings when RAM skyrockets or falls, are we? (Please...don't.)
It's an imaginary commodity that some people have agreed to treat like money; by its very nature it's going to be volatile.
...but also a sadistic sociopathic fuck in pursuit of his own success.
There are a lot of rage filled comments here about him being a liar, when it seems to me his main crime was gullibility?
I've occasionally watched his videos for years, and he seems to be a fairly decent, very smart guy. He did formerly work for NASA as an actual engineer - his interactions with current NASA personnel are proof of that.
His story is that obviously he couldn't get that many thief interactions on his own doorstep, so he loaned the build out to friends, and friends of friends with a cash reward for interactions with recoveries...I think that was his mistake. Once you bring money or fame into it, people are assholes; with both involved it's almost guaranteed. So some of them staged the reactions, ostensibly for the cash, but imo more for the internet fame...and now that's screwed him over.
His "crime" if anything isn't lying, it's being gullible and trusting.
..both as a former student and now as a business owner, colleges are pretty shitty at preparing students for actual work NOW. Maybe they should focus on that before trying to prepare students for jobs that don't exist yet?
...we hope $1 million will distract SOMEONE from all the shit we've done that's now starting to leak out.
...from a guy whose country is literally building massive empty cities.
Infrastructure sans people.
https://www.afr.com/news/world...
The only thing creepier is a friend of mine in the military that said there is some speculation that these empty cities could be relocation destinations for refugees from other cities in the event of war...which would then make one wonder what does China expect?
Are you one of those people 'triggered' by reality?
Just call it 'fake news' and go back to reddit. I'm sure they'll all agree with you.
Hint: don't read https://www.politico.com/magaz... ....after all, I'm sure politico is a Russian front, right?
...the point is to leverage western guilt into recycling their water bottles or some shit.
But isn't the BULK of ocean plastic waste pollution (90%+) coming from 10 rivers? (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/stemming-the-plastic-tide-10-rivers-contribute-most-of-the-plastic-in-the-oceans/)
2 are in Africa, 8 are Asian. The Yangtze alone dumps more than all the other rivers/sources combined.
Let's be objective then: wealthy suburban Starbucks customers could literally throw every scrap of plastic they use into the ocean directly, and they wouldn't even tickle the needle vs the megatonnage pouring from these 10 rivers. Carry all the stupid stainless-steel straws you like, you're at least giving people an idea of a cheap dumb gift they can give you at Christmas...but you're not doing *anything* for the environment.
So these sorts of public flagellation programs - if they're produced in English, basically - amount to nothing more than virtue-signaling guilt-assuagement.
They didn't "give" anyone anything.
They sold it. That has always been their model.
How precisely did you think zuckerberg got to be one of the world's richest men ?
Because in a civilized place, people don't take shit that doesn't belong to them.
There are vast swathes of the USA (and, I expect, the world) where people don't lock their doors or their cars, and live their whole lives where nothing ever gets stolen. For generations. When we moved into the house we live in, the exterior locks were skeleton keys, and the previous owners didn't have any...in 40 years they'd never locked up.
Personally, I believe it's the anonymity of large cities that encourages this sort of "fuck everyone else" behavior. They should be shot or painfully trapped like the annoying vermin they are.
...that we live in a society where ambushing these pieces of shit is punished. You should be able to beat them with, say, up to a broom-handle.
I mean, no, I don't think it's justified to go all the way to kill them (although let's be clear: they're the sort of human trash that prevents us from having nice things), but honestly a booby-trap that blinds/maims them would be entirely justified in my book.
I guarantee you that these sorts of opportunistic thefts would decrease significantly.
Now we should see an outburst of effusive praise for Ajit Pai from the always vocal Slashdot crowd, right?
The Clinton campaign admitted that early in the top primary process, they had identified Trump as the candidate they most wanted to run against, so where they were able they promoted him too.
Are we considering that as pernicious as "Russian interference".
"Considering exaggerated violence more acceptable than sexuality is a peculiarly American disease"
Fuck off with your ethnocentric crap.
One might in turn point out casual nudity and sexuality is a particularly European disease ("go ahead dear, show your tits in a television ad, it's liberating you, right?").
If my children have to be prepared to cope with one or the other that they are confronted with unexpectedly, I know which is more likely to keep them alive?
In fact, neither of us is "right" because there is empirically no clearly better system - it's just two different systems. You're just being puritanical in another way.
...would be to use 2580, easy to remember on a phone touchpad as it would sort of simulate someone falling from a building?
Honestly, I agree with you as long as we're not talking 'predictive punishment' or simply punitive 'you're rich, I'm not' revanchism.
But yes, absolutely I think that $1 million is a pretty decent number to say that is a death-penalty offense: theft of that or greater (by any means - robbing a car, or selling overrated derivatives*) should be up for a death result.
*this would include anyone paid over $1 million in pay, bonus, options, or other compensation whose acts are knowingly illegal.
I'm wondering how we could have this massive crash of the economy 10 years ago, and I still don't see anyone really punished for it?
You realize of course that your point and PopeRatzo's point aren't mutually exclusive, right?
...why does 'how the hole is made' ("laser drilled!") have anything to do with, well, anything?
There's no other word for it, and it's why people found this so repellent.
Let's not forget that it took bieber what, 9 years to get to that many dislikes, this virtue-signaling shitshow got there in a week?