Twitter's position in those interviews is consistent and does not show bias.
I've watched that interview and others. The position of Twitter has been consistent and actually fits the facts of being reasonably non-biased. It just seems that way because the pattern recognition of harassment behavior, is flagging people in ways that seem to bias some arguments. They are actually just trying to promote productive discussions and discourage harassment as a means to win arguments.
No one was banned because tweeted an 'N' at someone. They were banned because they used multiple twitter accounts, participating in harassing people by tweeting one letter of N-word at a time to people.
Similar with the gender issue or dead naming. It was the behavior of attacking an individual, instead of an idea, that was flagging the bans. So it is the behavior, that would have gotten you banned with either left or right wing positions, that is getting the account penalties.
Now to the anti-capitalist right wing whiners like Tim Pool, Twitter is under no obligation to destroy its shareholder value by keeping toxic people on its platform. It is not a public service and is not getting public money. (Just because a bible publishing company won't publish your gay porn book does not mean your free speech has been violated.) You are free create your own platform or make the government provide one. Saying that no one will use the new platform only proves that Twitter is correct in assessing that some people weaponize, what is technically free speech, to harass others out of the conversations.
Absolutely with you 100%. It's still dark in the morning at northerly areas with the current system. And all this 'think of the children' going to school has to be balanced against the health benefits children get from playing outside more due to having more daylight in the evenings.
or it will collapse the mosquito population and have a cascade effect on all the animals that rely on them, and those that rely on the previous ones, and so on.
Other than that, really nothing can go wrong.
"Aedes aegypti species, which are *not native* to the Cayman Islands and are the main vector for Zika as well as other viruses, including chikingunya and dengue."
Mosquito-born disease affects lots of people around the globe, but how do we know the little flying Frankenstein monsters aren't going to end up enabling future mutations that helps disease (existing, or new ones) to spread to even MORE people?
Because they are sterile, unable to spread genes and male, unable to bite and spread disease. And if it loses the sterility somehow, that's the wild mosquito now isn't it? This tech lest you target one specific species while leaving all the other bugs, birds, even other mosquito species unpoisoned. You can even only release enough sterile males to keep populations lowered instead of extinct.
Wild mosquitoes can also mutate in all the dangerous ways you mentioned, at least as easily. If you let viruses like Zika spread than it can mutate into more dangerous forms. That is millions of times more likely than _sterility_ creating a reproductive advantange.
Instead of this, why not just use the irradiated sterile mosquitos instead? Its been done before
Not sure about this specific species, but from what I'd heard radiation levels required to sterilize often make the insects quite sick and less able to compete for mates. So it's not as effective.
But what I'm curious about is why don't they use the GMO mosquitos that only have male descendents. That would quickly bring the species to extinction.
That a much harder genetic engineering problem. It also involves having the GMO organism reproducing in the wild, which will make regulations and environmental assessments much more difficult.
I believe that the food itself is probably OK for human consumption although GMO food (especially tomatoes) does seem to have much less and/or odd flavour.
The flavour problem is not because of GMO, it is because the industry does not care about flavour at all.
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
It's more like bashing Ford for it's role (along with GM) in, say, killing off public transit or the electric car. The producer is distorting the market and large parts of human civilization for their long term profit; and doing it at a scale that's hard to grasp...
More like bashing all car companies, including Tesla, because of those business practices of companies like Ford and GM.
What does Golden Rice (GMO), developed to save lives, non-profit, by academics, have to do with Monsanto? Big agribusiness business practices and mono-culture crops were a problem before GMOs entered the picture. Why not actually address the root of the problems, which are the business practices, rather the the technology?
Why would you expect golden rice to somehow be less expensive than regular rice? And besides, any land suitable for growing rice is suitable for growing other vegetables.
Golden rice was not developed for profit, it will cost exactly the same but have more nutrients. It is for subsistence farmers who are lacking vitamin A, due to extreme poverty.
You are acting like there are not thousands of children dying and going blind every year due to vitamin A deficiency. Now for no reason, because a zero additional cost fix has been developed.
The main character is dealing with the side effects of medical age reversal. The youth have determined that the rate of medical advancements will increase lifespans at the same rate they are aging.
Reputation. A publication in a highly respected journal is worth a great deal in terms of scientific career and grant funding. So if you can, you publish in a big journal so that you can get funding to continue your research and career.
Many scientists today refuse to let facts get in the way of their theories.
That is a complete myth and would be irrelevant even if it were true. Regardless on what your hypothesis is, in science you present evidence for or against it. Others can verify your claims. That is why, in science, frauds are eventually exposed, unlike virtually anything else. This is also why science has such a strong reputation.
By the way, you are confusing the difference between a hypothesis, a scientific theory and the layman theory.
Putting that issue aside, the question then becomes, what is that cost? Any price you put on it is simply made up.
Actually its quite simple. The cost of sequestering the carbon dioxide produced along with the energy. (Which could fluctuate with market/technology). In other words, the extra cost should be the same cost to clean up the extra pollution produced. Otherwise the polluter is being subsidized by a price paid by others.
Say you compare bio-diesel with regular diesel, bio-diesel would be expected to cost more in dollars because it involved removing CO2 from the atomosphere. To be comparable with regular diesel you would have to include the cost of removing the CO2. That would be an exact and non-arbitrary price, since the CO2 pollution causes the damage.
We just don't like where these numbers lead and no one wants to penalize their country by acting responsible while everyone else just pollutes the world to their economic advantage.
If so... it's an improvement.... but the requirement that the entrepreneur front, essentially 39% of the funds, to raise less than $100K.. would appear to be unduly burdensome. The requirement for a CPA audit would also appear to be unduly burdensome.
The person raising this money, should have a less-expensive option: that does not require losing a significant amount of their funding. And they should have an option of disclosing that no audit has been or will be performed.
They do: and that option is to raise funds from friends and family.
As long as they don't use a website to gather the funds in an organized manner. Say a bunch of small investments from a large group of friends over a large, geographic area.
Individuals who find innovative ways to use these new technologies can become very wealthy.
Are you sure? The article seems to be give specific examples of how established industries are using the US system to stifle new companies that are being innovative and more efficient.
Now which theory agrees more with class-mobility decreasing rather than increasing. Class mobility is probably the greatest indication of how much importance a society is placing on talent and effort instead of inherited positions and wealth.
While at the hospital, I asked a nurse if she had seen Guillain-Barré syndrome from the Yellow Fever vaccine. She said that this was the first time she had seen it from the Yellow Fever vaccine but they see regularly caused by the Flu vaccine.
I am cautious with other vaccine also--weighing the benefit against the know effects of Guillain-Barré syndrome.
Knowing the about, I would say that BMO is ignorant of the science of vaccines and his comments are only his opinions. Autism is not the only affliction to be concerned with.
The parent is probably classic anti-vaccine logic. The flu itself causes Guillain-Barré at a much, much greater rate than the vaccine. An extra 1 in 100000 people who got the swine flu shot in 1976 developed Guillain-Barré. And since no real direct mechanism can be found, that still might be correlation and not causation.
Programming skills in combination with other actual skills can be quite valuable. A lot of scientific software has poor usability because it was written by people who have no idea what realistic use cases or productivity bottlenecks are.
As for settling for bachelors-level jobs, CS is a very different world from science where work experience matters much more than degrees. But a bachelors in CS and 2 years work experience is probably worth as much as your PhD. Demand does not really match difficulty of the degree, but how replaceable you are.
My background is fairly similar, but I skipped out at the Masters level to work in industry. In science, PhD really would help get an interview though. HR would have screened out my resume through official channels...
By every medical or fact based study, marijuana, shrooms and LSD are among the safest drugs ever known. Psilocybin and LSD are completely non-habit forming; as in they are much, much less addictive coffee.
Meth is not some new drug. It was the typical biker 'speed'. And there were many years when the US was producing massive quantities of amphetamines for prescription use.
The vast majority of heroin users are not addicts, but occasional users. Similar to how the vast majority of people who drink are not alcoholics. The brain damage levels of alcoholics are incredible and much more severe what a cocaine addict has. (I am not advocating cocaine use; the heart attack rate is very high.)
The medical facts are a VERY different story than is portrayed and then there are problems like the complete lack of evidence prohibition reduced alcoholism. Alcoholics made sure to get a dealer.
Legally you are supposed to pay tax on barter and those laws are there exactly to prevent what you describe. It just hasn't been profitable to enforce, and barter tends to be impractical for significant sums, but if too many transactions involved barter, the tax man will come.
Easy economic solution - only freely trade with places/products matching your moral standards and add tariffs otherwise. Similar how to sell a car to the US you need meet US safety standards, not whatever the safety standards are in their country. Or how we simply do not trade items made with slave labor. There are countries that would be fine with slavery, but it would eliminate the export market of their goods.
Okay, it will not be that easy. Especially with this strange notion that companies will pass their savings on to the consumer by lowering the cost of the product, instead of continuing to charge what customers will pay and keeping the extra profits like any good capitalist. Anyway the point is you only need to worry about changing what your country does and the rest of the world will change just to do business with you. Well for a large country with a big consumer base like the US at least.
Because his ethical goal is environmental, not economic. Shipping is subsidized in a sense as environmental costs are not properly counted into the price. The environmental cost lowers the productivity of the world. If the shipping company were doing something like capturing carbon released and adding the extra cost to the produce, then your argument is valid (from a CO2 perspective at least).
Certain morals have value to people and they're willing to spend money on them, like spending more on local or fair trade produce or even wasting money advertising against gay marriage. That is capitalism. Of course for capitalism to function, consumers require accurate information and that doesn't just magically happen...
Wow, can't avoid forums for a week? Can't do something else for a WHOLE WEEK? It must be somebody else's fault!
You can get books 1-4 as a set for $20 right now ($10 second hand on ebay). Who needs to wait hours for one single episode when you can read at your leisure any time?
You want my impulse buy money? No? Well then STFU.
I live in Canada. I bought Dance with Dragons the day it came out from my local bookstore. (It helped that I was taking several cross-Canada trips for work a week after it came out.) I bought every book and I've told dozens of people about the series, probably making Martin enough to buy lunch, maybe dessert afterwards.
If I would like to upgrade my service to watch Game of Thrones, I would have to do the following:
1. Buy an HD-DVR system from my oligarchy cable / ISP / phone provider ($600)
2. Upgrade to cable. ($100 a month)
3. Upgrade to HD service ($50 a month)
4. Upgrade to some package that includes HBO ($50 a month)
And then I'd have to make certain that I was home during that time. Although I would have spent $600 on the HD PVR in step 1, they are so buggy and flakey that they tend to lose settings and recorded shows. So all told, I would have to spend close to one thousand dollars to watch Game of Thrones in the off chance that I'm home, my wife is home, the kids are in bed, the DVR doesn't pixelate out, they don't have decryption problems (happened all the time during the Olympics), AND they don't lose all my settings so I could actually watch the HBO that I've spent a grand on.
Option 2 is not watch the show. I'd really rather watch it. My wife likes the show as well.
Option 3 is wait a year for the DVD release. Riiiight.
Option 4 is direct electronic import from Sweden. Like Colt 45, it works every time.
I guess some kind of legitimate online provider (Netflix) at $10/month is somehow out of the question?
Regardless, I'm not exactly sure what you were trying to prove here. How bad you want to watch a cable TV show, or why stealing a Ferrari is SO much better than stealing a Chevy due to the price tag.
That's right - no legitimate online provider will sell it in Canada and the customer would have paid for it if it was remotely reasonable. So its more like whining Ferrari get stolen more when they can only be bought as a bundle with an entire car dealership. Then claiming car thieves, not idiotic business practices against all rules of microeconomics, are the problem to push for harsher laws.
Slashdot Mirror
I've watched that interview and others. The position of Twitter has been consistent and actually fits the facts of being reasonably non-biased. It just seems that way because the pattern recognition of harassment behavior, is flagging people in ways that seem to bias some arguments. They are actually just trying to promote productive discussions and discourage harassment as a means to win arguments.
No one was banned because tweeted an 'N' at someone. They were banned because they used multiple twitter accounts, participating in harassing people by tweeting one letter of N-word at a time to people.
Similar with the gender issue or dead naming. It was the behavior of attacking an individual, instead of an idea, that was flagging the bans. So it is the behavior, that would have gotten you banned with either left or right wing positions, that is getting the account penalties.
Now to the anti-capitalist right wing whiners like Tim Pool, Twitter is under no obligation to destroy its shareholder value by keeping toxic people on its platform. It is not a public service and is not getting public money. (Just because a bible publishing company won't publish your gay porn book does not mean your free speech has been violated.) You are free create your own platform or make the government provide one. Saying that no one will use the new platform only proves that Twitter is correct in assessing that some people weaponize, what is technically free speech, to harass others out of the conversations.
Absolutely with you 100%. It's still dark in the morning at northerly areas with the current system. And all this 'think of the children' going to school has to be balanced against the health benefits children get from playing outside more due to having more daylight in the evenings.
or it will collapse the mosquito population and have a cascade effect on all the animals that rely on them, and those that rely on the previous ones, and so on. Other than that, really nothing can go wrong.
"Aedes aegypti species, which are *not native* to the Cayman Islands and are the main vector for Zika as well as other viruses, including chikingunya and dengue."
Mosquito-born disease affects lots of people around the globe, but how do we know the little flying Frankenstein monsters aren't going to end up enabling future mutations that helps disease (existing, or new ones) to spread to even MORE people?
Because they are sterile, unable to spread genes and male, unable to bite and spread disease. And if it loses the sterility somehow, that's the wild mosquito now isn't it? This tech lest you target one specific species while leaving all the other bugs, birds, even other mosquito species unpoisoned. You can even only release enough sterile males to keep populations lowered instead of extinct. Wild mosquitoes can also mutate in all the dangerous ways you mentioned, at least as easily. If you let viruses like Zika spread than it can mutate into more dangerous forms. That is millions of times more likely than _sterility_ creating a reproductive advantange.
Science is the only reason you *now* know that to be wrong.
Instead of this, why not just use the irradiated sterile mosquitos instead? Its been done before
Not sure about this specific species, but from what I'd heard radiation levels required to sterilize often make the insects quite sick and less able to compete for mates. So it's not as effective.
But what I'm curious about is why don't they use the GMO mosquitos that only have male descendents. That would quickly bring the species to extinction.
That a much harder genetic engineering problem. It also involves having the GMO organism reproducing in the wild, which will make regulations and environmental assessments much more difficult.
I believe that the food itself is probably OK for human consumption although GMO food (especially tomatoes) does seem to have much less and/or odd flavour.
The flavour problem is not because of GMO, it is because the industry does not care about flavour at all. http://www.slate.com/articles/...
It's more like bashing Ford for it's role (along with GM) in, say, killing off public transit or the electric car. The producer is distorting the market and large parts of human civilization for their long term profit; and doing it at a scale that's hard to grasp...
More like bashing all car companies, including Tesla, because of those business practices of companies like Ford and GM.
What does Golden Rice (GMO), developed to save lives, non-profit, by academics, have to do with Monsanto? Big agribusiness business practices and mono-culture crops were a problem before GMOs entered the picture. Why not actually address the root of the problems, which are the business practices, rather the the technology?
Why would you expect golden rice to somehow be less expensive than regular rice? And besides, any land suitable for growing rice is suitable for growing other vegetables.
Golden rice was not developed for profit, it will cost exactly the same but have more nutrients. It is for subsistence farmers who are lacking vitamin A, due to extreme poverty.
You are acting like there are not thousands of children dying and going blind every year due to vitamin A deficiency. Now for no reason, because a zero additional cost fix has been developed.
The main character is dealing with the side effects of medical age reversal. The youth have determined that the rate of medical advancements will increase lifespans at the same rate they are aging.
Reputation. A publication in a highly respected journal is worth a great deal in terms of scientific career and grant funding. So if you can, you publish in a big journal so that you can get funding to continue your research and career.
Many scientists today refuse to let facts get in the way of their theories.
That is a complete myth and would be irrelevant even if it were true. Regardless on what your hypothesis is, in science you present evidence for or against it. Others can verify your claims. That is why, in science, frauds are eventually exposed, unlike virtually anything else. This is also why science has such a strong reputation.
By the way, you are confusing the difference between a hypothesis, a scientific theory and the layman theory.
Putting that issue aside, the question then becomes, what is that cost? Any price you put on it is simply made up.
Actually its quite simple. The cost of sequestering the carbon dioxide produced along with the energy. (Which could fluctuate with market/technology). In other words, the extra cost should be the same cost to clean up the extra pollution produced. Otherwise the polluter is being subsidized by a price paid by others.
Say you compare bio-diesel with regular diesel, bio-diesel would be expected to cost more in dollars because it involved removing CO2 from the atomosphere. To be comparable with regular diesel you would have to include the cost of removing the CO2. That would be an exact and non-arbitrary price, since the CO2 pollution causes the damage.
We just don't like where these numbers lead and no one wants to penalize their country by acting responsible while everyone else just pollutes the world to their economic advantage.
If so... it's an improvement.... but the requirement that the entrepreneur front, essentially 39% of the funds, to raise less than $100K.. would appear to be unduly burdensome. The requirement for a CPA audit would also appear to be unduly burdensome.
The person raising this money, should have a less-expensive option: that does not require losing a significant amount of their funding. And they should have an option of disclosing that no audit has been or will be performed.
They do: and that option is to raise funds from friends and family.
As long as they don't use a website to gather the funds in an organized manner. Say a bunch of small investments from a large group of friends over a large, geographic area.
Medically, LSD is one of the safest drugs known. Pretty much any reference, like wikipedia, will mention the low toxicity.
Individuals who find innovative ways to use these new technologies can become very wealthy.
Are you sure? The article seems to be give specific examples of how established industries are using the US system to stifle new companies that are being innovative and more efficient. Now which theory agrees more with class-mobility decreasing rather than increasing. Class mobility is probably the greatest indication of how much importance a society is placing on talent and effort instead of inherited positions and wealth.
While at the hospital, I asked a nurse if she had seen Guillain-Barré syndrome from the Yellow Fever vaccine. She said that this was the first time she had seen it from the Yellow Fever vaccine but they see regularly caused by the Flu vaccine.
I am cautious with other vaccine also--weighing the benefit against the know effects of Guillain-Barré syndrome.
Knowing the about, I would say that BMO is ignorant of the science of vaccines and his comments are only his opinions. Autism is not the only affliction to be concerned with.
The parent is probably classic anti-vaccine logic. The flu itself causes Guillain-Barré at a much, much greater rate than the vaccine. An extra 1 in 100000 people who got the swine flu shot in 1976 developed Guillain-Barré. And since no real direct mechanism can be found, that still might be correlation and not causation.
http://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/vaccine/guillainbarre.htm
As for settling for bachelors-level jobs, CS is a very different world from science where work experience matters much more than degrees. But a bachelors in CS and 2 years work experience is probably worth as much as your PhD. Demand does not really match difficulty of the degree, but how replaceable you are.
My background is fairly similar, but I skipped out at the Masters level to work in industry. In science, PhD really would help get an interview though. HR would have screened out my resume through official channels...
By every medical or fact based study, marijuana, shrooms and LSD are among the safest drugs ever known. Psilocybin and LSD are completely non-habit forming; as in they are much, much less addictive coffee.
Meth is not some new drug. It was the typical biker 'speed'. And there were many years when the US was producing massive quantities of amphetamines for prescription use.
The vast majority of heroin users are not addicts, but occasional users. Similar to how the vast majority of people who drink are not alcoholics. The brain damage levels of alcoholics are incredible and much more severe what a cocaine addict has. (I am not advocating cocaine use; the heart attack rate is very high.)
The medical facts are a VERY different story than is portrayed and then there are problems like the complete lack of evidence prohibition reduced alcoholism. Alcoholics made sure to get a dealer.
Legally you are supposed to pay tax on barter and those laws are there exactly to prevent what you describe. It just hasn't been profitable to enforce, and barter tends to be impractical for significant sums, but if too many transactions involved barter, the tax man will come.
Easy economic solution - only freely trade with places/products matching your moral standards and add tariffs otherwise. Similar how to sell a car to the US you need meet US safety standards, not whatever the safety standards are in their country. Or how we simply do not trade items made with slave labor. There are countries that would be fine with slavery, but it would eliminate the export market of their goods.
Okay, it will not be that easy. Especially with this strange notion that companies will pass their savings on to the consumer by lowering the cost of the product, instead of continuing to charge what customers will pay and keeping the extra profits like any good capitalist. Anyway the point is you only need to worry about changing what your country does and the rest of the world will change just to do business with you. Well for a large country with a big consumer base like the US at least.
Produce? I can have a garden, or again, buy local.
Why would you buy local (assuming it is not cheaper)?
Please see http://www.mises.org/books/defending.pdf, chapter 23 - The Importer
Importers make the economy grow.
Because his ethical goal is environmental, not economic. Shipping is subsidized in a sense as environmental costs are not properly counted into the price. The environmental cost lowers the productivity of the world. If the shipping company were doing something like capturing carbon released and adding the extra cost to the produce, then your argument is valid (from a CO2 perspective at least).
Certain morals have value to people and they're willing to spend money on them, like spending more on local or fair trade produce or even wasting money advertising against gay marriage. That is capitalism. Of course for capitalism to function, consumers require accurate information and that doesn't just magically happen...
Wow, can't avoid forums for a week? Can't do something else for a WHOLE WEEK? It must be somebody else's fault! You can get books 1-4 as a set for $20 right now ($10 second hand on ebay). Who needs to wait hours for one single episode when you can read at your leisure any time?
You want my impulse buy money? No? Well then STFU.
$100?
I live in Canada. I bought Dance with Dragons the day it came out from my local bookstore. (It helped that I was taking several cross-Canada trips for work a week after it came out.) I bought every book and I've told dozens of people about the series, probably making Martin enough to buy lunch, maybe dessert afterwards.
If I would like to upgrade my service to watch Game of Thrones, I would have to do the following: 1. Buy an HD-DVR system from my oligarchy cable / ISP / phone provider ($600) 2. Upgrade to cable. ($100 a month) 3. Upgrade to HD service ($50 a month) 4. Upgrade to some package that includes HBO ($50 a month)
And then I'd have to make certain that I was home during that time. Although I would have spent $600 on the HD PVR in step 1, they are so buggy and flakey that they tend to lose settings and recorded shows. So all told, I would have to spend close to one thousand dollars to watch Game of Thrones in the off chance that I'm home, my wife is home, the kids are in bed, the DVR doesn't pixelate out, they don't have decryption problems (happened all the time during the Olympics), AND they don't lose all my settings so I could actually watch the HBO that I've spent a grand on.
Option 2 is not watch the show. I'd really rather watch it. My wife likes the show as well.
Option 3 is wait a year for the DVD release. Riiiight.
Option 4 is direct electronic import from Sweden. Like Colt 45, it works every time.
I guess some kind of legitimate online provider (Netflix) at $10/month is somehow out of the question?
Regardless, I'm not exactly sure what you were trying to prove here. How bad you want to watch a cable TV show, or why stealing a Ferrari is SO much better than stealing a Chevy due to the price tag.
That's right - no legitimate online provider will sell it in Canada and the customer would have paid for it if it was remotely reasonable. So its more like whining Ferrari get stolen more when they can only be bought as a bundle with an entire car dealership. Then claiming car thieves, not idiotic business practices against all rules of microeconomics, are the problem to push for harsher laws.