JacobThreeThree

This is just criminal behavior. There's plenty of fraudsters in the financial system.

>This indicates that the value was propped up by market manipulation.

I'd wager the propping was part manipulation and part speculative mania, of which the latter his been dispelled.

Legally speaking I think the service is protected here, so long as they have an opt-out mechanism, and the contact information they provide has been previously published publicly. There are large companies, like Meltwater for instance, whose business models are like this.

>There was a top-down decision that tech could not be covered positively

I'm sure this is just a one-off and no other topic or industry receives similar top-down directives.

The problem is not short term vs long term, it's the magnitude of the planned expenditures.

Amazon and other large companies created new products with small fractions of the funds that Meta is proposing spending. As illustrated nicely in the All In podcast, the only thing that compares in magnitude is the Apollo space program.

https://youtu.be/A-bIpJdaCnM?t=2098

I don't see why Lucene couldn't be used for this application.

The capture and revolving door definitely goes both ways.

Although my comment may not be sufficient to prove anything, there's a lot to explore with this topic. For instance, here's an example in the other direction:

>more than 80 former Schumer staffers have gone on to subsequently work at the Big Tech firms. And Schumer's two daughters have also both worked directly for Big Tech—one for Amazon, and one for Facebook subsidiary Instagram.

https://www.newsweek.com/why-chuck-schumer-trying-stop-antit...

This article is only about the one direction, but you can be sure the revolving door goes both ways in big-tech. Just look at all the ex-NATO officers currently wor

>There's a problem of adversarial attack right now.

>An adversarial person can flood people with rethoric of issues, corruption, crime, against all established political powers and institutions, and position themselves as the solution to all those ilks.

Appealing to emotions and attempting to label your opponents as corrupt and soft on crime is as old as politics itself. Convincing people to vote for you is not a soft-coup.

The platforms should be the ones who should decide how their algorithms promote information and shouldn't be pressured or controlled by whoever the current party is in power at that moment. The benchmark should be - would you want a Trump DHS with the power to change their censorship policies however they liked?

If online speech should be regulated by the government, pass legislation, don't backdoor it in a risky and unilateral manner through law enforcement.

>it risks becoming captured by the same interests as direct government censorship

It already is.

>At least 51 senior officials worked with Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, Apple or Google.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericfan/2022/03/07/beltway-big-...

NewName (formerly OldName)

I can't imagine why anyone would want to leave Twitter before they get a buyout offer.

The entire industry, yes industry, of "expert witnesses" is murky.

>A private entity deciding they don’t want to do business with a company

You mean like how OP decided not to do business with Amazon?

A federated system like Mastadon seems to be a good technical solution, but I think the more simple solution is to spend your valuable time on platforms that have better moderation, or invest in building your own website/platform.

The journal linked in the OP is apparently one of the better and more rigorous journals.

For example:

>Public Library of Science, PLOS ONE, was the only journal that called attention to the paper's potential ethical problems and consequently rejected it within 2 weeks.

https://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2013/oc...

Pretty brazen move to steal all the cars of your app users.

>that this would result in a reduced chance that people who caught the virus but were vaccinated would transmit the virus

Shouldn't they have at least tried to study this if that was the expectation?

>But even so, the scientists were surprised to find barium, which is 2.5 times heavier than iron, in the upper atmospheres of WASP-76 b and WASP-121 b.

It's amazing how often it seems that scientists are "surprised" - i.e. their theories were not borne out by the observational evidence. Perhaps because it's surprising, that makes it more headline-worthy, therefore there would be a bias in what gets reported. It would be interesting to see a meta-analysis of the "surprise" factor for study results.

A pretty shallow analysis.

I wouldn't call merging Discovery Plus and HBO Max into one service a "great rebundling".

The post-9/11 security state has grown to ridiculous proportions.

The common criticism of the ultra-flat organization models is that it breeds unwritten rules enforced by cliques.

You mean bombing pipelines is not part of the free market? Well I never...

As others like Jason Calicanis have pointed out, it will hopefully be easier for the resilient startups to hire and retain talent.

https://youtu.be/fU6QlvruLTw?t=607

It seems like one of the options is to leak some of the negotiation details to the media.

For comparison, what was Hans' percentage?

There were several missed opportunities that the engine gave a 0.3 to 0.5 point advantage to. One point in the engine rating is roughly equivalent to one pawn. Many end games are won or lost based on having an extra pawn or two. Two moves of 0.5 points adds up to a significant improvement.

From my experience watching tournaments, it happens regularly that missed opportunities would have given someone a 1 or 2 point engine rating advantage.

It's my opinion based on my personal experience in various countries around the world.

There's plenty of corruption in Europe, Asia and Mexico/Canada.

American culture is much less corrupt when compared to the rest of the real world, instead of being compared to a hypothetical corruption-free world.

CCP China is your example of an uncorrupt culture?

From my personal experience in China I can tell you that it's standard practice to hand paper bags full of cash to government officials (and CCP members) in order to get government contracts.

Xi targeting his political rivals with "corruption" charges hasn't changed this culture.

Humans can find engine moves, especially when they have hours on the clock like in classical chess. If you can consistently spend the majority of your time on the most critical moments when game-breaking moves could be found with enough calculation, that's enough to tip the scales dramatically over many games.

Sure, the human won't find the move every time, but it's still a huge edge.