If you can't do anything legal with over $10k in cash, then when they find that you have $10k in cash they just take it from you with no possibility of getting it back. Without that law there's some pesky small possibility that they can't steal your money and get away with it.
Card packs are loot boxes. You're buying a random assortment of cards in the hopes that some of them will have value. The cards have monetary value in the secondary market.
Youtube pays 55% to the uploader. If someone claims ownership of the music in a video they can either have it taken down or take all of that 55%. So if you want to talk about being fair to content creators, if you make a video and there's a section where there's music playing in the background the owner of that music can take all the money that video gets as if the rest of the video has no value. Music copyright owners are treated as being far more important than people actually making videos for the video platform.
Adwords has the ability to target specific videos or channels (the channels part doesn't seem to actually work). Advertisers have the ability to make their ads only show up where they whitelist them, if they are concerned about it. This would of course screw over the smaller channels whose videos would never get whitelisted by the big advertisers. But they are even more screwed over now because no one can advertise on them at all.
The second they started taking responsibility for the content on the platform they put themselves in an unwinnable position. Moderating YouTube is completely, hopelessly impossible. It's like nuclear war, the only way to win is not to play.
Now they are on defense against every internet investigator looking for the next thing somebody is doing on YouTube that people can get outraged about. The mainstream media sees YouTube as competition for viewers and YouTube has handed them the means to repeatedly wound them.
They made every channel with fewer than 4000 watch hours and 1000 subscribers lose their monetization and be subjected to review whenever a channel now reaches those thresholds. The original date they were supposed to be caught up with reviewing channels was the end of April. That has now been moved to the end of June. I'm not holding my breath on that.
He's a contractor and using flashlights that run on AAA batteries. He could use a flashlight that runs on the same batteries that are in his drill and other cordless tools but he's a moron.
If they have 0 subscribers then they are already demonetized. Every channel with less than 4000 hours and 1000 subscribers was retroactively demonetized. My second channel being one of them. I reached the new thresholds a couple weeks ago but am still in review.
So if the idea of screwing over all the smaller channels was to get these guys to stop doing this, well guess what, they are still doing it.
The other day my cc got used to make a $5 donation to some Christian website that I had never heard of. The charge got flagged as fraudulent and I got an alert. It's puzzling as to how they got the info and why they only charged $5 to it. I guess hoping to fly under the radar. Equally puzzling is how the bank managed to correctly flag that tiny charge as fraudulent. My point being that current fraud detection is already better than what you are suggesting. The tricky part would be with new customers who they don't have a charge history to base anything on.
Why don't they just rematerialize themselves every day and never get any older? This might not work for some jobs, for example a Star Fleet officer's morning briefing that would have to explain everything that's changed since they were originally scanned in would get excessively long. But you could age one day per week and not have anything get too out of hand. When something really important happens then you get rescanned that day. Of course, what's the point of living if you don't actually get to remember having lived? But not really living but not dying is pretty much the default state of most people anyway.
In critical situations people could work 24/7 for extended periods. Simply replace yourself with the version of you that isn't tired.
Also you can't tell me there's never been a transporter operator that has made a copy of someone they want to have sex with and beamed them off somewhere to rape them. Takes #MeToo to a whole different place.
It's easy to get votes for something when the politician knows there is zero chance that vote is going to actually do anything. Witness the attempts to repeal the ACA. If they actually got across 51 some of those votes would likely evaporate. If the House and presidency flipped some of those votes would certainly disappear.
What I love about it is that in every hollywood battle the two main characters on opposing sides always find each other. There for once they don't. It's just chaos even though it's a small battle and he can't focus on her even though he wants to.
There's no resolution and he just has to live with that.
Nah. They think the obvious choice is the brilliant choice. For example in the books in the attack on Castle Black, Ygritte dies off camera and Jon only finds her after the battle is over. They of course change it to having them have an encounter and the kid that survives the wildling attack on his village, Olly, is the one to kill her. That's standard tv stuff.
Writer's Assistant Dave Hill is the one who came up with the idea of having Olly be the one to kill Ygritte. They were so impressed by this idea that he got promoted to write his own episodes.
I'm not saying it's a bad choice. I'm saying it's the normal choice. The kind of choice that makes the show just like everything else.
That's done all the time to stabilize wood. It makes it more dense and harder, particularly if it was soft from starting to rot (the early stages of rot can be quite beautiful but you have to catch it before it goes too far). It's just not something you can do to anything larger than a turning blank without some serious equipment.
Who is going to accomplish more interesting things, a competent person who lacks confidence or an incompetent person who has lots of confidence? The former will do safe things very well but they'll never take any risks. The latter will often fail spectacularly but may from time to time hit upon things that other people in the field would have thought would never work. They will however need competent people around them to actually turn it into reality.
A prime example would be the success of Game of Thrones. The showrunners Benioff and Weiss had zero experience at producing a television show. Yet they succeeded at getting permission from George RR Martin to adapt his work where many others had failed. They succeeded because everyone else knew that in order to make anything from the books they had to focus on only a small part of the story and drop the rest. To do the whole story was impossible. But B & W didn't know it was impossible. They didn't know what they didn't know, so they weren't afraid to try to do the impossible. Then they made a pilot and by their own admission it was horrible. It had to be almost completely redone. Their second attempt however turned into one of the most successful shows in history. I would argue though that as they have become more experienced the show has actually gotten worse. It's become more like everything else Hollywood produces, just with a bigger budget than other tv shows. It shows they aren't exceptional producers or writers. They were just in the right place at the right time and didn't know what they were getting themselves into.
Ideally you'd like to have people that are both competent and confident. But I think the point the article tries to make is just that if the goal is creativity and you can tolerate failures then you don't just want a bunch of people who test well and have no failures on their records just because they never tried anything they could actually fail at.
They didn't pull his ads to punish him because they want to control his content. They pulled his ads because when his content gets negative publicity advertisers pull their ads from the entire platform, not just his channel. Large corporations are extremely risk adverse. They aren't going to stop anyone from putting their own ads in their own content because that advertiser specifically chose to be in that video. There's no ripple effect. They would however start demanding a cut of that money if that becomes a larger and larger portion of the ad revenue on the platform.
What happens where there's a world war on and you can't get ships sent to you from Asia because that's the war zone and you have no shipyards of your own anymore because it was easier to outsource it during peacetime?
The subscriber count has almost no correlation with the view count or watch time. I have 60k subscribers and my videos get anywhere from 5k to 1 million views. If I could actually count on 60k people watching every video it would be a completely different animal.
Who is sitting around checking the current electric rate to see if it goes negative and they can turn stuff on to make a profit? I just don't see how a short term negative rate translates into anybody actually using electricity more because of it.
The replacement isn't "science" it's "science in consideration with community standards and wishes". "Science-based" implies that science is the only consideration. The replacement implies that the science is only to be used when it backs up what the people in charge wanted to do in the first place.
One day in class we were working in groups of four. There were two of us that kind of understood what we were supposed to be doing and two that didn't and the two of us were stuck at how to explain it to the others. So we call the teacher over and the exchange went something like this:
Me: "Mr Edwards, Ryan and I understand the problem but we can't explain it to the others."
Mr Edwards: "If you can't explain it then you don't understand it. So do you understand it or not?"
Me, after thinking for a bit: "Yes."
Mr Edwards walks away without another word. And we explained it to them. I hope. Well they graduated at least.
That's always stuck with me. When there's a situation where you can't make yourself understood to someone else don't blame them. Look within and ask if you really understand what it is you are trying to convey. If you can't make someone who doesn't do what you do understand why what you do is important then maybe it's you that doesn't really understand why it's important.
Slashdot Mirror
If you can't do anything legal with over $10k in cash, then when they find that you have $10k in cash they just take it from you with no possibility of getting it back. Without that law there's some pesky small possibility that they can't steal your money and get away with it.
Card packs are loot boxes. You're buying a random assortment of cards in the hopes that some of them will have value. The cards have monetary value in the secondary market.
Youtube pays 55% to the uploader. If someone claims ownership of the music in a video they can either have it taken down or take all of that 55%. So if you want to talk about being fair to content creators, if you make a video and there's a section where there's music playing in the background the owner of that music can take all the money that video gets as if the rest of the video has no value. Music copyright owners are treated as being far more important than people actually making videos for the video platform.
Adwords has the ability to target specific videos or channels (the channels part doesn't seem to actually work). Advertisers have the ability to make their ads only show up where they whitelist them, if they are concerned about it. This would of course screw over the smaller channels whose videos would never get whitelisted by the big advertisers. But they are even more screwed over now because no one can advertise on them at all.
The second they started taking responsibility for the content on the platform they put themselves in an unwinnable position. Moderating YouTube is completely, hopelessly impossible. It's like nuclear war, the only way to win is not to play.
Now they are on defense against every internet investigator looking for the next thing somebody is doing on YouTube that people can get outraged about. The mainstream media sees YouTube as competition for viewers and YouTube has handed them the means to repeatedly wound them.
They made every channel with fewer than 4000 watch hours and 1000 subscribers lose their monetization and be subjected to review whenever a channel now reaches those thresholds. The original date they were supposed to be caught up with reviewing channels was the end of April. That has now been moved to the end of June. I'm not holding my breath on that.
He's a contractor and using flashlights that run on AAA batteries. He could use a flashlight that runs on the same batteries that are in his drill and other cordless tools but he's a moron.
If they have 0 subscribers then they are already demonetized. Every channel with less than 4000 hours and 1000 subscribers was retroactively demonetized. My second channel being one of them. I reached the new thresholds a couple weeks ago but am still in review.
So if the idea of screwing over all the smaller channels was to get these guys to stop doing this, well guess what, they are still doing it.
The other day my cc got used to make a $5 donation to some Christian website that I had never heard of. The charge got flagged as fraudulent and I got an alert. It's puzzling as to how they got the info and why they only charged $5 to it. I guess hoping to fly under the radar. Equally puzzling is how the bank managed to correctly flag that tiny charge as fraudulent. My point being that current fraud detection is already better than what you are suggesting. The tricky part would be with new customers who they don't have a charge history to base anything on.
Why don't they just rematerialize themselves every day and never get any older? This might not work for some jobs, for example a Star Fleet officer's morning briefing that would have to explain everything that's changed since they were originally scanned in would get excessively long. But you could age one day per week and not have anything get too out of hand. When something really important happens then you get rescanned that day. Of course, what's the point of living if you don't actually get to remember having lived? But not really living but not dying is pretty much the default state of most people anyway.
In critical situations people could work 24/7 for extended periods. Simply replace yourself with the version of you that isn't tired.
Also you can't tell me there's never been a transporter operator that has made a copy of someone they want to have sex with and beamed them off somewhere to rape them. Takes #MeToo to a whole different place.
I'm sure all the old pro-lifers that are going blind will reject this treatment on principle.
It's easy to get votes for something when the politician knows there is zero chance that vote is going to actually do anything. Witness the attempts to repeal the ACA. If they actually got across 51 some of those votes would likely evaporate. If the House and presidency flipped some of those votes would certainly disappear.
We're just going to have to have our phones tell us when we're about to walk into something. There's no other way to know.
What I love about it is that in every hollywood battle the two main characters on opposing sides always find each other. There for once they don't. It's just chaos even though it's a small battle and he can't focus on her even though he wants to. There's no resolution and he just has to live with that.
There already was an 8% across the board cut five years ago.
Nah. They think the obvious choice is the brilliant choice. For example in the books in the attack on Castle Black, Ygritte dies off camera and Jon only finds her after the battle is over. They of course change it to having them have an encounter and the kid that survives the wildling attack on his village, Olly, is the one to kill her. That's standard tv stuff.
Writer's Assistant Dave Hill is the one who came up with the idea of having Olly be the one to kill Ygritte. They were so impressed by this idea that he got promoted to write his own episodes.
I'm not saying it's a bad choice. I'm saying it's the normal choice. The kind of choice that makes the show just like everything else.
That's done all the time to stabilize wood. It makes it more dense and harder, particularly if it was soft from starting to rot (the early stages of rot can be quite beautiful but you have to catch it before it goes too far). It's just not something you can do to anything larger than a turning blank without some serious equipment.
Who is going to accomplish more interesting things, a competent person who lacks confidence or an incompetent person who has lots of confidence? The former will do safe things very well but they'll never take any risks. The latter will often fail spectacularly but may from time to time hit upon things that other people in the field would have thought would never work. They will however need competent people around them to actually turn it into reality.
A prime example would be the success of Game of Thrones. The showrunners Benioff and Weiss had zero experience at producing a television show. Yet they succeeded at getting permission from George RR Martin to adapt his work where many others had failed. They succeeded because everyone else knew that in order to make anything from the books they had to focus on only a small part of the story and drop the rest. To do the whole story was impossible. But B & W didn't know it was impossible. They didn't know what they didn't know, so they weren't afraid to try to do the impossible. Then they made a pilot and by their own admission it was horrible. It had to be almost completely redone. Their second attempt however turned into one of the most successful shows in history. I would argue though that as they have become more experienced the show has actually gotten worse. It's become more like everything else Hollywood produces, just with a bigger budget than other tv shows. It shows they aren't exceptional producers or writers. They were just in the right place at the right time and didn't know what they were getting themselves into.
Ideally you'd like to have people that are both competent and confident. But I think the point the article tries to make is just that if the goal is creativity and you can tolerate failures then you don't just want a bunch of people who test well and have no failures on their records just because they never tried anything they could actually fail at.
They didn't pull his ads to punish him because they want to control his content. They pulled his ads because when his content gets negative publicity advertisers pull their ads from the entire platform, not just his channel. Large corporations are extremely risk adverse. They aren't going to stop anyone from putting their own ads in their own content because that advertiser specifically chose to be in that video. There's no ripple effect. They would however start demanding a cut of that money if that becomes a larger and larger portion of the ad revenue on the platform.
What happens where there's a world war on and you can't get ships sent to you from Asia because that's the war zone and you have no shipyards of your own anymore because it was easier to outsource it during peacetime?
That fifth book in the series is sure to be out any day now.
Eventually we could export the hardware with all of our own backdoors in it to our allies instead of them using the stuff with the Chinese backdoors.
The subscriber count has almost no correlation with the view count or watch time. I have 60k subscribers and my videos get anywhere from 5k to 1 million views. If I could actually count on 60k people watching every video it would be a completely different animal.
Who is sitting around checking the current electric rate to see if it goes negative and they can turn stuff on to make a profit? I just don't see how a short term negative rate translates into anybody actually using electricity more because of it.
The replacement isn't "science" it's "science in consideration with community standards and wishes". "Science-based" implies that science is the only consideration. The replacement implies that the science is only to be used when it backs up what the people in charge wanted to do in the first place.
One day in class we were working in groups of four. There were two of us that kind of understood what we were supposed to be doing and two that didn't and the two of us were stuck at how to explain it to the others. So we call the teacher over and the exchange went something like this: Me: "Mr Edwards, Ryan and I understand the problem but we can't explain it to the others." Mr Edwards: "If you can't explain it then you don't understand it. So do you understand it or not?" Me, after thinking for a bit: "Yes." Mr Edwards walks away without another word. And we explained it to them. I hope. Well they graduated at least. That's always stuck with me. When there's a situation where you can't make yourself understood to someone else don't blame them. Look within and ask if you really understand what it is you are trying to convey. If you can't make someone who doesn't do what you do understand why what you do is important then maybe it's you that doesn't really understand why it's important.