The PC isn't much better. Steam doesn't allow AO-rated games, or anything with sexual content too explicit (though it is better than Sony in this regard). The largest PC platform which allows sexually-explicit games is itch.io, but their market share is still less than 1%. There's no way you can fund any sort of serious development with that.
The PC may be the best, but it's still a censored nanny box.
Slashdot and Reddit could both be vastly improved by making 1 up-vote cancel out 5 down-votes.
This would make moderation mostly useless for any controversial topic, every post would be at +5. Moderation only works when some posts are elevated above others.
That said, reddit's system is absolutely terrible. I can't understand why slashdot's system hasn't been copied more broadly, the mod system here has its flaws but it's the best I've seen anywhere and it's been around forever.
Fascist = Anyone a liberal doesn't like. Synonyms: Racist, Misogynist, xxxxxxphobe
Communist = Anyone that disagrees with a conservative. Synonyms: Hippie, Unemployed, Basement Dweller.
If only. Recent talking points are that fascism and communism are the same. I had someone on this site regurgitating that claim to me a while back.
Assange was worried about being extradited to Sweden, because Sweden is apparently more willing to extradite to the US. Since the US is making its request to Britain, not Sweden, it might have gone with more innocuous charges than it would have otherwise.
There's little reason to believe that the US would limit themselves to only those charges once he was in US hands. I think there's a rule against this, but the US is often willing to flaunt those rules.
What is the point in showing critics a tiny snippet of the film like that? Their job is to review the film, the whole film, and there's no way they can do that with only 10-20 minutes.
It's obviously related to marketing somehow, are they hoping that the critics will aid the hype by reviewing just the tiny bit that they saw? "I have no idea about the whole movie, but there's at least ten minutes that are worth watching in there." Would any legitimate critic do that?
The prospect of traversable wormhole configurations has long been a source of fascination. I will describe the first examples that are consistent in a UV completable theory of gravity, involving no exotic matter. The configuration involves a direct connection between the two ends of the wormhole. I will also discuss its implications for quantum information in gravity, the black hole information paradox, and its relation to quantum teleportation.
I don't know this well, but if you're looking for something new then the significant part of that was, "first examples that are consistent in a UV completable theory of gravity." That probably means he's talking about string theory, which is not new exactly but is still being actively researched. If you're willing to accept that string theory is worth spending time on, then considering how developments in string theory might relate to wormholes is not any more of a waste of time.
As for your rejection of theory in favor of experimentation... I'm not sure what to say to that. Both things are needed.
Not that I disagree with Linus, but this is not a job for him. Ensuring interoperability is basically what it means to call GNU an operating system, rather than a just a bunch of unaffiliated software. It's the FSF who should really be taking the lead here, or... maybe it's everyone else who should finally start listening to them.
How does Stallman feel about standardization anyway? I'd like his take on this.
The parent is referring to the Texas Board of Education, which is not composed of teachers, has notable influence over the content of textbooks in not just Texas but other states as well, and is well known for such antics as promoting intelligent design, abstinence-only education, and removing any mention of Hillary Clinton. Literally writing her out of history.
This isn't exactly a revolutionary idea, a government is supposed to be the instrument of the will of the people. The fact that a question like that could even be asked, of whether vital infrastructure would be better administrated in the hands of individuals rather than entrusted to the government's safe keeping, is an example of how far we've strayed from the democratic ideal.
Seriously do you not pay attention to the major complaint that laws being passed to help curb climate cost tax payers lots of money?
Of course, I give it as much attention as it deserves. This is one of the standard claims that deniers trot out, here is a recent paper calculating that cost. It finds that keeping the temperature increase below 1.5 degrees would cost us negative $20 trillion by 2100.
There is, in fact, an entire journal dedicated to analyzing the costs of climate change, if you're interested in something more granular. It's a big topic with a lot to cover. It's called Climate Change Economics.
Maybe not, but laws passed by 185 countries with good intentions could very possibly do that. I know it's trendy, but shouting "The end is nigh!" is really not helpful.
We tend to look at diets in terms of excluding bad foods, so when they talk about eating more of something it might help to consider what that replaces. So in other words, if you're eating more fruit then you're eating that instead of something else. Other than vegetables, there aren't many foods which are less calorie dense than fruit. Meaning that eating more fruit would likely result in eating fewer calories in total. Almost any baked goods, pastas, meats, and such are all more calorie dense than most fruit. Exceptions for dried fruit, and possibly bananas.
You stay away from fruit juices because you lose all the fiber that way, and the fiber helps make you feel full. Also, you can absentmindedly drink an awful lot.
two were discredited, at least one of them facing criminal charges, last I heard on the other they were unsure to charge her.
This surprised me so I went looking, as near as I can tell none of this is true. None of the three have been discredited, and none of the three have been charged with anything. One of the three was referred to the justice department for criminal investigation by a Republican senator. That's it.
This comment: "Why hasn't this Christine Blasey Ford been devoting her life to the pursuit of Kavanaugh if she is so credible????" is absolutely insane.
This is just poor logic, no those are not the parent's standards. You are bad at following conversations. The AC at the top posted some anti-democratic nonsense, and the parent responded with some anti-republican stuff. The parent used the phrase "Republicans have no grounds to criticize any pardons done by Democrats" which is as close as it gets to what you're claiming, but this is a commonly used phrase when someone is trying to point out hypocrisy. It is not an excuse for Democrats to misbehave.
Also, where on earth did you get the idea that John Hinkley Jr. was a Democrat? He was a nut, his motives were apolitical, and nothing says that he was a registered voter in any party.
This is exactly the point. Spielberg didn't say that Netflix films shouldn't be eligible for awards, just that the Oscars are for theatrical films while the Emmies are for films watched at home. TV movies are eligible for Emmies, the idea is that streaming movies should be similar.
Following that trail, it then becomes harder for Netflix to make quality movies with major names because the actors don't get their rightful acclaim for the work.
This is not true. It would not be any more difficult for Netflix to make quality movies, it just means that they would have to give their movies a full theatrical release before putting them on the streaming service if they want that Oscar bump.
This happened because Netflix has been following the letter of the rule, in defiance of the spirit of that rule. The Academy has said that they want the Oscars to be for theatrical films, and made some rules to try and enforce that. Netflix did the bare minimum to qualify, and is very obviously just using the Oscars as a marketing tool without any intention of supporting films as a theatrical medium. Hence Spielburg's comments about changing the rules further.
Think about that for a minute. Machine learning requires a tremendous number of iterations, with only very small changes between each one. You could do this with human tasters, but in order to measure those small changes accurately you would need a huge number of tasters and plants in order to get your error down to something reasonable.
By first identifying which chemicals tasters want, and then measure those through far more precise means, you can go through those iterations much faster and more efficiently. And then presumably you verify with tasters every once in a while that you're headed in the right direction.
You are nostalgic for something which never existed. Speech has never been an absolute freedom, certain speech has always been prohibited and widely agreed that it should be prohibited. There are many examples of this if you just take a second to think about them: shouting fire in a theater, sharing nuclear launch codes, etc.
In context, you sound like you're reminiscing for the good old days when we could all film ourselves murdering people and no one would object. This is not a freedom that you or anyone has ever had.
... And?What rational? Why has it not caused a problem? In what way are their conclusions bullshit? You continue to say nothing.
I'm not asking for a lot here, the "article" in this case is just a crappy little video. It's really not worth even this much attention, but your "+5 Insightful" response amounts to "Nuh-uh."
Solution to what? This is not sufficient, the point of the article is that free and anonymous connectivity has caused a problem. Saying that the same thing which caused this problem "is the solution" is not a contradiction, or even an argument, and doesn't address anything that the article said.
Recession layoffs usually come after the recession has started, that way the company can use the recession as the excuse and they don't get the same negative PR.
I am willing to believe what you say about the political leanings of newspapers, but I don't see how that contradicts what I said or how it relates to what the parent said. Political leanings weren't really a factor.
Slashdot Mirror
The PC isn't much better. Steam doesn't allow AO-rated games, or anything with sexual content too explicit (though it is better than Sony in this regard). The largest PC platform which allows sexually-explicit games is itch.io, but their market share is still less than 1%. There's no way you can fund any sort of serious development with that.
The PC may be the best, but it's still a censored nanny box.
Slashdot and Reddit could both be vastly improved by making 1 up-vote cancel out 5 down-votes.
This would make moderation mostly useless for any controversial topic, every post would be at +5. Moderation only works when some posts are elevated above others.
That said, reddit's system is absolutely terrible. I can't understand why slashdot's system hasn't been copied more broadly, the mod system here has its flaws but it's the best I've seen anywhere and it's been around forever.
President Trump eliminated the position in May 2018
What was the reason for this? I read the article, it just said to reduce bureaucracy. That's bullshit, what was the actual reason?
Fascist = Anyone a liberal doesn't like. Synonyms: Racist, Misogynist, xxxxxxphobe
Communist = Anyone that disagrees with a conservative. Synonyms: Hippie, Unemployed, Basement Dweller.
If only. Recent talking points are that fascism and communism are the same. I had someone on this site regurgitating that claim to me a while back.
Assange was worried about being extradited to Sweden, because Sweden is apparently more willing to extradite to the US. Since the US is making its request to Britain, not Sweden, it might have gone with more innocuous charges than it would have otherwise.
There's little reason to believe that the US would limit themselves to only those charges once he was in US hands. I think there's a rule against this, but the US is often willing to flaunt those rules.
What is the point in showing critics a tiny snippet of the film like that? Their job is to review the film, the whole film, and there's no way they can do that with only 10-20 minutes.
It's obviously related to marketing somehow, are they hoping that the critics will aid the hype by reviewing just the tiny bit that they saw? "I have no idea about the whole movie, but there's at least ten minutes that are worth watching in there." Would any legitimate critic do that?
The prospect of traversable wormhole configurations has long been a source of fascination. I will describe the first examples that are consistent in a UV completable theory of gravity, involving no exotic matter. The configuration involves a direct connection between the two ends of the wormhole. I will also discuss its implications for quantum information in gravity, the black hole information paradox, and its relation to quantum teleportation.
I don't know this well, but if you're looking for something new then the significant part of that was, "first examples that are consistent in a UV completable theory of gravity." That probably means he's talking about string theory, which is not new exactly but is still being actively researched. If you're willing to accept that string theory is worth spending time on, then considering how developments in string theory might relate to wormholes is not any more of a waste of time.
As for your rejection of theory in favor of experimentation... I'm not sure what to say to that. Both things are needed.
Not that I disagree with Linus, but this is not a job for him. Ensuring interoperability is basically what it means to call GNU an operating system, rather than a just a bunch of unaffiliated software. It's the FSF who should really be taking the lead here, or... maybe it's everyone else who should finally start listening to them.
How does Stallman feel about standardization anyway? I'd like his take on this.
The parent is referring to the Texas Board of Education, which is not composed of teachers, has notable influence over the content of textbooks in not just Texas but other states as well, and is well known for such antics as promoting intelligent design, abstinence-only education, and removing any mention of Hillary Clinton. Literally writing her out of history.
This isn't exactly a revolutionary idea, a government is supposed to be the instrument of the will of the people. The fact that a question like that could even be asked, of whether vital infrastructure would be better administrated in the hands of individuals rather than entrusted to the government's safe keeping, is an example of how far we've strayed from the democratic ideal.
Seriously do you not pay attention to the major complaint that laws being passed to help curb climate cost tax payers lots of money?
Of course, I give it as much attention as it deserves. This is one of the standard claims that deniers trot out, here is a recent paper calculating that cost. It finds that keeping the temperature increase below 1.5 degrees would cost us negative $20 trillion by 2100.
There is, in fact, an entire journal dedicated to analyzing the costs of climate change, if you're interested in something more granular. It's a big topic with a lot to cover. It's called Climate Change Economics.
This post aggravates me, there are too many short sentences.
Maybe not, but laws passed by 185 countries with good intentions could very possibly do that. I know it's trendy, but shouting "The end is nigh!" is really not helpful.
We tend to look at diets in terms of excluding bad foods, so when they talk about eating more of something it might help to consider what that replaces. So in other words, if you're eating more fruit then you're eating that instead of something else. Other than vegetables, there aren't many foods which are less calorie dense than fruit. Meaning that eating more fruit would likely result in eating fewer calories in total. Almost any baked goods, pastas, meats, and such are all more calorie dense than most fruit. Exceptions for dried fruit, and possibly bananas.
You stay away from fruit juices because you lose all the fiber that way, and the fiber helps make you feel full. Also, you can absentmindedly drink an awful lot.
two were discredited, at least one of them facing criminal charges, last I heard on the other they were unsure to charge her.
This surprised me so I went looking, as near as I can tell none of this is true. None of the three have been discredited, and none of the three have been charged with anything. One of the three was referred to the justice department for criminal investigation by a Republican senator. That's it.
This comment: "Why hasn't this Christine Blasey Ford been devoting her life to the pursuit of Kavanaugh if she is so credible????" is absolutely insane.
This is just poor logic, no those are not the parent's standards. You are bad at following conversations. The AC at the top posted some anti-democratic nonsense, and the parent responded with some anti-republican stuff. The parent used the phrase "Republicans have no grounds to criticize any pardons done by Democrats" which is as close as it gets to what you're claiming, but this is a commonly used phrase when someone is trying to point out hypocrisy. It is not an excuse for Democrats to misbehave.
Also, where on earth did you get the idea that John Hinkley Jr. was a Democrat? He was a nut, his motives were apolitical, and nothing says that he was a registered voter in any party.
This is exactly the point. Spielberg didn't say that Netflix films shouldn't be eligible for awards, just that the Oscars are for theatrical films while the Emmies are for films watched at home. TV movies are eligible for Emmies, the idea is that streaming movies should be similar.
Following that trail, it then becomes harder for Netflix to make quality movies with major names because the actors don't get their rightful acclaim for the work.
This is not true. It would not be any more difficult for Netflix to make quality movies, it just means that they would have to give their movies a full theatrical release before putting them on the streaming service if they want that Oscar bump.
This happened because Netflix has been following the letter of the rule, in defiance of the spirit of that rule. The Academy has said that they want the Oscars to be for theatrical films, and made some rules to try and enforce that. Netflix did the bare minimum to qualify, and is very obviously just using the Oscars as a marketing tool without any intention of supporting films as a theatrical medium. Hence Spielburg's comments about changing the rules further.
Think about that for a minute. Machine learning requires a tremendous number of iterations, with only very small changes between each one. You could do this with human tasters, but in order to measure those small changes accurately you would need a huge number of tasters and plants in order to get your error down to something reasonable.
By first identifying which chemicals tasters want, and then measure those through far more precise means, you can go through those iterations much faster and more efficiently. And then presumably you verify with tasters every once in a while that you're headed in the right direction.
You are nostalgic for something which never existed. Speech has never been an absolute freedom, certain speech has always been prohibited and widely agreed that it should be prohibited. There are many examples of this if you just take a second to think about them: shouting fire in a theater, sharing nuclear launch codes, etc.
In context, you sound like you're reminiscing for the good old days when we could all film ourselves murdering people and no one would object. This is not a freedom that you or anyone has ever had.
Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but the ISPs are a bigger threat currently. Both in terms of privacy and abusing their monopoly status.
The rationale is simple to understand.
... And? What rational? Why has it not caused a problem? In what way are their conclusions bullshit? You continue to say nothing.
I'm not asking for a lot here, the "article" in this case is just a crappy little video. It's really not worth even this much attention, but your "+5 Insightful" response amounts to "Nuh-uh."
Solution to what? This is not sufficient, the point of the article is that free and anonymous connectivity has caused a problem. Saying that the same thing which caused this problem "is the solution" is not a contradiction, or even an argument, and doesn't address anything that the article said.
Recession layoffs usually come after the recession has started, that way the company can use the recession as the excuse and they don't get the same negative PR.
I am willing to believe what you say about the political leanings of newspapers, but I don't see how that contradicts what I said or how it relates to what the parent said. Political leanings weren't really a factor.