Slashdot has its issues, but it's clear that preventing the existence of a 0.01% of accounts and limiting the reward of groupthink has been a fundamental component from the get-go, which has helped it avoid some of the pitfalls of Reddit and other straight upvote/like ranking systems. Such a system would alienate the Twitter audience, and Twitter knows it.
One thing I like about slashdot is that anyone can post without registering but do so with a score of 0, registered accounts starts with +1 and if you're not totally incoherent you quite quickly start posting with a +2, so pretty much everyone worth reading do and I can adjust my preferences and see as much or little as I want to. If a twitter post gets 300 replies I know I probably won't enjoy browsing the discussion.
I don't know where you've got that figure from, last year it was $555m although in -15 it was $800+m but yes, that is an insane amount of money imnho spent on research on how to trigger people while showing them ads.
I'd be curious to know how you experienced life before social media? As I remember purveyors of fringe beliefs could sometimes be seen on street corners and town squares handing out stenciled leaflets and shouting, but if their views where too extreme, they'd be driven away by an angry mob (and they where quite a rare occurrence). Today any crackpot can an will, butt into your online conversation. The diversity of opinions among my friends, at school or at work was very small compared to for example this site (and I'd say twitter has an even greater diversity given that it's target group is larger and the lack of moderation which gives anyone the opportunity to butt in on equal footing unless you specifically block them).
I'm going to watch this discussion to see if anyone can provide a sane definition of what the "dynamics of Twitter" are supposed to be. Near as I can tell, it is a peculiar form of insanity driven by some sort of theory that if you can get enough eyeballs looking in the same direction, you must have created some value there. I'm not seeing the value.
Part and parcel of the insane worship of corporate cancers? Of course if stock prices become completely detached from reality, then the only question is which company can do the best "job" of creating an illusion of shareholder value, eh? I'd still bet on the Chinese, whose stock market has risen 30% recently for no reasons I can detect.
By the way, the original idea of extremely short messages was really dumb. Twice times dumb is still dumb. I used to believe the expression that "Brevity is the soul of wit" until I saw Twitter in action.
Twitter stock currently trades at a price to earnings ratio of 22.09: https://www.marketwatch.com/in... You can see a summary of their financials for the last 5 years: https://www.marketwatch.com/in... (I only invest in broad cheap index funds so I'm not interested in arguing share value. I only intended to show that they do make money and the valuation is possibly high but not crazy).
I think most reasonable people would understand a "viable" business to be one that is able to sustain itself in an undistorted market. This is actually yet another data point in the opposite direction.
Current CO2 emissions are not viable, banning fossil fuel is not viable. Sure carbon credits distorts the market, but minimally so, the undistorted market alternative to Tesla getting a windfall is the polluter taking the full cost of sucking the CO2 out of the air and putting it back in the ground. Do you have a better suggestion or isn't "you brake it, you fix it" an applicable rule?
Even if they plant a forest, the biggest CO2 fixation happens in the first few years of growth. Mature trees remove much less CO2 from the atmosphere.
This does not make sense and is quite obviously not true. As a data point a giant sequoia can absorb as much as 3.5 tonnes of CO2 in a year, how do you believe that works with a tree just a few feet high, what in your opinion happens to the carbon?
That YouTube account has no relationship to TED. I'm not sure how the video was distributed, but TED was NOT involved. On the TED website, they initially pretended the talk never existed. Then there was a discussion, but it was quickly aborted.
TED claims to own that account, if you know otherwise please post a link. https://blog.ted.com/how-did-n... The youtube link I provided is the same as in the blog.
Truely hilarious is that the talk in question was posted by TED on youtube https://youtube.com/watch?v=bB... TED does not host every talk on their home page.
Stalkerware is frequently used by stalkers and abusers to spy on people through their phones.
And it's more frequently used by people who want to catch their spouse cheating on them before they file for divorce so they don't get screwed (in court). You can argue about whether or not that's right or not, but the "stalkers and abusers" line is mostly bullshit. It's people prepping for divorce and gathering evidence.
Do you have a source for that claim? Divorce isn't handled like in the US everywhere and afaik stalkerware isn't only prevailing in countries where infidelity is a factor in a divorce court.
60-70% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck(depending on what you consider paycheck to paycheck, e.g. $1000 in the bank gets you 60%, $100 gets you 70%). Doesn't matter how much that $20 bulb saves you if you've only got $1 in your pocket. Move into an Apartment and you'll still find incandescent bulbs everywhere, especially if it's a cheap apartment.
Backing down to a claim of the novelty and unnaturalness of "light", as if there was no research or empirical evidence to build from is not really a convincing proposition.
Nope, my claim is that light is neither novel or unnatural and that there is research and empirical evidence available to build from. I have also previously in the thread claimed that with a minimal amount of research you should be sceptical about Kruse.
Posting links to other peoples research has not changed my mind about any of my previous claims, in fact it seems to validate at least one of them.
They require a receipt to actually make a claim. How many people are going to bother to keep paperwork on every light bulb in their house for ten years?
Companies can offer extraordinarily long warranties when they can be reasonably confident that only a small proportion of customers will go to the trouble of making a claim.
The OP is wrong in that they don't need the MTBF to be as low as for incandescents (since LED bulbs still cost quite a bit more than incandescents), but anyone who believes that it's going to be ten years is living in a fantasy world.
Cree also claims a 25000 hour lifetime, that's about 6.8 hours a day for 10 years. If you're so sure that this is incorrect, lawyer up to receive your handout.
The burden of proof of safety are on those introducing the novelty. When unsure, defaulting to Nature may be the safer bet. Kruse's narrative does not need to be correct for people to take precaution. http://fooledbyrandomness.com/...
Backing down to a claim of the novelty and unnaturalness of "light", as if there was no research or empirical evidence to build from is not really a convincing proposition.
Clever remark. More of the same critical thinking. Incandescents emit light and heat, and many homes are increasingly heated by electricity, emission free. Why ban incadescents, using a fraction of power compared to heating, with the rest heating your home and thus reducing your heating bills? Letâ(TM)s follow the money to understand obamas buying cartels of Philips and Co types. Profit for incandescents few cents per bulb. But scared with global warming guilt, you are happily paying $20 per short-lived LED bulb instead to 50 cents per incandescent bulb, satisfied that the planet Earth would not overheat tomorrow. Meanwhile Philips and Co are going laughing all the way to their bank.
PlanetVision has myopia. The net result is there is no energy savings and we are causing massive circadian sickness because of the new additional man made blue light. LED are deadly because of the biology of the retina. The reality is due to melanopsin, neuropsin, Vit A biology https://t.co/g7VAGuzUhv
They do that by design. If LED lightbulbs don't have an MTBF similar to old incandescent bulbs then the manufacturers stand to lose a lot of money. So they are intentionally made like crap. Everyone thought that with LEDs we wouldn't have to change lightbulbs anymore. That was naive. Incandescent bulbs can last much longer than what we were used to as well. But there is no money in it
Just looking at a standard 60 watt replacement soft white Cree led light bulb, they have a 10 year 100% satisfaction guaranteed warranty https://creebulb.com/warranty/ There is no possibility of this being sustainable with a mtbf similar to the old incandescent light bulbs (about 1000 hours) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you really believe what you are saying you'd be short selling Cree stock like crazy, and somehow I seriously doubt you are.
Cashless payment fees are usually less than a percent - cheaper than handling cash.
False.
Credit cards cost about 3%, not 1%, which is much more than the cost of handling cash.
That depends on where in the world you are. Looking at Sweden (which afaik has one of the highest rate of debit/credit card vs cash usage in the world) you can get (I browsed the arbitrarily chosen 5000 transactions/month) less than $10 fixed monthly fee, 0.64% for debit, 1.085% for credit with an additional $0.08 fee per transaction. These are list prices, finding out the cost of handling cash is more difficult, but from what I heard it's usually about 3-5% (direct costs only). If you want to continue using cash you'll need legislation or get used to paying for the privilege directly at the till, the difference in cost is simply not long term sustainable.
I've submitted probably close to a hundred debian bug reports over the years. These are project that don't have an upstream or the bug is debian specific. Most of them include patches to fix the issue. I don't think any have been looked at.
No need for special lobbying - store needs to remain to allow installation of new software. Otherwise people would delete everything and be left with no way to fix it themselves.
No. There's an out.
the ADB interface allows the installation of apk files over a usb cable.
Or it could be a function in the customer service app.
That test simply shot a projectile at a wing and has been widely discredited.
Sure it's going to do damage but it's not at all close to realistic. You need a wind tunnel and then simply drop the drone and see whether it will ever hit a wing. If a flock of birds could do as much damage, then we'd never get any planes of the ground.
Feel free to add to the discussion by providing a link.
I'm thinking they need to invest in the technology to quickly and safely shoot these out of the sky and resume operations. I'm also thinking most of them would cause less damage to a jet than a goose strike would.
Some tests have been made with drone and aircraft collisions https://www.aerospacetestingin... “The bird did more apparent damage to the leading edge of the wing, but the Phantom penetrated deeper into the wing and damaged the main spar, which the bird did not do,”
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot has its issues, but it's clear that preventing the existence of a 0.01% of accounts and limiting the reward of groupthink has been a fundamental component from the get-go, which has helped it avoid some of the pitfalls of Reddit and other straight upvote/like ranking systems. Such a system would alienate the Twitter audience, and Twitter knows it.
One thing I like about slashdot is that anyone can post without registering but do so with a score of 0, registered accounts starts with +1 and if you're not totally incoherent you quite quickly start posting with a +2, so pretty much everyone worth reading do and I can adjust my preferences and see as much or little as I want to. If a twitter post gets 300 replies I know I probably won't enjoy browsing the discussion.
$700 million/year in "R&D" lol
I don't know where you've got that figure from, last year it was $555m although in -15 it was $800+m but yes, that is an insane amount of money imnho spent on research on how to trigger people while showing them ads.
I'd be curious to know how you experienced life before social media?
As I remember purveyors of fringe beliefs could sometimes be seen on street corners and town squares handing out stenciled leaflets and shouting, but if their views where too extreme, they'd be driven away by an angry mob (and they where quite a rare occurrence). Today any crackpot can an will, butt into your online conversation. The diversity of opinions among my friends, at school or at work was very small compared to for example this site (and I'd say twitter has an even greater diversity given that it's target group is larger and the lack of moderation which gives anyone the opportunity to butt in on equal footing unless you specifically block them).
I'm going to watch this discussion to see if anyone can provide a sane definition of what the "dynamics of Twitter" are supposed to be. Near as I can tell, it is a peculiar form of insanity driven by some sort of theory that if you can get enough eyeballs looking in the same direction, you must have created some value there. I'm not seeing the value.
Part and parcel of the insane worship of corporate cancers? Of course if stock prices become completely detached from reality, then the only question is which company can do the best "job" of creating an illusion of shareholder value, eh? I'd still bet on the Chinese, whose stock market has risen 30% recently for no reasons I can detect.
By the way, the original idea of extremely short messages was really dumb. Twice times dumb is still dumb. I used to believe the expression that "Brevity is the soul of wit" until I saw Twitter in action.
Twitter stock currently trades at a price to earnings ratio of 22.09: https://www.marketwatch.com/in...
You can see a summary of their financials for the last 5 years: https://www.marketwatch.com/in...
(I only invest in broad cheap index funds so I'm not interested in arguing share value. I only intended to show that they do make money and the valuation is possibly high but not crazy).
I think most reasonable people would understand a "viable" business to be one that is able to sustain itself in an undistorted market. This is actually yet another data point in the opposite direction.
Current CO2 emissions are not viable, banning fossil fuel is not viable. Sure carbon credits distorts the market, but minimally so, the undistorted market alternative to Tesla getting a windfall is the polluter taking the full cost of sucking the CO2 out of the air and putting it back in the ground. Do you have a better suggestion or isn't "you brake it, you fix it" an applicable rule?
Even if they plant a forest, the biggest CO2 fixation happens in the first few years of growth. Mature trees remove much less CO2 from the atmosphere.
This does not make sense and is quite obviously not true. As a data point a giant sequoia can absorb as much as 3.5 tonnes of CO2 in a year, how do you believe that works with a tree just a few feet high, what in your opinion happens to the carbon?
That YouTube account has no relationship to TED. I'm not sure how the video was distributed, but TED was NOT involved. On the TED website, they initially pretended the talk never existed. Then there was a discussion, but it was quickly aborted.
TED claims to own that account, if you know otherwise please post a link. https://blog.ted.com/how-did-n...
The youtube link I provided is the same as in the blog.
Hilarious this talk is not available on.
Truely hilarious is that the talk in question was posted by TED on youtube https://youtube.com/watch?v=bB...
TED does not host every talk on their home page.
Censorship and integrity in regard to TED owners who chose to ban the talk which is mentioned in this /. submission.
Except it wasn't banned, this is the same link as in the article which tells the full story. https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch...
Stalkerware is frequently used by stalkers and abusers to spy on people through their phones.
And it's more frequently used by people who want to catch their spouse cheating on them before they file for divorce so they don't get screwed (in court).
You can argue about whether or not that's right or not, but the "stalkers and abusers" line is mostly bullshit. It's people prepping for divorce and gathering evidence.
Do you have a source for that claim? Divorce isn't handled like in the US everywhere and afaik stalkerware isn't only prevailing in countries where infidelity is a factor in a divorce court.
60-70% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck(depending on what you consider paycheck to paycheck, e.g. $1000 in the bank gets you 60%, $100 gets you 70%). Doesn't matter how much that $20 bulb saves you if you've only got $1 in your pocket. Move into an Apartment and you'll still find incandescent bulbs everywhere, especially if it's a cheap apartment.
Actually $0.99 buys you a led bulb at https://m2.ikea.com/us/en/p/ry...
Backing down to a claim of the novelty and unnaturalness of "light", as if there was no research or empirical evidence to build from is not really a convincing proposition.
The frequency spectrum of light is unimportant? That's quite a claim to have to prove.
Evening use of light-emitting eReaders negativelyaffects sleep, circadian timing, andnext-morning alertness
Nope, my claim is that light is neither novel or unnatural and that there is research and empirical evidence available to build from.
I have also previously in the thread claimed that with a minimal amount of research you should be sceptical about Kruse.
Posting links to other peoples research has not changed my mind about any of my previous claims, in fact it seems to validate at least one of them.
They require a receipt to actually make a claim. How many people are going to bother to keep paperwork on every light bulb in their house for ten years?
Companies can offer extraordinarily long warranties when they can be reasonably confident that only a small proportion of customers will go to the trouble of making a claim.
The OP is wrong in that they don't need the MTBF to be as low as for incandescents (since LED bulbs still cost quite a bit more than incandescents), but anyone who believes that it's going to be ten years is living in a fantasy world.
Cree also claims a 25000 hour lifetime, that's about 6.8 hours a day for 10 years. If you're so sure that this is incorrect, lawyer up to receive your handout.
The burden of proof of safety are on those introducing the novelty. When unsure, defaulting to Nature may be the safer bet. Kruse's narrative does not need to be correct for people to take precaution. http://fooledbyrandomness.com/...
Backing down to a claim of the novelty and unnaturalness of "light", as if there was no research or empirical evidence to build from is not really a convincing proposition.
Clever remark. More of the same critical thinking. Incandescents emit light and heat, and many homes are increasingly heated by electricity, emission free. Why ban incadescents, using a fraction of power compared to heating, with the rest heating your home and thus reducing your heating bills? Letâ(TM)s follow the money to understand obamas buying cartels of Philips and Co types. Profit for incandescents few cents per bulb. But scared with global warming guilt, you are happily paying $20 per short-lived LED bulb instead to 50 cents per incandescent bulb, satisfied that the planet Earth would not overheat tomorrow. Meanwhile Philips and Co are going laughing all the way to their bank.
Stick it to the man and get $0.99 led bulbs at ikea https://www.ikea.com/us/en/cat...
Are LEDs safe?
A minimal amount of research should make you highly suspicious of any claims made by dr jack https://jackkruse.com/store/
They do that by design. If LED lightbulbs don't have an MTBF similar to old incandescent bulbs then the manufacturers stand to lose a lot of money. So they are intentionally made like crap. Everyone thought that with LEDs we wouldn't have to change lightbulbs anymore. That was naive. Incandescent bulbs can last much longer than what we were used to as well. But there is no money in it
Just looking at a standard 60 watt replacement soft white Cree led light bulb, they have a 10 year 100% satisfaction guaranteed warranty https://creebulb.com/warranty/
There is no possibility of this being sustainable with a mtbf similar to the old incandescent light bulbs (about 1000 hours) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If you really believe what you are saying you'd be short selling Cree stock like crazy, and somehow I seriously doubt you are.
Robert Zangrillo is a republican https://voterrecords.com/voter... (I only googled the one as that's all I need to prove you wrong, try again).
Cashless payment fees are usually less than a percent - cheaper than handling cash.
False.
Credit cards cost about 3%, not 1%, which is much more than the cost of handling cash.
That depends on where in the world you are. Looking at Sweden (which afaik has one of the highest rate of debit/credit card vs cash usage in the world) you can get (I browsed the arbitrarily chosen 5000 transactions/month) less than $10 fixed monthly fee, 0.64% for debit, 1.085% for credit with an additional $0.08 fee per transaction. These are list prices, finding out the cost of handling cash is more difficult, but from what I heard it's usually about 3-5% (direct costs only). If you want to continue using cash you'll need legislation or get used to paying for the privilege directly at the till, the difference in cost is simply not long term sustainable.
I've submitted probably close to a hundred debian bug reports over the years. These are project that don't have an upstream or the bug is debian specific. Most of them include patches to fix the issue. I don't think any have been looked at.
Got links?
I agree with you, but unfortunately 99% of people choose ad supported service and then try to block ads instead of paying.
2% of users block ads according to the summary so you're about 97% wrong.
No need for special lobbying - store needs to remain to allow installation of new software. Otherwise people would delete everything and be left with no way to fix it themselves.
No. There's an out.
the ADB interface allows the installation of apk files over a usb cable.
Or it could be a function in the customer service app.
Max Justicz original blog post with example exploit https://justi.cz/security/2019...
That test simply shot a projectile at a wing and has been widely discredited.
Sure it's going to do damage but it's not at all close to realistic. You need a wind tunnel and then simply drop the drone and see whether it will ever hit a wing. If a flock of birds could do as much damage, then we'd never get any planes of the ground.
Feel free to add to the discussion by providing a link.
I'm thinking they need to invest in the technology to quickly and safely shoot these out of the sky and resume operations. I'm also thinking most of them would cause less damage to a jet than a goose strike would.
Some tests have been made with drone and aircraft collisions https://www.aerospacetestingin...
“The bird did more apparent damage to the leading edge of the wing, but the Phantom penetrated deeper into the wing and damaged the main spar, which the bird did not do,”