1,717 karma · joined February 20, 2014
Most of their fruit really seems just slightly above grocery store quality (though I do live in California, so our fruit is good). The varieties may sound special, but they're often just a branded version of a common citrus, apple, or pear.
> The Wordle URL moves to https://newyorktimes.com/wordle. That is all.
How I hope the New York Times monetizes Wordle:
> The Wordle URL moves to https://newyorktimes.com/wordle, and they add a small NY Times logo to the Share page. Clicking it takes you to the newspaper's front page. That is all.
If the client device were compromised with a zero day exploit, the blast radius would be substantially smaller, the difficulty of an attacker mapping a network for later exploit would be exponentially larger, and time to response would dramatically shrink.
[1] (This is particularly relevant for fixed-function IoT and Operational Technology devices. General computing devices need broader controls, but again - the minimum necessary for that user, in that business context, to do their job.)
People extend your exact trust assertions to their networks, and bad actors exploit it to effect a compromise. A corporate network cannot be like your home. Zero Trust says that you should assume anything, and anyone, can be exploited - so secure appropriately.
Per your analogy, what would you do if your invited houseguests, unbeknownst even to themselves, wore a camera for reconnaissance by a 3rd party? What would you do if these cameras were so easy to hide that anyone, at any time, might be wearing one and you couldn't know?
You would have to assume that anyone that entered your home had a camera on them. You would give them no more access than the bare minimum needed to do whatever they were there to do (whether eat dinner or fix your sink). You'd identify them, track their movement, and keep records.
Your term, "Zero misplaced trust," assumes that you can identify where to place trust. Did you trust that system you had validated and scanned for 5 years...until Log4shell was discovered? Did you trust the 20-year veteran researcher before they plugged in a USB without knowing their kid borrowed it and infected it?
Zero Trust is a response to the failure of "trust but verify."
As a result, unless you can satisfy every one of their requirements, regardless of mitigating controls, you cannot get installed. Even if you're a security product whose ultimate use case is discovering in-progress exploits.
I'm not sure if that's an example of the system working or being broken. But overall, Information Security is a complicated problem.
I wish I had time to dig into Activision's financials to get a better feel on this.
They earned $2B last quarter, with over $500m going to Cost of Revenue. For a software company, I'm guessing a lot of this is in multiplayer gaming infrastructure. Cost of Revenue is another $716m, with half going to R&D (engineering) and half going to G&A (rent, administration, etc.).
In other words, if Microsoft can absorb the Cost of Revenue into Azure and optimize the G&A a bit, they can increase quarterly revenue by almost 33%. That's $10B/year. Plus, putting Activision's back catalog on GamePass might drive up GamePass subscriber count/retention and back catalog sales (see the first article linked below).
It would be tough to show this as hugely profitable over the short term, but I think they could model out a 5 year ROI very very easily.
> I also suspect that game pass will make them focus on GAS games (service games) with microtransactions, optimised for profit instead of fun.
I'm not a subscriber, but as a casual follower of GamePass I haven't seen it drive more MTX. On the contrary, it seems to have opened the door to more niche-y games that would have a hard time finding an audience elsewhere.
These two articles give developer quotes that are very interesting insights into both gamer behavior and the economics of putting a game on GamePass:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2021/03/19/game-pass...
https://www.gameinformer.com/2021/03/24/deathloop-dev-opens-...
Yes, these are probably MSFT sponsored and it's not all roses, but even if there's a core of truth to them it's encouraging.
Sure, that $10 gets you only 1 month, but will you buy a different $10 game next month? Will you play this game for more than a month?
Pretty soon the GamePass ROI becomes difficult to ignore. (This coming from someone that doesn't have GamePass but is very impressed by the business model and value proposition around it).
Streamers, influencers, and competitive players whose livelihoods are based on some of these games will almost be forced into playing on the platform that gives them an advantage, whether that's an extra couple weeks of access or slight optimizations.
So many people will leave this thread incorrectly believing this was an iPhone problem. It could easily become the data point people use to cast doubt on all pictures they don't like.
Your complaints # 1-3 are a software issue that, while mildly annoying, will ultimately be resolved in an update. Creating a new guardian is literally a 15 second process.
Numbers 4-8 are because you choose to use a wireless headset from Oculus as a wired headset through Steam. Of course that's your choice, but the optimized workflow - that the vast majority of buyers use and is the primary product design - is to use on-headset apps without a PC or cable entirely.
It's also highly unfair to say "very very few things work well in VR" based on your experience. The vast majority of consumers don't care about Facebook IDs, or PCVR, or Steam libraries, or future compatibility concerns, or the other reasons you probably choose the setup you do.
If you want to judge the current state of VR for the mass market, go to the on-headset Quest store and try Walking Dead, Resident Evil 4, Walkabout Mini Golf, Contractors, Eleven Table Tennis, I Expect You to Die, Thrill of the Fight, In Death: Unchained, Fisherman's Tale, RealVR Fishing, Golf+, Moss, Tetris Effect, Pistol Whip, Red Matter, Shadow Point, or any of the other highly rated games that work out of the box.
"The internet has been described as people and screens. I've been arguing that the metaverse is just more people and more screens. Trillions of dollars of investment have made 2D screens very effective tools for delivering information. If the metaverse can deliver that information anywhere, at scale, shared with geographically disparate people in the same virtual location, then it will have real value."
I've thought about this and come to agree. Ignore the Snow Crash/Ready Player One "everyone lives in VR" hype, and for now ignore the "all games are interconnected in a shared world" fantasy and just think people and screens.
Already in VR, you can create multiple 2D screens for working in any number or configuration. You can place that in any kind of environment you find comfortable working in. You can create a "window" into the real world to see your real keyboard and mouse. You can see avatars of people in the same room that really feel like they're next to you. All of this is a bit clunky and the resolution is lower than hoped, but it works.
Now scale this up, advance technology, and add time. Higher resolution and lighter headsets are inevitable.
Will people want to work in VR? If it means 4 screens on the balcony of a Tuscan villa instead of a tiny desk in a depressing space? Maybe. They can still type "git push" on a 2d screen with a real keyboard in a virtual space.
Will companies buy a $300 device for every employee? If that replaces the $300 monitors they already buy, it could actually save money.
Will execs wear a 400g headset for 3h? What about if it's a 100g headset and lets them feel present with a globally distributed team that can sit around the same virtual conference table with spatial audio and see body language and facial expressions[1]? Maybe.
The benefits for shared movies, group gatherings, co-working, and social gaming are very compelling. If you stop projecting your preconceived ideas of what a "metaverse" is, and instead ask "what are the opportunities afforded by immersive shared and networked spaces being available to the masses through pervasive cheap technology?", you can come up with pretty compelling use cases that, taken together, ultimately form a far more likely "metaverse" in the near-term (<5 years).
[1] Search for "Codec Avatars" to see progress here. Here's an article with some videos: https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/28/22751177/facebook-meta-c...
I did not comment on whether MacKenzie Scott is elitist or not.
My points are:
(a) "merit based" scholarships are not everywhere. The vast majority are financial need based - which is not a bad thing.
(b) You mentioned "bad schools" and "elites" - nothing about the middle class. My point was to assert that just because someone can afford to live where there are decent public schools doesn't mean they can afford college. These people are not "elites." The cost of California schools was a data point; the problem is nationwide.
(c) A charity which chooses to help kids who need help is still doing good, even if some of the kids are not the most disadvantaged in the country.
At no point did I indicate that "middle class kids that can't afford California schools" were somehow more deserving than those with a poorer SES. I simply pointed out that they exist, and that some do need help, and they frequently fall into a gap of being neither rich enough or poor enough to get help.
First you accused the charity of elitism, and now you accuse me of elitism. I find that interesting and curious.
> their parents had the money and ability to put their kids into good schools, good programs, volunteering, and did not throw them to the streets for their LGBTQ status. That already meets plenty of generic scholarship requirements.
I fit your description. My daughter applied for well over 100 independent scholarships. She received zero. Her peers had about the same success rate.
Anyone whose parents earn above poverty wages will find it exceedingly difficult to qualify for scholarships, because the vast majority are need based and hugely oversubscribed.
Sure, the top top tier of valedictorians and overachievers may get those elusive full ride or performance-based scholarships, but that is a tiny minority and far from the "generic scholarship requirements."
If you disagree, I suggest you fill out the FAFSA application to understand the depth of financial analysis done on parents and students. Though designed for federal financial aid, many schools and scholarship programs also use it to screen for financial need.
This is a complete false dichotomy. You appear to be arguing that either an organization funds highly underprivileged or homeless youth from "bad schools" or they're funding elitism? "Giving people a free ride they already could afford?" I disagree.
College expenses are so ridiculously high that a broad swath of the middle class can simply not afford to help their children pay for college. A University of California school costs over $35,000/year for California residents. Private schools and costs for out of state residents are far higher. Add in bare bones other expenses, and an almost-impossible-to-attain-in-4-years-4-year-degree can cost $150K+ for a public school.
These people are not "elites." These are solid middle class families and the college cost problem is huge. Imagine making enough money to support your family, pay ridiculous rent/house prices, get your kids into decent programs, maybe save a bit for retirement...and are ineligible for almost all forms of financial aid, and 90% of scholarships, because that salary that barely pays the cost of living is considered excessive. Getting a second mortgage or raiding a retirement fund may not be an option. And what if you have 2 or 3 kids?
This is assuming that these families still support their kids after they've come out.
As a result, hundreds of thousands of young people start their lives under a crushing debt burden that can't be lifted even through bankruptcy. Or, they simply skip college entirely. An organization that assists with college costs by looking at a student's complete picture (not just financial need) will help far more people than "elites."
Not every LGBTQ student gets disowned by their families. Some do and still show strong leadership simply by continuing to strive for a college of their dreams. Some, tragically, suffer in immeasurable and innumerable ways and may need other kinds of support. All of these kids deserve a chance, and if this organization helps some of them then I think that's fantastic.
The attitude of "if you're not helping this one segment that I deem most at risk then you're part of the problem" is corrosive and unnecessarily cynical.
It's not just "starting in the middle of a series", it's starting almost at the end...after the best part of the story is well in the rear-view mirror.
IIRC, Foundation and Earth not only benefits from reading all of the Foundation books that came prior, but also all of Asimov's Robot books.
> There were all these subtle ways in which, because the company brand was Facebook, a lot of stuff flowed through Facebook and the Facebook app in ways that may have not been optimal. Facebook is still clearly the app that people use the most out of all the ones that we do. But there are people who want to just use WhatsApp or want to just use Instagram, or just want to have Quest and be in VR or AR and not have to use these things.
> So I think it’s about being able to pick and choose which of the services you want to use and know that, no matter what happens to your Facebook account or your Instagram account, you’re still going to have all the content that you bought in VR or all your virtual goods. You can set up an avatar and it can be tied to one of those accounts or could just be tied to your overall identity across the different family of apps. And you can use it in all these places if you want. I bet that’s going to be pretty powerful.
The IPCC was the source for the OpenSecrets statement (as they said in the quote). They just consolidated the information. Feel free to read the IPCC Report yourself.
Or The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jul/10...
(Table shows ExxonMobile at 1.98%)
Or Statistica: https://www.statista.com/statistics/531354/greenhouse-gas-em...
Or Sustainability Now: http://sustainabilitynow.com/Docs/exxons_climate_footprint.p...
> The contribution of emissions from ExxonMobil to total carbon dioxide concentrations above pre-industrial levels in 2002 was 4.8 to 5.5%. This percentage contribution from ExxonMobil has steadily increased, rising from 0% in 1882, to 2.5 to 2.8% in 1960 and then almost doubling in the last forty years to 4.8 to 5.5% in 2002. The contribution of methane emissions is smaller, peaking at 1.6% of total global concentrations above pre-industrial levels, in 2002.
You are also using a strawman argument. I said people should focus on areas of great impact, not "nobody has to do anything." I'm beginning to think you are not interested a credible discussion.
This link refutes your assertion of ExxonMobil (they are responsible for 1.68% of global emissions), as well as answering why "the peasants pay renewable energy tax."
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2021/08/companies-highest-c...
> Exxon Mobil, which accounted for 1.98% of global emissions, the sixth highest percentage, ranked ninth among the top spending oil and gas companies, according to an OpenSecrets analysis of the IPCC report. The company’s PAC contributed $1.1 million to federal candidates in 2020, 78% of which went to Republicans. It also contributed $165,000 to other PACs and party committees last year, 97% of which went to Republican groups.
Second, there are approximately 100,000 airline flights per day worldwide; American Airlines alone flies 5,000 per day. Even 1,000 rocket launches per year would be equivalent to 5 days of traditional flights.
People disagree with the climate concern not because "Elon Musk is involved" - it is because critics are focused on the wrong thing. There are far more climate destructive practices with far less benefit to the good of mankind. All those 100,000 flights per day? That only accounts for about 2% of carbon emissions. A SpaceX launch, to use your figures, accounts for 0.00005%.
So why focus on this extraordinarily tiny fraction of climate impact? Is it because it's Elon? Because rockets look big and thus wasteful?
What about the incredibly important climate monitoring satellites they'll lift, or benefits like GPS, global internet, potential breakthroughs in space manufacturing, astronomy, or physics? Or even just the hope and excitement about the future that many feel in the face of otherwise depressing news everywhere. The massive size and lift capacity of the Starship (100 tons to orbit, 8m wide by 20m high or so) will transform activities in low earth orbit and beyond.
And I'll close by saying, yes I think Elon has earned a little slack - he has done more than most people on the planet to reduce global emissions. Tesla, Solar City (now Tesla solar), battery technology (which has been a massive impediment to clean energy storage), future electric long-haul trucks, and the supercharger network (to make extended travel on electric vehicles possible) all have reduced emissions tremendously - probably far more than the additional carbon from rocket launches (though I haven't done the math).
So that's my $0.02, anyway.
Like airplanes? Like cruise ships?
Would it somehow be better if SpaceX just bought natural gas on the open market, reducing available supply and thereby potentially increasing price through market forces?
Are you suggesting we tax carbon so SpaceX has to pay tax on the fuel they extract that could go towards clean energy investments?
I'm not sure of the point you're making.
Just a random reader here, but no one is saying this. Either you're willfully ignoring the point, or you missed it. It has nothing to do with "a different kind of carbon" or "the political affiliation of the cause."
Here is another explanation. I hope you find it not idiotic, and you'll find a citation for everything I say (including quotes from the source to back up my specific comments):
Hydrocarbons in the form of fossil fuels have been stored for millions of years. They reflect carbons that have not been extant in the atmosphere for so long that they have been irrelevant to the climate. These fuels also developed over geological time, so the creation of /new/ fossil fuel (i.e., carbon) stores is also irrelevant to our climate in human-scale years.
On the contrary, carbons in the form of trees, bushes, and grasses have been pulled from the atmosphere within the past years or decades (plant mass comes from atmospheric carbon, not the ground) as the plants and trees grew.
When grasses and trees burn, yes - that carbon gets released into the atmosphere. But it then gets photosynthesized back into grasses and trees over the next years and decades, recapturing that carbon in a time period that is relevant to human lifespans.
However when fossil fuels burn, they release net-new (from an atmospheric perspective) carbon with no recapture mechanism available for perhaps millions of years.
Of course there are exceptions. Old growth forests have an outsized impact on atmospheric carbon vs. grasslands. Additionally, the climate change-driven increase in forest fire frequency, combined with our already-high carbon levels, mean the short-term increase in carbon may have an outsized influence on drought and other negative climate changes before it can be recaptured.
So yes, recent environmental research is looking far more carefully at forest fires' impact on carbon load and climate impact. But no, this has nothing to do with "trimming" or "raking" our forests. Nor does it have to do with the "politics" of fossil fuel vs. forestry, nor is it "different carbon."
I hope this helps answer your questions.
Reference: https://www.futuredirections.org.au/publication/wildfires-gr...
> In Australia wildfires may well be GHG emission neutral over time. A recent report released by the Australian Government Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources concluded that based on existing evidence, “… bushfires release significant amounts of carbon dioxide, but generally recover over time, generating a significant carbon sink in the years following the fire.”
> For millennia fire has been a feature of the natural environment. An equilibrium existed whereby the quantity of CO2 released into the atmosphere by burning and the quantity stored in plant material by photosynthesis remained neutral.
> This view, while appropriately conservative in the context of the Kyoto protocols in 1997, now still understates the importance of wildfire related GHG emission in two ways. Firstly, CO2 released into the atmosphere by wildfires can remain there for a period of approximately seven months before it is re-captured by photosynthesis. During this time it will contribute to the warming of the planet. Secondly, and most importantly, there is compelling evidence from a number of sources that the incidence and intensity of wildfires is increasing.
But it's not. It gives a good indication that the applicant has many, if not all, of the characteristics I listed.
And for many non-specialist jobs (data entry, call center, executive assistants, etc.) there is no relevant training program or certification. Few people grow up hoping to work at a call center or do data entry, so they're not going to go to school for that.
Again, a 4-year degree does not guarantee success, but it tells an employer far more than they were "willing to spend $40-80K for a piece of paper." Many people want to go to school to learn about something they love, then they get out and need a job.
I think it's fair for a hiring person to seek out degree holders as a desirable criteria.