How about users not getting notifications about new content from people they subscribe to? Or getting randomly unsubscribed from certain people?
And now all you need to do is actually supply evidence of this. Such evidence should include this not happening to similar liberal content creators.
What do you say to the conservative Youtoubers that have their videos automatically demonetized every time they post one
Same thing I say to the liberal Youtubers that have the same thing happen. Again, if you are attempting to prove bias, you have to prove it isn't happening to "the other side".
What do you call an average 95% drop in retweets from one day to the next
I call it someone who didn't have as "hot" a follow-up story.
Look up the Project Veritas video on shadow banning where a former Twitter engineer admits to it in camera.
So, you want me to look up the video from people who have been forced to admit they doctor videos and treat that as evidence. You realize when they have to admit in court that they regularly lie, they're not exactly a good source of information, right?
Youâ(TM)d be surprised what a minority the supposed âoepopularâ views are.
Yeah, like single-payer heathcare. That one is only supported by 70% of the population, clearly it's not at all popular. It's nothing like the popularity of repealing gun control laws (20-30% depending on poll).
And the people surprised about Donald Trump were the media. We actual liberals could see what was coming.
Yes, I can unlock so much power (the rest?) by playing with boost pressure, timing and mixtures that my engine will self destruct in no time
No, the changes do not require your engine destroy itself. There's lots of headroom between the factory settings and destructive settings. Though your MPG will go down.
If manufacturers sold their cars as the edge of the engine's survival, they'd have tons of warranty replacements as well as issues with meeting their fleet MPG requirements. So they don't do that and instead software-limit the engine a good ways below the limits of the engine.
I'm not the one on the inside of the bubble, I'm afraid.
If you'd like to provide some actual evidence of what you allege, I'd be happy to read it. But evidence is not the same as "I'm not getting as many views as I used to"
I eagerly await your next fusillade of insults insisting that evidence is everywhere yet you don't quite manage to point to any.
The horsepower of engines in "normal" cars is already software-limited. There's a market for aftermarket chips and/or firmware to unlock the rest of the engine's power.
So no, buyers of normal cars and trucks are not smarter than that.
A Cadillac _____ is identical to a Buick _____ which is identical to a Chevrolet ______.
Each step in that chain is more expensive, yet the cost to make the car is virtually identical.
Or to keep it tech-related, a high-end i7 chip is the same physical object as a low-end i7 chip. They cost exactly the same to manufacture. But Intel charges more for the fast one, even though the slow one may not have any defects that prevent it from running fast.
The cost of an item at retail only has a slight connection to the manufacturing cost of the item. People assume it's tightly coupled because we inherently understand manufacturing cost, but the effects of marketing on consumers is not easy to see.
Can you imagine if a real automotive manufacturer pulled this shit?
They already do. Your car's engine can produce more horsepower by changing a software setting. You're already carrying around extra dead weight.
The various "options" you can add to a car cost 10x what it would cost to add them after purchase.
The identical car could be sold under a different brand for a different price - A Cadillac whatever is just a re-badged Buick whatever which is just a re-badged Chevy whatever.
Except... they did pay for it. It is right there in the car they bought, inaccessible only due to an artificial lockout.
The price of a good or service only has a tenuous relationship with the cost to make that good or service. The price is primarily what people are willing to pay.
If you'd like an example of this working in the opposite direction, virtually every new generation of game console is sold at a price below what it costs to make the console (As time passes the production costs go down so eventually Microsoft and Sony make money on later hardware sales).
People who want the shorter range are willing to pay enough to cover the cost of making the longer-range battery. People who want the longer range are willing to pay even more.
Capitalism isn't about the ideal and/or fair use of materials.
One thing I'm baffled by is why EV manufacturers aren't pushing the capability of using the huge traction battery in EVs as a means to power homes in the event of a power outage
They probably don't want some idiot saying "I'm gonna stay here in the middle of this hurricane 'cause I'll have power from my car!!".
Or have people spend a day and a half powering their house, then be unable to flee when the situation changes.
Grant oriented and government laboratories have not been very efficient at developing vaccines or drugs for treatments, generally
Except for the minor detail of developing all of them.
Pharmaceutical companies generally do not perform the basic research to identify new drugs. They take drugs that were developed by those laboratories you decry, do the final rounds of human trials, and then start selling them.
Or you could just buy the other manufacturer's pills that are already on the market and cost $15 to $20.
This happens because insurance companies have a Medical Loss ratio limit. They have to spend 80%-85% of their premiums on medical treatment (amount varies by type of plan).
So, you're sitting in the C-suite at an insurance company, and you'd really like to buy that 8th mansion. So you'd just need a bigger bonus, but that comes out of the 15%-20% of that medical loss ratio. So now what do you do?
Buy the $2000 pills instead of the $15 pills. It's medical treatment. And now you have a bigger 15%-20% to get that sweet, sweet bonus money.
Or, since this is the government, you prosecute the company for fraud. But again, that was up to the Bush administration.
They were probably performant during the Clinton administration - I haven't seen any reporting that they were not, and since it was early they could easily type up some "this is what we're gonna do" plans that they fail to follow through on.
They say the same kinds of things. "Been through this a number of times before."
When disaster approaches, people say things to comfort themselves. It helps when you're worried about your life being annihilated in a couple days, and there's little you can do about it.
Also, "100-year" storms are a thing. The fact that there were "100-year" storms in the past doesn't mean much. What means something is the "100-year" storms now appear to be happening more like every 20 years.
Wouldn't that mean it accounts for only 6 inches of extra rain from a 60 inch rainfall?
Doesn't sound like much, does it?
Now remember that 6 inches is over 1000 square miles. That's a hell of a lot of water.
Now run all that water through the relatively small channels we call "rivers". That's a metric fuckton more flooding, because those 6 inches are concentrated into a relatively small area.
A hurricane stalling overhead is an extremely bad thing.
The real question is how many more times must it be proven before you'll get off your ass and stop fighting for the faster and faster march off a hypothetical cliff.
That will never happen.
They'll insist climate change is not real until it is causing severe problems. Then they will insist it is too late to do anything and continue making it worse.
The slow movement of Florence and possibility it stalls are not related to global warming to rather simply to the location of high pressure systems north of the storm preventing it from turning northward.
And it is believed that we are facing an unusual situation with the Bermuda High that may be caused by climate change that is doing this.
Slashdot Mirror
How about users not getting notifications about new content from people they subscribe to? Or getting randomly unsubscribed from certain people?
And now all you need to do is actually supply evidence of this. Such evidence should include this not happening to similar liberal content creators.
What do you say to the conservative Youtoubers that have their videos automatically demonetized every time they post one
Same thing I say to the liberal Youtubers that have the same thing happen. Again, if you are attempting to prove bias, you have to prove it isn't happening to "the other side".
What do you call an average 95% drop in retweets from one day to the next
I call it someone who didn't have as "hot" a follow-up story.
Look up the Project Veritas video on shadow banning where a former Twitter engineer admits to it in camera.
So, you want me to look up the video from people who have been forced to admit they doctor videos and treat that as evidence. You realize when they have to admit in court that they regularly lie, they're not exactly a good source of information, right?
Youâ(TM)d be surprised what a minority the supposed âoepopularâ views are.
Yeah, like single-payer heathcare. That one is only supported by 70% of the population, clearly it's not at all popular. It's nothing like the popularity of repealing gun control laws (20-30% depending on poll).
And the people surprised about Donald Trump were the media. We actual liberals could see what was coming.
So when you have three jobs and are still one of the "poors", now what?
I eagerly await your insistence that this is not possible, despite it happening to millions of people.
Yes, I can unlock so much power (the rest?) by playing with boost pressure, timing and mixtures that my engine will self destruct in no time
No, the changes do not require your engine destroy itself. There's lots of headroom between the factory settings and destructive settings. Though your MPG will go down.
If manufacturers sold their cars as the edge of the engine's survival, they'd have tons of warranty replacements as well as issues with meeting their fleet MPG requirements. So they don't do that and instead software-limit the engine a good ways below the limits of the engine.
You don't have to sign up for OnStar for them to disable the car at the request of the police.
I'm not the one on the inside of the bubble, I'm afraid.
If you'd like to provide some actual evidence of what you allege, I'd be happy to read it. But evidence is not the same as "I'm not getting as many views as I used to"
I eagerly await your next fusillade of insults insisting that evidence is everywhere yet you don't quite manage to point to any.
* conservatives and trump supporters claim they have been targeted by google through censorship, blocking, shadow banning , etc,.
Except that hasn't actually happened.
But it's a fantastic excuse when you mistakenly believe you are part of a large majority, yet do not see that reflected online.
So you haven't heard of "OnStar" then.
Because the buyer said they could when they signed the contract to buy the car.
The horsepower of engines in "normal" cars is already software-limited. There's a market for aftermarket chips and/or firmware to unlock the rest of the engine's power.
So no, buyers of normal cars and trucks are not smarter than that.
A Cadillac _____ is identical to a Buick _____ which is identical to a Chevrolet ______.
Each step in that chain is more expensive, yet the cost to make the car is virtually identical.
Or to keep it tech-related, a high-end i7 chip is the same physical object as a low-end i7 chip. They cost exactly the same to manufacture. But Intel charges more for the fast one, even though the slow one may not have any defects that prevent it from running fast.
The cost of an item at retail only has a slight connection to the manufacturing cost of the item. People assume it's tightly coupled because we inherently understand manufacturing cost, but the effects of marketing on consumers is not easy to see.
The manufacturing cost of an item only has a very weak connection to the price of that item at retail.
But manufacturing cost is something everyone can understand, so we assume it's a bigger deal than it actually is.
Can you imagine if a real automotive manufacturer pulled this shit?
They already do. Your car's engine can produce more horsepower by changing a software setting. You're already carrying around extra dead weight.
The various "options" you can add to a car cost 10x what it would cost to add them after purchase.
The identical car could be sold under a different brand for a different price - A Cadillac whatever is just a re-badged Buick whatever which is just a re-badged Chevy whatever.
Except ... they did pay for it. It is right there in the car they bought, inaccessible only due to an artificial lockout.
The price of a good or service only has a tenuous relationship with the cost to make that good or service. The price is primarily what people are willing to pay.
If you'd like an example of this working in the opposite direction, virtually every new generation of game console is sold at a price below what it costs to make the console (As time passes the production costs go down so eventually Microsoft and Sony make money on later hardware sales).
People who want the shorter range are willing to pay enough to cover the cost of making the longer-range battery.
People who want the longer range are willing to pay even more.
Capitalism isn't about the ideal and/or fair use of materials.
One thing I'm baffled by is why EV manufacturers aren't pushing the capability of using the huge traction battery in EVs as a means to power homes in the event of a power outage
They probably don't want some idiot saying "I'm gonna stay here in the middle of this hurricane 'cause I'll have power from my car!!".
Or have people spend a day and a half powering their house, then be unable to flee when the situation changes.
But if it's cheaper for the manufacturer to give someone a full pack rather than a smaller pack, then it makes no sense to even have two versions
It makes sense when people are willing to pay more for the "larger" pack.
Capitalism isn't about the ideal and/or fair use of resources.
They called it the Xr instead of the SE2.
Grant oriented and government laboratories have not been very efficient at developing vaccines or drugs for treatments, generally
Except for the minor detail of developing all of them.
Pharmaceutical companies generally do not perform the basic research to identify new drugs. They take drugs that were developed by those laboratories you decry, do the final rounds of human trials, and then start selling them.
Or you could just buy the other manufacturer's pills that are already on the market and cost $15 to $20.
This happens because insurance companies have a Medical Loss ratio limit. They have to spend 80%-85% of their premiums on medical treatment (amount varies by type of plan).
So, you're sitting in the C-suite at an insurance company, and you'd really like to buy that 8th mansion. So you'd just need a bigger bonus, but that comes out of the 15%-20% of that medical loss ratio. So now what do you do?
Buy the $2000 pills instead of the $15 pills. It's medical treatment. And now you have a bigger 15%-20% to get that sweet, sweet bonus money.
I'm a USA-ian. We have every one of your downsides, and as an added bonus we pay double what you do via taxes.
Or, since this is the government, you prosecute the company for fraud. But again, that was up to the Bush administration.
They were probably performant during the Clinton administration - I haven't seen any reporting that they were not, and since it was early they could easily type up some "this is what we're gonna do" plans that they fail to follow through on.
They say the same kinds of things. "Been through this a number of times before."
When disaster approaches, people say things to comfort themselves. It helps when you're worried about your life being annihilated in a couple days, and there's little you can do about it.
Also, "100-year" storms are a thing. The fact that there were "100-year" storms in the past doesn't mean much. What means something is the "100-year" storms now appear to be happening more like every 20 years.
Wouldn't that mean it accounts for only 6 inches of extra rain from a 60 inch rainfall?
Doesn't sound like much, does it?
Now remember that 6 inches is over 1000 square miles. That's a hell of a lot of water.
Now run all that water through the relatively small channels we call "rivers". That's a metric fuckton more flooding, because those 6 inches are concentrated into a relatively small area.
A hurricane stalling overhead is an extremely bad thing.
Your explanations of meteorology are like an 80-year-old's luddite's explanation of how a computer works.
The real question is how many more times must it be proven before you'll get off your ass and stop fighting for the faster and faster march off a hypothetical cliff.
That will never happen.
They'll insist climate change is not real until it is causing severe problems. Then they will insist it is too late to do anything and continue making it worse.
The slow movement of Florence and possibility it stalls are not related to global warming to rather simply to the location of high pressure systems north of the storm preventing it from turning northward.
And it is believed that we are facing an unusual situation with the Bermuda High that may be caused by climate change that is doing this.