The feature exists but the overall quality and variety just aren't the same. For whatever reason, people get comfortable with the familiar and even a cosmetic change creates a barrier.
I have no doubt signal will catch up though.
1,026 karma · joined April 12, 2018
Worked at companies like Razer, Intel, Wizards of the Coast, Wargaming, Riot Games, Xiaomi, Nubia, and...
I have no doubt signal will catch up though.
I do have a few members of the family on Signal already though. They're just the ones that don't mind giving up stickers and the nice interface
The history of many nations has proven this to be untrue.
I believe it should be illegal for a company to intentionally allow children into a system where their psychology is manipulated. Instagram has huge negative psych effects, predominantly on young girls. But the other social dynamics, and the effects of advertising, and the effects of the echo chambers that result from the algorithmic feeds are profound and harmful across all social media platforms.
It isn't socializing when every photo is edited, every post that a kid sees is the most dramatic thing thanks to the algorithm, and moral/political activism is rampant and signal boosted. Kids should learn how to deal with real humans in the real world rather than digital characterizations of humans curated by a machine.
Some things are still available though - https://www.bitchute.com/video/1Jr0ILcX9hY/
Social media seems to be doing a pretty good job of trying to pretend these things didn't exist.
Things I've seen video of includes guys handing out guns to (what appear to be) minors, fights breaking out, and people getting assaulted for recording what is happening there.
Besides, paying tax should be a much easier process for the small fish.
I have bad news for you, friend.
It's real. The most privileged people I know (and later cut out of my life entirely) are the first to play the victim card. We're talking the type of people who would choose to show up to work late every day and then complain that they were fired because they were [insert trait]. Or people that refused to study and then demanded they get extra support and financial aid because they came from a 'difficult' background.
Some definitely white people claim to be minorities because some percentage of people will use every card in the deck to get ahead. The tragedy is that these people sour the conversation and make people distrust those who bring up the actual issues they face.
For me, it took me a long time to really understand where to begin. It wasn't that I couldn't solve a specific problem, like on leetcode. I didn't know how to go from scratch to building some kind of tool or application.
The solution for me ended up being just watching a ton of random tutorials to get something started, then taking the tutorial a totally different direction. That gave me some examples of what the entry point to the process was, and from there it was just an additive process until I got the desired behavior.
This is a pretty common thing amongst self-taught people.
The geography variable is just one of many that can have a huge impact on outcomes.
The land itself, all of the resources in and on it, the industries that operate within the borders, etc.
We don't necessarily need to set aside 200k per capita, but it would be wise to not be at -70k per capita and growing fast, in my opinion.
> A sovereign wealth fund similar to Norway in the US would contain a large fraction of all wealth globally.
If the rest of the world operated on similar principles we would inevitably reach a balance. Regardless, the US would have to clear an enormous sum of debt before we could realistically start filling up the piggy bank.
Personal opinion:
I want to pay every politician even more than they get now - for life. In exchange, they are never allowed to work or own equity in a corporation. Shuts the lobbyists revolving door nonsense down almost immediately. Such an implementation only works if we hold corrupt officials accountable though, we don't want one-term do-nothings to get into office just for the paycheck. So, if you fail to represent the will of the people you lose 95% of the money, or similar.
Cutting military spending I'm generally in favor of. I believe this could be done to a huge degree before we actually have a negative impact on military capability at all. I also believe the military should only be used for actual defense, meaning that militia structures become a meaningful way to bolster national security without incurring an enormous organizational cost.
> This conservative idea that we have to be all "Aw shucks, we don't have money" is absurd, yet they have enough to give themselves generous salary increases and universal healthcare.
It's not conservative, it's corrupt. The conservative view is that we need to secure economic stability, not raid the coffers at every opportunity. But then again, the terms conservative/liberal have lost most of their meaning. I wonder what John Locke would think if he were alive to see how the world turned out.
If the US had a wealth fund instead of a national debt I believe many of the biggest issues we face could be legitimately solved rather than turned into political footballs.
Most of the sources of misery in the US are economic, unfortunately. The political parties in the US have a long history of being poor trustees of the nation's wealth.
I make the comparison to Norway often because Norway has the world's largest social safety net in the form of their Sovereign Wealth Funds. Norway has $1.1T, roughly $200,000 USD per citizen, that can be used to maintain economic stability and secure social programs even in hard times.
The US absolutely could have accomplished the same thing, but instead we've racked up a national debt per citizen of over $70,000.
UBI is a fantastic idea in theory. It is more efficient in terms of capital and human resources than the current system, probably by an order of magnitude or more. However, it does suffer one deep flaw that I haven't seen anyone promoting UBI address.
How do we ensure that UBI doesn't become weaponized against the people it's supposed to be helping?
If UBI is passed it becomes the single most important issue to the majority of voters. Someone running on a platform of 'more money' will (even if it's economically a bad idea) likely win elections based on it. If there is an economic need to decrease the UBI payments it will be the death knell of political careers.
But the biggest concern I have is this:
We've already seen big legislation like the Affordable Care Act come under attack and eventually get essentially removed (in that case overwritten by the American Health Care Act on Mar 4, 2017). What would the damage be to the people who come to rely on UBI as part of the general economic system, only to have it rapidly reduced or removed entirely?
They can see sexual activity, if you're a parent/expecting, a ton of health information, if you're a smoker, your physical location, and more.
This isn't about eggs and milk. The data in combination constitutes a greater breach of privacy than the most dedicated stalker could hope to achieve.
Capitalism vs Communism is a useless debate if the will isn't there to hold the corrupt accountable and ensure that the average citizen is empowered (with said power secured both physically and legally.)
Other users have rightly pointed that getting this support from outside sources eases their legal burdens both domestically and abroad. It just seems wrong that a government can bypass its own checks and balances in this way. It violates the principles it was founded on.
I have personally seen such equipment remain in use for 15-20 years. When I was young the lawnmower we used was a monstrous Craftsman that was originally built 20 years prior. It was used year-round for that period for everything from snow removal, lawn mowing, and hauling landscaping supplies (retaining wall blocks and the like).
You would likely be surprised at the level of care and maintenance some small business owners put in.
Many run their business with the tools they can afford. Upon inspection, you would find that many such businesses have little to no resale value to lean on to make such an upgrade.
> They've likely had notice for a long time. Especially if they participate in their government.
What percentage of people laborers have the time to actively participate in government? I don't know the answer to this but I suspect it's shockingly small.
My only point is that the way you implement change matters and that this implementation will adversely affect the worst-off population.
> It should be uncontroversial given the facts and experiences with these engines that they are awful pollutants, terribly aggravating to communities, and that the world would be better without them.
No controversy there at all.
I wonder, between the two of us, who has spent more time actually making money by doing landscaping.
A large portion of these 'businesses' are 1-2 people who scraped together whatever they could to get the equipment to make a living. Many are low income. Many sacrifice heavily in their personal lives to be able to make ends meet.
The lie here is the notion that the bunch that go the route of 'organic landscaping' are representative of the entire group.
Whether it is virtue points or an important issue is irrelevant, the way it was handled was appalling and harmful.
EDIT - If you're downvoting consider this: If you and your family were running a small landscaping business and need to replace thousands of dollars of equipment, you might feel differently. Be empathetic towards those people and consider other ways to accomplish the goal. We could just as easily have banned the sale of these after a future date. There are always options to mitigate the pressure on the affected persons.