Most of you are too young to remember, but once upon a time, everyone's real-life identity was transparent on the Internet. Everyone used their real names, most people even included their phone number and work address. If all you had was an email address (bang path), you could use it to finger them and get their info. Being able to skirt around this and do things anonymously was considered a bug which needed to be fixed.
As I recall it, anonymity took off when AOL joined Usenet. An AOL account granted you 5 usernames, ostensibly so a family could share a single AOL account. But a lot of AOL users used the extra identities to create pseudonyms so they could post on Usenet anonymously. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth over this among the pro-real identity folks, and a lot of heated arguments, but I don't remember there being any death threats over it. And eventually the pro-anonymity side won out.
It's interesting that the pro-anonymity folks aren't as tolerant of opinions different than theirs. For a democracy to function, there has to be a free exchange of ideas. People with different opinions must be allowed to express and practice what they think is a better way to do things. Their idea should be evaluated by each individual who hears it, and either accepted or dismissed. An individual or a group proactively preventing other individuals from learning about a different idea by threatening the people advocating them is corrosive to democracy, and will lead to a tyranny by an apparent majority. Nobody will know if the "majority opinion" is really held by the majority, because everyone is too afraid to contradict it.
While the site itself has been downranked, due to the high number of takedown requests Google receives for it, ThePirateBay.org remains listed.
[...]
"Google received a (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) take-down request that erroneously listed Thepiratebay.org, and as a result, this URL was accidentally removed from the Google search index,"
Sending a false (I'm sorry, "erroneous") DMCA take-down request should get future take-down requests by the submitting entity downranked and de-prioritized in the queue.
and now capital investment will be slower and production will result in profits. Production done using the equipment represented by said capital investments. Simple.
Tesla's market cap is about the same as GM's. GM produces about 8,000 cars per day (averaged over the year), or 56,000 cars per week. An order of magnitude more than Tesla. If Tesla wants to justify its market cap, they need to spend about 10x more capital investment on production equipment as they spent just to get to 5,000 cars per week. If they now slow down investing in production equipment as you're theorizing, they're basically saying "Our stock should only be priced at $35 a share."
Ideally, backups should be stored offline (precisely to prevent ransomware from encrypting it) and off-site (in case the building burns down). Backing up your files to an always-accessible hard drive on a nearby system isn't much better than copying them to a second hard drive on the same computer.
Power failures. When I lived in the boonies, power failures were pretty frequent. They usually lasted a few seconds to a few minutes, so I bought UPSes and figured I was safe.
Then one night during a storm, the power went out. My UPSes kicked in, but the power didn't come back for more than 10 minutes. So I shut down my desktop and switched to my laptop. But 45 minutes in I lost Internet (I figure the cable company's battery backups ran out). No problem, I could chill for a few hours playing games on my laptop connected to a 12V car battery I kept around for such emergencies. Right? Turns out a tree fell over and took out the main power line. It took them 3 days to repair it. No electricity meant no heat, lights, hot water, refrigeration (I ended up putting most of the food in a basket and putting that outside), or computers. What ended up saving me was an antique wood stove. I chopped up some spare wood 2x4s left over from redoing the fencing, and burned those. For 3 days that was my only way to heat the house, warm water, and cook meals. I had candles, but fortunately my supply if AA batteries for my flashlights held.
I ended up moving soon after, but a generator was next on my shopping list if I hadn't. I moved back to Southern California with a much better appreciation of what it's going to be like when The Big One hits. I ended up buying a diesel truck with 110V AC outlets, and keep spare cans of diesel fuel in the garage (it can last for years with additives to kill biological organisms, unlike gasoline which usually goes bad after a few months). Been mulling over getting solar panels plus a battery bank installed as well; I'm just not sure if this is the house I want to continue living at.
Since the majority of smartphone users do not have an access to the internet, according to one expert, users have to go to a technology service center where technicians install apps to their cell phone. "Most mobile users do not have data service even if they buy a smartphone, so they have to be happy with pre-loaded apps such as games and dictionaries," Yonho Kim, a non-resident fellow at Korea Economic Institute, told NK News.
That almost happened to us. Back in the 1980s, the "network" you dialed into with your home computer was a corporate fiefdom. Prodigy, CompuServe, AOL, Delphi, GEnie. Each set up their own site with guides, forums, chatrooms, shopping, messaging, etc. and you paid them a monthly subscription to be able to access it. Communication between them was initially impossible, and accessing a different service's site required paying their subscription fee. MSN was Microsoft's attempt to set up a similar subscription service (done in conjunction with NBC, hence MSNBC).
Those of us in schools, the military, and certain tech companies knew there was a bigger, better way to network things. And we began informing regular lay persons about it. Gradually the services started to allow email between the services, and a few even gave access to some select Usenet newsgroups. People slowly began to realize that there was actually another thing out there called the Internet which could connect everything together. Instead of being stuck with only the guides, forums, and sites you were subscribed to, you could access everything that anybody in the world made. And they began to demand being able to access everything. Finally in 1994, Bill Gates threw in the towel and added a TCP/IP stack to Windows 95 (before, you had to download and set it up yourself using something like Trumpet Winsock - a feat beyond the technical capabilities of most users). Which coupled with the HTTP protocol (websites) gave birth to the Internet the way most people use it today.
We fought hard to inform the public that the Internet existed, and for direct access to it. That's why it horrifies us that many people are taking that freedom we fought and bled for, and willingly giving it up to return to the AOL-like walled gardens of Facebook and iOS, where the company controls everything you can see and do. Don't take your freedom of choice for granted, and throw it away so blithely.
There is really no justification for this court order, on several levels.
It's a temporary restraining order. Those are grated not based on the merits of the case, but on whether lasting harm could be done if the activity is allowed to continue while the court evaluates the issue. It's basically a "stop the harm now in case we decide against the 3D printed instructions later" order. I agree with you about the case, but I can understand why the judge granted the temporary restraining order.
You don't even need to do blue collar work. As long as you can see them doing such work, it's enough. I've managed small businesses, and seen first-hand how the minimum wage workers work. Some were stereotypically lazy. But the hardest worker I've ever seen (worked harder than any other employee, incoming our managers) was making minimum wage. I made sure we gave him a pay raise (unfortunately his skillset wouldn't allow him to be promoted).
I think the problem is that as companies become larger, management starts to stratify into lower management and upper management. The bigger the company, the more layers of management. Each layer further insulates those higher up from direct contact with the individual workers. The low-level blue collar workers become an abstract concept, rather than individuals you can empathize with. And as an abstract concept, they do tend to match the stereotype (on average are less intelligent, tend not to work as hard, don't care as much about the company).
These are government-granted monopolies. The local governments select a single cable and single phone company to service their area, and prohibit other companies from offering services. Giving the selected companies leeway to treat their customers like crap, while extorting huge sums of money from them for the service, and also extorting money from innocent third parties like Netflix.
There is no free market. These are government-granted monopolies. The local governments select a single cable and single phone company to service their area, and prohibit other companies from offering services.
This is actually a perfect example of government regulation run amok.
In the previous city I lived in, the city negotiated kickbacks from Verizon, who would pay them a certain amount each month for every home which subscribed to FIOS service. Basically a tax on its citizens, but collected by Verizon. In exchange, Verizon got a monopoly.
In the city I lived in before that, the city awarded the cable monopoly on the condition that the cable company install infrastructure to provide service to a certain percentage of homes in a low-income area. It was well-intended, but it screwed over the rest of us, consigning us to higher prices for worse service. A year before I moved, some council members with sense were elected and they voted to allow a second cable company to offer service. The day before the second cable company was set to provide service, the existing cable company gave free 50% internet speed boosts to all their plans, and cut $10/mo off the price across the board.
Wait. So they have enough space to add a second SIM slot for the small percentage of people who have to keep their work phone separate from their personal phone. But they don't have enough space for a headphone jack for the large percentage of people who'd rather plug in than go wireless?
So, if the professors are not being paid more, the students are not using 10 times as many professors... where is the money going? [...] A lot of administrators and non-essential spending can be cut without impacting the quality of education for the students.
The money has gone mostly to non-teaching administrative staff. And it can definitely be cut because those administrators didn't exist 30+ years ago, and nobody has complained about the quality of college education decreasing since then.
A student is more likely to be killed by a deer than by a school shooting at a U.S. school (ignore the dumb up-voted reply who doesn't realize that fatality rates are comparable between different population sizes). The whole school shooting "epidemic" is a fabrication by the news media (who are mostly pro-gun control). 3x more students die from complications due to pregnancy and childbirth than from school shootings. Why aren't there 3x as many news stories about the evils of teen pregnancy?
The biggest threat of death facing students is car accidents. That's followed by suicide - usually from bullying. That's over 100x as common as death from school shootings. France's suicide statistics are similar to the U.S., so it's not unreasonable to think their student suicide rate is similar. And smartphones and social media are one of the primary methods now used by students to bully each other.
As anecdotal evidence, I have a Galaxy Tab S 10.5 (released 2014) that I've used extensively for 2.5 years. it substitutes as my TV (Plex, DirecTV Now) when I'm away from my TV, so stays on for long periods of time. I'd estimate 4-8 hours a day (I often leave it on in the background while I'm working on the computer).
I recently bought an Amazon Fire HD 10, and was immediately disappointed by the image quality. It looks like crap compared to the OLED screen, especially when displaying dark scenes. I was going to exchange it for a different tablet, when I learned that the Fire HD 10 has one of the better screens available on LCD tablets, and the best one on an Amazon device.
And no I'm not talking about color saturation. By 2014 Samsung had included a movie mode which targeted sRGB, and I generally leave the tablet in that mode all the time. So no super-saturated colors. It's all about the blacks and contrast. LCDs just can't come anywhere near OLED. I'm now waiting for the Tab S4 to be released so I can have a newer non-4:3 tablet with an OLED screen.
Depends how leveraged he was. If he was playing with his own money, then yeah a $180k loss probably isn't a big deal. But if he was leveraged 10:1 (he put up $100,000 of his own money to borrow $1 million to play in the market), then the $180k loss is huge.
Most of Amazon's profit is coming from their cloud services division. I mention this because some people have been pointing to Amazon as an example of how people who foresaw that ecommerce would become a big thing might have invested in Amazon long ago, and are now being rewarded for it. That's not the case at all. Anyone who invested in Amazon because they thought ecommerce would become big ended up picking a winner by sheer blind luck.
In 2017 Amazon's ecommerce division actually lost money globally. The bulk of their profit (net income) has been coming from their cloud services. Basically Bezos started with an online bookstore, expanded it to ecommerce, and along the way just happened to stumble upon the cloud services market which turned out to be the real golden goose. He succeeded by blind luck too, though to be fair his ecommerce operations gave him the financial scale to qualify for loans needed to buy all that AWS hardware.. (If you don't know what AWS is, they provide the hardware and storage that a lot of online companies rely on to function. e.g. Dropbox stored all your files on AWS up until a few years ago. And if a company needs computer hardware for a temporary project, rather than buy it they'll just rent CPU time on AWS.)
I'm definitely in Camp Universal Income. Everyone gets enough to live comfortably enough on
It doesn't work like that. The value of money isn't fixed. It fluctuates based on the ratio of productivity to pay. When you screw with it, the value of the currency rises or falls. In other word, productivity is what's conserved (everything that's consumed must be produced), not money. So if you set an arbitrary consumption level (UBI) which doesn't match the amount of productivity the country is generating, there's a mismatch between the number of things available to buy vs the number of things people have money to buy. When that happens, more things for people to buy do not magically appear out of thin air. Instead, the value of the currency changes to reflect the new ratio. So if you set the UBI at $50k/yr per person, but people are only producing $25k/yr of goods, the economy corrects this mismatch by devaluing money by 50% (everything becomes twice as expensive in dollars). So your "$50k" UBI now only buys the equivalent of $25k of goods and services, guaranteeing that productivity and consumption are equal. But breaking your condition that the UBI be "enough to live comfortably on."
If you try to fix the value of the currency to thwart this, you end up in the situation that Greece was in and Venezuela are in. Greece overpaid its workers. If they had still been on the Drachma, all that would've happened was the value of the Drachma would've fallen compared to other currencies. But because they were on the Euro, the value of their currency was fixed. As a result, their economy responded by generating tremendous amounts of debt. Until they finally the other countries on the Euro eventually forced them to accept austerity measures (reduced pay, increased productivity). Venezuela tried to halt changes in the bolivar's value by fixing prices. As a result people stopped selling goods (on average, you're not going to sell something for less value than what it cost you to buy/produce it). And as a result people started selling and buying stuff on the black market - bartering or using other currencies like the US dollar.
In other words, you don't set the UBI. The economy does automatically. Without a UBI, the average income (standard of living) is simply the average worker's productivity. With a UBI, it becomes (the average worker's productivity) / (pay given to workers + pay given to UBI recipients). The larger the ratio of money received as UBI vs money received for productive work, the more your currency devalues and the less the UBI is able to buy. If your economy is only producing enough to sustain a $25k UBI, and you set it at $50k, the economy will simply devalue your currency so it's able to buy half as much (prices will double) so your $50k UBI becomes equivalent to a $25k UBI. (It's actually worse than this, as the amount workers are paid will also inflate. So the economy will respond to a UBI by attempting to correct the value of the currency so the amount of income people are receiving correctly reflects the productivity they are contributing. That is, it tries to converge on the UBI's value towards zero. So after enough time your UBI will be $50k but the average burger flipper will be making $10 million/yr, and burgers will cost $1000, and your UBI is no longer enough to live on.)
So you can't just declare "we will set the UBI at a level which allows everyone to comfortably live on." Everyone first has to produce enough for everyone to comfortably live on, before they can consume enough to comfortably live on. So a UBI by itself won't work. It needs to be coupled with some way to coerce or guarantee people meet the desired productivity target.
To get this to work, the UBI needs to be decoupled from the currency. Instead of giving people money, give them the produced items directly. e.g. The government gives everyone a free bag of staple foods once a week. New clothes once a year. A UBI apartmen
That was interesting, but then I was curious how that correlated with gun homicide rate. That proved to be a little harder since for some reason all the news sources include suicides in their gun fatality rates. People who commit suicide by gun likely would've committed suicide by other means, so really shouldn't be included. Fortunately, a USA Today article breaks it down by suicides vs. homicides.
So I subtracted suicides to calculate the homicide by gun rate and sorted the states.
rank state gun homicide rate 1 Louisiana 11.29807497 2 Mississippi 9.5120954 3 Alabama 9.28833652 4 Missouri 7.625174825 5 Illinois 7.349261745 6 Maryland 7.276944837 7 South Carolina 6.654882155 8 Tennessee 6.426829268 9 Georgia 6.193316359 10 Oklahoma 6.089817232 11 Arkansas 5.954528651 12 Alaska 5.847457627 13 Indiana 5.499699097 14 North Carolina 5.38594748 15 New Mexico 5.369712794 16 Kentucky 5.304404145 17 Nevada 4.996586345 18 Michigan 4.780813008 19 Ohio 4.71476378 20 Florida 4.622485207 21 Texas 4.409841933 22 Delaware 4.320720721 23 Arizona 4.209872029 24 Pennsylvania 4.117170418 25 West Virginia 4.111445783 26 Virginnia 4.038131554 27 Kansas 3.924020888 28 California 3.639855528 29 New Jersey 3.368041237 30 Wisconsin 3.227710843 31 Montana 3.134020619 32 South Dakota 3 33 Colorado 2.835344828 34 Wyoming 2.425742574 35 Nebraska 2.394736842 36 North Dakota 1.983333333 37 Washington 1.915451895 38 New York 1.906666667 39 Oregon 1.794152047 40 Utah 1.673513514 41 Idaho 1.62892562 42 Iowa 1.565277778 43 Hawaii 1.5 44 Connecticut 1.470930233 45 Minnesota 1.460185185 46 Vermont 1.269230769 47 Massachusetts 1.250413223 48 Rhode Island 1.142857143 49 Maine 0.733333333 50 New Hampshire 0.634090909
Then to factor in gun ownership rate, I divided the gun homicide rate by the gun ownership rate. That gave a gun homicide per owner rate. Basically, which state' gun owners are more likely to murder, vs behave responsibly.
rank state gun ownership rate gun homicide per owner 1 Illinois 0.202
S2 has about 14 solar masses, but it passes relatively close to the galaxy's central black hole (about 4x the distance from our sun to Neptune). Its orbital period is just 16 years despite having a semi-major axis about 970x that of the Earth (about 32x bigger than Neptune's orbit). The Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics put together an animation of the previous decade of observations (1992-2013). You can see how it whips around the black hole at closest approach.
The problem is the amount of light the camera sensors receive. Darker faces reflect less light, and thus the camera sensor gets less data to work with making algorithms based on that data less accurate at identifying darker faces.
This presents an obvious solution. To further the goal of eliminating racial bias, we need to turn off all the lights. That means all light bulbs need to be banned, and existing ones destroyed. NASA should launch a huge unfurling disk to block out the sun and leave the planet in perpetual darkness. Newborns should have their eyes surgically removed upon birth (they won't suffer because they won't know what they're missing). Only then can we be free of the evil racial bias being promulgated by light.
I have multiple clients with non-networked computers. The oldest is running Windows 2000 (a Win98 system was retired a couple years ago). Security is not an issue if you don't network it. If you need to transfer files off it, use a USB flash drive or HDD which is used only for that purpose (i.e. you don't use it to copy music you've downloaded via filesharing).
If it must be networked, you can put it behind its own router. Rely on the router's firewall to protect it from outside intrusion (and of course don't do anything stupid like browse the web on it). I'm actually not very confident about this one because some random employee will undoubtedly try to use the system to login to their facebook account at some point. But the client absolutely insisted on networking some old XP computers so they could upload newly-recorded data files to Dropbox every night, and this was the best idea I could come up with.
Back in 2013, they bought Elpida. Their combined market share before the acquisition was about 25%. After, it dwindled below 20%, and is only now coming back above 20%.
Likewise, Samsung's 50.2% quarter was an outlier. They've been holding pretty steadily around 45% since 2015.
In fact, the most striking this is how the big three (Samsung, SK Hynix (Hyundai Electronix), and Micron) have come to dominate, shrinking the market share of the bit players from over 10% in 2011 down below 5% today.
Yes and no. So when I have run image recognition through a neural net I get a percentage match... so it depends what the threshold for a match is set at. Is 65% considered a match or 95% or 99.9%
The posts you're replying to aren't talking about a percentage match rate. They're talking about the two possible failure modes. (A) Failing to identify a suspect's picture, and (B) misidentifying someone who is not a suspect as the suspect. If you're only using the software to weed out "obvious" not-a-match photos, then type B failures are perfectly acceptable.
That is, you're not using the software to try to find the suspect, you're just using it to reduce the number of photos that a human has to look through manually. Doesn't matter if the match rate is 65% or 95% or 99.9%. As long as the suspect isn't in the 65%, 95%, or 99.9% of photos which are rejected (type A failure), it's a success. If there's a racial bias (actually it's a skin tone bias, nothing to do with race, just that different races tend to have different skin tones), it just means a human has to look through a larger percentage of a pile of photos trying to find a black suspect, than for a white suspect. i.e. Black suspects will need to be identified manually by a human more often than by the facial recognition algorithm. Precisely the opposite of what TFA implies.
There's also a cute bug in the list of updates it's downloading/installing. If it's a long list, a scroll bar appears. But if you try to scroll down and read what it's trying to update so you can estimate how long it'll take, the moment the list refreshes (usually every few seconds), it puts you right back to the top again. So it's impossible to actually read stuff that's further down the list.
Can't all the free nations of the world demand that airlines list Taipei as "Taipei, Taiwan", or face repercussions which mirror whatever China does if they don't? Yes it puts the airlines in a lose-lose situation. But it'll leave them free to vote their conscience instead of knuckling under extortion.
Slashdot Mirror
Most of you are too young to remember, but once upon a time, everyone's real-life identity was transparent on the Internet. Everyone used their real names, most people even included their phone number and work address. If all you had was an email address (bang path), you could use it to finger them and get their info. Being able to skirt around this and do things anonymously was considered a bug which needed to be fixed.
As I recall it, anonymity took off when AOL joined Usenet. An AOL account granted you 5 usernames, ostensibly so a family could share a single AOL account. But a lot of AOL users used the extra identities to create pseudonyms so they could post on Usenet anonymously. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth over this among the pro-real identity folks, and a lot of heated arguments, but I don't remember there being any death threats over it. And eventually the pro-anonymity side won out.
It's interesting that the pro-anonymity folks aren't as tolerant of opinions different than theirs. For a democracy to function, there has to be a free exchange of ideas. People with different opinions must be allowed to express and practice what they think is a better way to do things. Their idea should be evaluated by each individual who hears it, and either accepted or dismissed. An individual or a group proactively preventing other individuals from learning about a different idea by threatening the people advocating them is corrosive to democracy, and will lead to a tyranny by an apparent majority. Nobody will know if the "majority opinion" is really held by the majority, because everyone is too afraid to contradict it.
Sending a false (I'm sorry, "erroneous") DMCA take-down request should get future take-down requests by the submitting entity downranked and de-prioritized in the queue.
Tesla's market cap is about the same as GM's. GM produces about 8,000 cars per day (averaged over the year), or 56,000 cars per week. An order of magnitude more than Tesla. If Tesla wants to justify its market cap, they need to spend about 10x more capital investment on production equipment as they spent just to get to 5,000 cars per week. If they now slow down investing in production equipment as you're theorizing, they're basically saying "Our stock should only be priced at $35 a share."
Ideally, backups should be stored offline (precisely to prevent ransomware from encrypting it) and off-site (in case the building burns down). Backing up your files to an always-accessible hard drive on a nearby system isn't much better than copying them to a second hard drive on the same computer.
Power failures. When I lived in the boonies, power failures were pretty frequent. They usually lasted a few seconds to a few minutes, so I bought UPSes and figured I was safe.
Then one night during a storm, the power went out. My UPSes kicked in, but the power didn't come back for more than 10 minutes. So I shut down my desktop and switched to my laptop. But 45 minutes in I lost Internet (I figure the cable company's battery backups ran out). No problem, I could chill for a few hours playing games on my laptop connected to a 12V car battery I kept around for such emergencies. Right? Turns out a tree fell over and took out the main power line. It took them 3 days to repair it. No electricity meant no heat, lights, hot water, refrigeration (I ended up putting most of the food in a basket and putting that outside), or computers. What ended up saving me was an antique wood stove. I chopped up some spare wood 2x4s left over from redoing the fencing, and burned those. For 3 days that was my only way to heat the house, warm water, and cook meals. I had candles, but fortunately my supply if AA batteries for my flashlights held.
I ended up moving soon after, but a generator was next on my shopping list if I hadn't. I moved back to Southern California with a much better appreciation of what it's going to be like when The Big One hits. I ended up buying a diesel truck with 110V AC outlets, and keep spare cans of diesel fuel in the garage (it can last for years with additives to kill biological organisms, unlike gasoline which usually goes bad after a few months). Been mulling over getting solar panels plus a battery bank installed as well; I'm just not sure if this is the house I want to continue living at.
That almost happened to us. Back in the 1980s, the "network" you dialed into with your home computer was a corporate fiefdom. Prodigy, CompuServe, AOL, Delphi, GEnie. Each set up their own site with guides, forums, chatrooms, shopping, messaging, etc. and you paid them a monthly subscription to be able to access it. Communication between them was initially impossible, and accessing a different service's site required paying their subscription fee. MSN was Microsoft's attempt to set up a similar subscription service (done in conjunction with NBC, hence MSNBC).
Those of us in schools, the military, and certain tech companies knew there was a bigger, better way to network things. And we began informing regular lay persons about it. Gradually the services started to allow email between the services, and a few even gave access to some select Usenet newsgroups. People slowly began to realize that there was actually another thing out there called the Internet which could connect everything together. Instead of being stuck with only the guides, forums, and sites you were subscribed to, you could access everything that anybody in the world made. And they began to demand being able to access everything. Finally in 1994, Bill Gates threw in the towel and added a TCP/IP stack to Windows 95 (before, you had to download and set it up yourself using something like Trumpet Winsock - a feat beyond the technical capabilities of most users). Which coupled with the HTTP protocol (websites) gave birth to the Internet the way most people use it today.
We fought hard to inform the public that the Internet existed, and for direct access to it. That's why it horrifies us that many people are taking that freedom we fought and bled for, and willingly giving it up to return to the AOL-like walled gardens of Facebook and iOS, where the company controls everything you can see and do. Don't take your freedom of choice for granted, and throw it away so blithely.
It's a temporary restraining order. Those are grated not based on the merits of the case, but on whether lasting harm could be done if the activity is allowed to continue while the court evaluates the issue. It's basically a "stop the harm now in case we decide against the 3D printed instructions later" order. I agree with you about the case, but I can understand why the judge granted the temporary restraining order.
You don't even need to do blue collar work. As long as you can see them doing such work, it's enough. I've managed small businesses, and seen first-hand how the minimum wage workers work. Some were stereotypically lazy. But the hardest worker I've ever seen (worked harder than any other employee, incoming our managers) was making minimum wage. I made sure we gave him a pay raise (unfortunately his skillset wouldn't allow him to be promoted).
I think the problem is that as companies become larger, management starts to stratify into lower management and upper management. The bigger the company, the more layers of management. Each layer further insulates those higher up from direct contact with the individual workers. The low-level blue collar workers become an abstract concept, rather than individuals you can empathize with. And as an abstract concept, they do tend to match the stereotype (on average are less intelligent, tend not to work as hard, don't care as much about the company).
These are government-granted monopolies. The local governments select a single cable and single phone company to service their area, and prohibit other companies from offering services. Giving the selected companies leeway to treat their customers like crap, while extorting huge sums of money from them for the service, and also extorting money from innocent third parties like Netflix.
This is actually a perfect example of government regulation run amok.
Wait. So they have enough space to add a second SIM slot for the small percentage of people who have to keep their work phone separate from their personal phone. But they don't have enough space for a headphone jack for the large percentage of people who'd rather plug in than go wireless?
The money has gone mostly to non-teaching administrative staff. And it can definitely be cut because those administrators didn't exist 30+ years ago, and nobody has complained about the quality of college education decreasing since then.
The same problem also afflicts our health care system.
A student is more likely to be killed by a deer than by a school shooting at a U.S. school (ignore the dumb up-voted reply who doesn't realize that fatality rates are comparable between different population sizes). The whole school shooting "epidemic" is a fabrication by the news media (who are mostly pro-gun control). 3x more students die from complications due to pregnancy and childbirth than from school shootings. Why aren't there 3x as many news stories about the evils of teen pregnancy?
The biggest threat of death facing students is car accidents. That's followed by suicide - usually from bullying. That's over 100x as common as death from school shootings. France's suicide statistics are similar to the U.S., so it's not unreasonable to think their student suicide rate is similar. And smartphones and social media are one of the primary methods now used by students to bully each other.
As anecdotal evidence, I have a Galaxy Tab S 10.5 (released 2014) that I've used extensively for 2.5 years. it substitutes as my TV (Plex, DirecTV Now) when I'm away from my TV, so stays on for long periods of time. I'd estimate 4-8 hours a day (I often leave it on in the background while I'm working on the computer).
I recently bought an Amazon Fire HD 10, and was immediately disappointed by the image quality. It looks like crap compared to the OLED screen, especially when displaying dark scenes. I was going to exchange it for a different tablet, when I learned that the Fire HD 10 has one of the better screens available on LCD tablets, and the best one on an Amazon device.
And no I'm not talking about color saturation. By 2014 Samsung had included a movie mode which targeted sRGB, and I generally leave the tablet in that mode all the time. So no super-saturated colors. It's all about the blacks and contrast. LCDs just can't come anywhere near OLED. I'm now waiting for the Tab S4 to be released so I can have a newer non-4:3 tablet with an OLED screen.
Depends how leveraged he was. If he was playing with his own money, then yeah a $180k loss probably isn't a big deal. But if he was leveraged 10:1 (he put up $100,000 of his own money to borrow $1 million to play in the market), then the $180k loss is huge.
Most of Amazon's profit is coming from their cloud services division. I mention this because some people have been pointing to Amazon as an example of how people who foresaw that ecommerce would become a big thing might have invested in Amazon long ago, and are now being rewarded for it. That's not the case at all. Anyone who invested in Amazon because they thought ecommerce would become big ended up picking a winner by sheer blind luck.
In 2017 Amazon's ecommerce division actually lost money globally. The bulk of their profit (net income) has been coming from their cloud services. Basically Bezos started with an online bookstore, expanded it to ecommerce, and along the way just happened to stumble upon the cloud services market which turned out to be the real golden goose. He succeeded by blind luck too, though to be fair his ecommerce operations gave him the financial scale to qualify for loans needed to buy all that AWS hardware.. (If you don't know what AWS is, they provide the hardware and storage that a lot of online companies rely on to function. e.g. Dropbox stored all your files on AWS up until a few years ago. And if a company needs computer hardware for a temporary project, rather than buy it they'll just rent CPU time on AWS.)
It doesn't work like that. The value of money isn't fixed. It fluctuates based on the ratio of productivity to pay. When you screw with it, the value of the currency rises or falls. In other word, productivity is what's conserved (everything that's consumed must be produced), not money. So if you set an arbitrary consumption level (UBI) which doesn't match the amount of productivity the country is generating, there's a mismatch between the number of things available to buy vs the number of things people have money to buy. When that happens, more things for people to buy do not magically appear out of thin air. Instead, the value of the currency changes to reflect the new ratio. So if you set the UBI at $50k/yr per person, but people are only producing $25k/yr of goods, the economy corrects this mismatch by devaluing money by 50% (everything becomes twice as expensive in dollars). So your "$50k" UBI now only buys the equivalent of $25k of goods and services, guaranteeing that productivity and consumption are equal. But breaking your condition that the UBI be "enough to live comfortably on."
If you try to fix the value of the currency to thwart this, you end up in the situation that Greece was in and Venezuela are in. Greece overpaid its workers. If they had still been on the Drachma, all that would've happened was the value of the Drachma would've fallen compared to other currencies. But because they were on the Euro, the value of their currency was fixed. As a result, their economy responded by generating tremendous amounts of debt. Until they finally the other countries on the Euro eventually forced them to accept austerity measures (reduced pay, increased productivity). Venezuela tried to halt changes in the bolivar's value by fixing prices. As a result people stopped selling goods (on average, you're not going to sell something for less value than what it cost you to buy/produce it). And as a result people started selling and buying stuff on the black market - bartering or using other currencies like the US dollar.
In other words, you don't set the UBI. The economy does automatically. Without a UBI, the average income (standard of living) is simply the average worker's productivity. With a UBI, it becomes (the average worker's productivity) / (pay given to workers + pay given to UBI recipients). The larger the ratio of money received as UBI vs money received for productive work, the more your currency devalues and the less the UBI is able to buy. If your economy is only producing enough to sustain a $25k UBI, and you set it at $50k, the economy will simply devalue your currency so it's able to buy half as much (prices will double) so your $50k UBI becomes equivalent to a $25k UBI. (It's actually worse than this, as the amount workers are paid will also inflate. So the economy will respond to a UBI by attempting to correct the value of the currency so the amount of income people are receiving correctly reflects the productivity they are contributing. That is, it tries to converge on the UBI's value towards zero. So after enough time your UBI will be $50k but the average burger flipper will be making $10 million/yr, and burgers will cost $1000, and your UBI is no longer enough to live on.)
So you can't just declare "we will set the UBI at a level which allows everyone to comfortably live on." Everyone first has to produce enough for everyone to comfortably live on, before they can consume enough to comfortably live on. So a UBI by itself won't work. It needs to be coupled with some way to coerce or guarantee people meet the desired productivity target.
To get this to work, the UBI needs to be decoupled from the currency. Instead of giving people money, give them the produced items directly. e.g. The government gives everyone a free bag of staple foods once a week. New clothes once a year. A UBI apartmen
Apologies for posting this as code, but it's the only way I could find to get lists past slashdot's lameness filter.
This got me curious. So I looked online for the gun ownership rate per state (what percentage of a state's households own a gun).
http://demographicdata.org/facts-and-figures/gun-ownership-statistics/
That was interesting, but then I was curious how that correlated with gun homicide rate. That proved to be a little harder since for some reason all the news sources include suicides in their gun fatality rates. People who commit suicide by gun likely would've committed suicide by other means, so really shouldn't be included. Fortunately, a USA Today article breaks it down by suicides vs. homicides.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/21/states-most-and-least-gun-violence-see-where-your-state-stacks-up/359395002/
So I subtracted suicides to calculate the homicide by gun rate and sorted the states.
rank state gun homicide rate
1 Louisiana 11.29807497
2 Mississippi 9.5120954
3 Alabama 9.28833652
4 Missouri 7.625174825
5 Illinois 7.349261745
6 Maryland 7.276944837
7 South Carolina 6.654882155
8 Tennessee 6.426829268
9 Georgia 6.193316359
10 Oklahoma 6.089817232
11 Arkansas 5.954528651
12 Alaska 5.847457627
13 Indiana 5.499699097
14 North Carolina 5.38594748
15 New Mexico 5.369712794
16 Kentucky 5.304404145
17 Nevada 4.996586345
18 Michigan 4.780813008
19 Ohio 4.71476378
20 Florida 4.622485207
21 Texas 4.409841933
22 Delaware 4.320720721
23 Arizona 4.209872029
24 Pennsylvania 4.117170418
25 West Virginia 4.111445783
26 Virginnia 4.038131554
27 Kansas 3.924020888
28 California 3.639855528
29 New Jersey 3.368041237
30 Wisconsin 3.227710843
31 Montana 3.134020619
32 South Dakota 3
33 Colorado 2.835344828
34 Wyoming 2.425742574
35 Nebraska 2.394736842
36 North Dakota 1.983333333
37 Washington 1.915451895
38 New York 1.906666667
39 Oregon 1.794152047
40 Utah 1.673513514
41 Idaho 1.62892562
42 Iowa 1.565277778
43 Hawaii 1.5
44 Connecticut 1.470930233
45 Minnesota 1.460185185
46 Vermont 1.269230769
47 Massachusetts 1.250413223
48 Rhode Island 1.142857143
49 Maine 0.733333333
50 New Hampshire 0.634090909
Then to factor in gun ownership rate, I divided the gun homicide rate by the gun ownership rate. That gave a gun homicide per owner rate. Basically, which state' gun owners are more likely to murder, vs behave responsibly.
rank state gun ownership rate gun homicide per owner
1 Illinois 0.202
S2 has about 14 solar masses, but it passes relatively close to the galaxy's central black hole (about 4x the distance from our sun to Neptune). Its orbital period is just 16 years despite having a semi-major axis about 970x that of the Earth (about 32x bigger than Neptune's orbit). The Max-Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics put together an animation of the previous decade of observations (1992-2013). You can see how it whips around the black hole at closest approach.
The problem is the amount of light the camera sensors receive. Darker faces reflect less light, and thus the camera sensor gets less data to work with making algorithms based on that data less accurate at identifying darker faces.
This presents an obvious solution. To further the goal of eliminating racial bias, we need to turn off all the lights. That means all light bulbs need to be banned, and existing ones destroyed. NASA should launch a huge unfurling disk to block out the sun and leave the planet in perpetual darkness. Newborns should have their eyes surgically removed upon birth (they won't suffer because they won't know what they're missing). Only then can we be free of the evil racial bias being promulgated by light.
I have multiple clients with non-networked computers. The oldest is running Windows 2000 (a Win98 system was retired a couple years ago). Security is not an issue if you don't network it. If you need to transfer files off it, use a USB flash drive or HDD which is used only for that purpose (i.e. you don't use it to copy music you've downloaded via filesharing).
If it must be networked, you can put it behind its own router. Rely on the router's firewall to protect it from outside intrusion (and of course don't do anything stupid like browse the web on it). I'm actually not very confident about this one because some random employee will undoubtedly try to use the system to login to their facebook account at some point. But the client absolutely insisted on networking some old XP computers so they could upload newly-recorded data files to Dropbox every night, and this was the best idea I could come up with.
Back in 2013, they bought Elpida. Their combined market share before the acquisition was about 25%. After, it dwindled below 20%, and is only now coming back above 20%.
Likewise, Samsung's 50.2% quarter was an outlier. They've been holding pretty steadily around 45% since 2015.
In fact, the most striking this is how the big three (Samsung, SK Hynix (Hyundai Electronix), and Micron) have come to dominate, shrinking the market share of the bit players from over 10% in 2011 down below 5% today.
The posts you're replying to aren't talking about a percentage match rate. They're talking about the two possible failure modes. (A) Failing to identify a suspect's picture, and (B) misidentifying someone who is not a suspect as the suspect. If you're only using the software to weed out "obvious" not-a-match photos, then type B failures are perfectly acceptable.
That is, you're not using the software to try to find the suspect, you're just using it to reduce the number of photos that a human has to look through manually. Doesn't matter if the match rate is 65% or 95% or 99.9%. As long as the suspect isn't in the 65%, 95%, or 99.9% of photos which are rejected (type A failure), it's a success. If there's a racial bias (actually it's a skin tone bias, nothing to do with race, just that different races tend to have different skin tones), it just means a human has to look through a larger percentage of a pile of photos trying to find a black suspect, than for a white suspect. i.e. Black suspects will need to be identified manually by a human more often than by the facial recognition algorithm. Precisely the opposite of what TFA implies.
There's also a cute bug in the list of updates it's downloading/installing. If it's a long list, a scroll bar appears. But if you try to scroll down and read what it's trying to update so you can estimate how long it'll take, the moment the list refreshes (usually every few seconds), it puts you right back to the top again. So it's impossible to actually read stuff that's further down the list.
Can't all the free nations of the world demand that airlines list Taipei as "Taipei, Taiwan", or face repercussions which mirror whatever China does if they don't? Yes it puts the airlines in a lose-lose situation. But it'll leave them free to vote their conscience instead of knuckling under extortion.