I've worked at multiple companies where we created something like this internally for email and text messages.
Curl an API and out it goes. It's trivial to setup for yourself.
160 karma · joined April 2, 2018
Curl an API and out it goes. It's trivial to setup for yourself.
The population of the tent city in Santa Ana california was an unmitigated disaster for those who took the vouchers and residents. That did not work because the population of people living on the street in Southern California are doing it by choice (be it for the freedom to do drugs, mental illness or other defect). People who want help, generally don't get turned away in high income areas - every single church in the wealthiest areas, have a program and members willing to help those in need.
Utah is not an example that proves anything. It's a fairly unusual area when talking about this problem. Utah's entire population is less than Los Angeles.
The claim that 91% of Utah's homeless population was abated is somewhat suspicious, given the remaining 14k would mean they had a previous 155k+ - which outstrips the homeless count of most major cities (including Los Angeles). This is not as cut an dry as "make more housing" because that isn't demonstrated. Certainly not with numbers that are all over the place.
Saying eval is just confusing the concept with the implementation. There's no evidence that metaprogramming is "bad" unless you are ready to define "bad". Might as well say pointers are "bad" in the same vein.
The rules are not any worse to express the exact same operations and relationships. English would need to be augmented to necessarily express the same things. The syntax would change, but thats the point. It doesnt solve anything. Making programs more verbose and approachable is a common theme in scripting languages already. How far is too far?
That's a broader question than chicken or bee. A crow is definitely more intelligent than a bee.
>You can start by not judging the homeless.
It's not a complex topic, but the judgement is based on information and the existing information speaks volumes.
There's no guarantee (read the demand partner legal disclaimers, there's specifically NO guarantees) that there's an equitable distribution. There have been analyses to show that the algorithm has short-circuits to benefit Google products, featured here on HN and other places. I don't have them onhand, but it's openly discussed (meaning beyond being taboo):
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/21/google-staff-discussed-tweak...
That's not true. Not even from a particular viewpoint. You might want to rephrase that.
Google's primary revenue stream is from online advertising. They have a myriad of products, without which, the revenue stream would dry up. Youtube is a platform and a product and a brand. Google Search. GMail. Etc.
> There's a large empirical literature on the issue and the conclusion is that money is more or less irrelevant in politics.
That's simply nonsense.
When you put up guardrails (so many that people can't even keep up to date with what the automated system detects), that's exactly what you get. The words and images of countless properties would have to be filtered and pulled.
Regardless of what we would hope to happen, people simply ride whatever bland waves generate the most views. This is partly why we have streams of people eating and such, although the "newsy" channels would be hamstrung by this, you can imagine even the "food" streams would be impacted if they dared to say or show the icon of the food they are eating!
This is the technological culmination of capitalistic corruption of freedom vis a vis intellectual property.
A guaranteed adserv on every CDN delivery (and again over a certain number of minutes) is more than the content and serve cost. CPMs for video are net 3$, at least. I don't know who's doing the math, but a link would be interesting with someone demonstrating how they are upside down.
There's no evidence of this. There's just existing code. Ok. There's existing code in lots of other languages with different syntax (large and small differences). So what?
The latest video about Oden was a fantastic primer on QoL changes that should be standard, but there are people who always think what they learned is optimal. These are the same people who trivialize evidence to the contrary, in defense of their particular viewpoint.
Doesn't matter how deep. It's a short jump. The former is a characterization of the latter. They achieve the same goals and someone is awaiting their turn to use that tool.
That was described by the parent post. That's why the push for immigration can be traced back to increased capitalistic opportunity.
> It is certainly not the "capitalism" strawman pushing aggressive gender politics.
Again, he did not describe that.
> You're also ignoring agency completely
No, he described it in sweeping generalities eg Why would someone have a kid in the current environment? - a direct reference to the wealth-education of the middle class, where you're smart enough to maximize, but not able to ascend leveraging those choices.
The primary issue with the rant is how he starts with "You" to mean a nebulous powers-that-be and then asks questions and makes statements from the perspective of the middle class.
Read it again for clarity. There's nothing about his comment that hasn't been said before.
The fact that isn't obvious, is not surprising but it is elementary, regardless of professions to the contrary.
> it's not Google's fault either.
Starting from a false truth, you can come to any conclusion. Google is responsible for choosing to enable immoral acts and pretending there are no fault actors is one of your faults.
You don't see the irony in that, when talking about the Placebo effect? This discussion is about an implicit assumption.
Talking about it outside of the specific conflict, is disingenuous. Everyone understands how important Autonomy is. That's part of the issue, not a supporting argument to value it over the health of a patient. If there's no patient, there's no Autonomy either.
Over 50% of our communication is nonverbal language. Body language largely, and no small part olfactory plus auditory (which video conferencing interferes or blocks). This is not an open question.
> when humans have engaged in unarmed combat for millions of years and every major country has long lineages of specialized competitive martial arts
Because combat wasn't formalized then funded to be inclusive and communicated to the world. This is not an open question.
I'm sure there's more on this list, but maybe someone can update it.
Life is suffering. There is always pain and sometimes joy, due to our biology. Which is why religion will always exist, even if it's just a lucky rabbit's foot.
This is not in the definition. Please try to stay honest when chastising someone for not being accurate.
> a : destitute of knowledge or education
> also : lacking knowledge or comprehension of the thing specified
> b : resulting from or showing lack of knowledge or intelligence