What's funny is that the people who hate on America the most tend to also have a strong belief in American exceptionalism without realizing it. "America is the worst!" in one breath, while in the next breath saying "Everyone deserves to live in America".
What I see missing most in discussions around immigration is what it does to the home countries of the people trying to move to the United States. I know a lot of families who have come into the country from Mexico, and I don't blame them - I'd probably do the same. But if you look at the towns they're leaving (which I've done many times), it's creating a vacuum of good, hard-working people. As a result, crime and drug lords fill the vacuum, making it even more unsafe.
If you ask a lot of those people (which I've done), they'd really like to stay in their home countries - provided that there weren't growing concerns over crime. As Americans, why do we have to act like this is the only place in the world where people can be successful, and the only safe haven? What if we instead supported those countries and encouraged their brightest and best citizens to stay so that their communities can thrive?
I love immigrants, and I also love a lot of the countries they're coming from. I just wish we could stop pretending that everyone needs to move to the United States to be happy, productive, or successful.
And yes, markets tend to be affected by supply and demand, the labor market included. If you have an almost unlimited supply of people looking for work and willing to work at very low wages, of course we're going to see wages stagnate.
> The video doesn't promote or highlight any tools used to circumvent copyright, get around paid subscriptions, or reproduce any content illegally
Here's my theory: they aren't concerned with the movies and TV shows shown in the video (which are presumably obtained legally as Jeff mentioned), but rather the brief use of what looks like [plugin.video.youtube] (https://github.com/anxdpanic/plugin.video.youtube) at about 12:10 in the video.
The plugin is an alternate frontend to YouTube, and as such, allows bypassing ads. He never mentions the plugin explicitly in the video, but I'm pretty sure that's what it is; he mentions YouTube and is clearly watching one of his own YT videos in Kodi. Just today, I noticed YouTube getting more aggressive in its anti-ad-blocking measures. They got really strict a year or two ago, backed off a bit, and seem to have ramped up again. My guess is that someone in management needs to show better numbers and is looking for ways to punish anyone even hinting at accessing YouTube without the obligatory dose of advertising.
Is this just someone reposting espressif's esp-drone (https://github.com/espressif/esp-drone) and passing it off as their own (and DigiKey posting it on their site)? They talk about making a custom PCB, but it looks pretty much the same.
The repository linked from the article (https://github.com/Circuit-Digest/ESP-Drone) has some issues claiming there's malware in it, and the commit history looks a little suspicious, but I could be wrong.
The thing that bothers me about the idea of the "Ruliad" is that it's completely unfalsifiable. Even if we existed in a reality where true randomness existed, or computational irreducibility wasn't a given, you could always argue that what we observe is just one finite local slice of that Ruliad where things appear to be deterministic (or computationally irreducible) due to our boundedness as observers.
It's basically the modern equivalent of "turtles all the way down" because it pretends to explain the nature of reality by extending our definition of reality to fit within an all-encompassing mental model that only makes sense on a surface level.
Granted, the words "universe", "multiverse", etc. are insufficient in describing everything in a way that includes everything we currently want to include, but giving a new name to that abstract idea of "everything" isn't itself a compelling argument to also say that everything exists as a static construct and that everything is computationally irreducibile and deterministic at a fundamental level. Yes, that makes sense in a physics simulation, but in reality, we don't know what we don't know. Placing the unknown in a conceptual box doesn't imply that it's now known.
Since apparently this list allows decimals (bozo: 0.208), why does the regex need to exclude words ending in two o's? Words like "boo", "goo", and "igloo" can be made with the same rules, and it's a simpler grep -i '^[izehsglbo]\+$' /usr/share/dict/words
Just bask in the knowledge that if those "social safety nets" and UBI become a reality, you'll have more problems than you do now. You'll look back at this moment in time with fondness. Enjoy it now.
Exactly. It's also pretty disrespectful to the honest people who spend years mastering a craft or skill that is appreciated for the process rather than just the end result.
It's an interesting topic in light of generative AI art. In many cases, the generated stuff can look nearly identical to some really talented artists' work. So are the artists themselves irrelevant? Is their work more or less valuable, given that it took much more time and effort for them to produce?
Why do people line up to see the real Mona Lisa when they can see essentially the same result on their smartphone or tablet?
It's not a problem to take shortcuts when making something for the screen; in most cases that should be encouraged.
But this project wasn't about making a Netflix logo animation; it was about using a fun, low-tech method for achieving a similar result. The whole point of the project was the method, not the result.
So if he had taken shortcuts when making the original Netflix logo animation, there would be absolutely nothing wrong with that. But claiming that he used a specific, unconventional approach to do this (focusing on how he did it, not what he did), then lying about that for clicks... that's pretty disgraceful in my opinion.
And most of that growth is just on paper; it represents very little growth in actual spending power. It can be explained by (1) some economic recovery after COVID and (2) devaluation of the dollar.
You have more dollars, but they're worth significantly less, so you're really not much better off.
There are two potential issues that I wish he either explored or explained in more detail:
1. When he cut the post-treated wood and the middle looked very much like untreated wood. He kind of glossed over that and explained that he thought the chemicals were penetrating all the wood, but that shot looked really suspicious. I’d be surprised if the chemicals were really effective for that thick of a piece with only one soaking (which left a very dirty by-product by the way, suggesting the solution’s effectiveness may have deteriorated before it had time to work on the innermost part of the wood).
2. There didn’t seem to be any bullet-stopping until he decided to glue more than one piece together with a fairly strong glue. And oddly enough, the bullet seemed to stop near the boundary between pieces that had been glued. I’m sure the wood was strong, but how do we know the glue itself wasn’t a substantial barrier stopping the bullet? I can imagine many very thin slices of untreated wood with enough glue interfaces binding them together (depending on the glue) also potentially stopping a bullet.
In either case, it was a cool experiment and looked like it took a lot of time to pull off.
> ... a mix of massive fiscal stimulus and supply chains that got blown up by the pandemic
If pandemic-related supply chain issues are really a major factor in the inflation we're seeing, with time we'd expect most prices to be returning to pre-pandemic levels, or at least close. I don't think I've heard anyone seriously suggest that could happen. Instead, we're celebrating a small reduction in the slope of a line that has been and continues to be moving up at an alarmingly steep angle.
And while you could argue that fiscal stimulus isn't a direct action from the fed, it's certainly related and can ultimately be attributed to the same group of delusional people in the driver's seat.
Building a Twitter clone is so trivial that it's basically become the new todo list app for people showing off any new web technology.
The value of Twitter has nothing to do with the product, and everything to do with the name and market share. For that reason, it's been almost impossible for any other alternative to call itself a real Twitter competitor.
That's true, which is why I explained why I think he's making smart moves.
Maybe he has departed from his usual trajectory towards success, but at this point (given his history), the burden of proof falls on the people who think he's lost his mind to explain precisely why they assume they know more than he does.
Agreed. To me, the genius is just his courage to actually do it while probably feeling like the entire world is against him. A lot of leaders might come up with similar plans, but execution in the face of so much opposition is what separates Elon from the rest.
Elon is a genius - seriously. Having worked at similar companies myself, I have a pretty good sense for how this went down (mostly speculation of course):
• On day 1, Elon probably talked privately with some of the head engineers at Twitter. He told them he wanted to trim the fat, and asked them how much could be cut while basically keeping the lights on and the website up (accepting some risk of temporary outages).
• I'd bet money that some of them told him something like 80-90% of the staff could be cut. I think that's true of a lot of large companies.
• Then Elon had the balls to actually move in that direction. Rather than make arbitrary cuts, he's letting people self-select. Obviously the company will lose some really good engineers as collateral damage, but for the most part, the dead weight will reveal themselves through silly shenanigans like this. Elon knows it's silly, but there's no graceful way to make such drastic moves.
He's painting with broad strokes to clear the canvas and re-imagine Twitter as a startup. And I think it's brilliant.
If you think he's out of his mind (as many commenters appear to think), show me your billions of dollars and multiple successful companies as proof that you know more about success than he does.
It's cool technology, but let's be careful here. If we've learned anything about technology in the past few years, it's that the benefits usually come with a host of new problems.
Cars, phones, and many critical pieces of infrastructure are quickly becoming impossible to service or fix by anyone but their manufacturers. Even normal operation relies on services that can be shut down which the flip of a remote switch. Not a huge problem in the individual case, but when our farming relies on similar technology, threats like cyberattacks, bugs, datacenter outages, chip supply issues, political disagreements, etc all become major national threats really quickly. Granted, farming has had sophisticated technology for quite a few years now, but smarter AI systems will inevitably involve more interaction with cloud services, and at that point, we're setting ourselves up for some scary possibilities.
Like many things, there's substantial evidence on both sides of the argument. The devil is usually in the details, and this is a case where success or failure seems to be greatly affected by the quality of the programs themselves and the people who administer them.
Believe it or not, a huge number of incarcerated people would rather work (without pay) than sit around doing nothing. For the few that don't, you can certainly incentivize it without resorting to torture.
Working without monetary compensation is the punishment part. But work itself is rehabilitating. I can't think of a better way to help people feel empowered and able, preparing them to be positive members of society when they're released.
What I see missing most in discussions around immigration is what it does to the home countries of the people trying to move to the United States. I know a lot of families who have come into the country from Mexico, and I don't blame them - I'd probably do the same. But if you look at the towns they're leaving (which I've done many times), it's creating a vacuum of good, hard-working people. As a result, crime and drug lords fill the vacuum, making it even more unsafe.
If you ask a lot of those people (which I've done), they'd really like to stay in their home countries - provided that there weren't growing concerns over crime. As Americans, why do we have to act like this is the only place in the world where people can be successful, and the only safe haven? What if we instead supported those countries and encouraged their brightest and best citizens to stay so that their communities can thrive?
I love immigrants, and I also love a lot of the countries they're coming from. I just wish we could stop pretending that everyone needs to move to the United States to be happy, productive, or successful.
And yes, markets tend to be affected by supply and demand, the labor market included. If you have an almost unlimited supply of people looking for work and willing to work at very low wages, of course we're going to see wages stagnate.