459 karma · joined February 10, 2021
And is a particular language better suited to those aims?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/urban-and-rural-populatio...
Wow. I wonder what Brave thinks of this?
Why, according to you are they worth and not worth examining?
Living meta-study of 300+ likely non-pretend control studies on 400k+ patients:
(Edit to add: And this was apparent early-on. Nothing much has changed with HCQ's profile since it was first identified as an effective, safe therapeutic in early 2020.)
[0] https://dissidentvoice.org/2020/08/lancetgate-why-was-this-m...
4x supply over the past 20 years is a crude average of about 7.5% inflation per year. Even worse, it's exponential.
To elaborate, why isn't an autopilot "aware" of whether the aircraft is taking-off/landing or in-flight?
It seems completely mad that an automated flying mode could be engaged in such an obviously suicidal way on a modern bulk carrier aircraft, without so much as a blaring warning and red flashing lights.
For example, El Salvador recently made Bitcoin legal tender. In Venezuela it's in everyday use: https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2021/11/02/a-snapshot-of-c...
The "reason" I was referring to was the context of the discussion, ie, whether or not crypto is legitimately useful for anything. Well, it is - it's tremendously useful, even vital, to the underprivileged populations of some countries.
One of those uses I gave as an easy example, is cross-border payments, and indeed nevertheless I suppose it could still be argued this could also be "huge" in some places.
Of course mainstream content providers are not going to use BT to deliver content, despite it being well-suited in many ways and would save them a shit-tonne in expenses and benefit consumers greatly. The problem is its unfounded stigma, which is fuelled by precisely the same kind of uneducated hyperbole seen here regarding crypto.
Look, the simple facts are the following:
- the existing monetary system is either collapsing, inefficient, holding us back, or all three
- a new monetary system has been developed that is already replacing the worst excesses and failures of the old one. It's been in use and development for over a decade and has grown into the trillions
There are no other alternatives I'm aware of with even remotely the same level of adoption, person-hour investment, or financial backing that could possibly have a hope in hell of replacing the incumbent systems anytime soon.
Iterative updates and sad caricatures of crypto run by governments are not going to preserve your life savings when a government defaults on debt and freezes citizens bank withdrawals.
Existing crypto can do and has done that, among other things.
For others, conduct a simple search for the name of low-income, despotic, crime-ridden nations plus "cross-border" and "cryptocurrency" to find news coverage.
Finally, look at the overall crypto market capitalisation. It's in the trillions.
It's ludicrous to think that a decades-old, trillion-dollar industry has literally ZERO real-world benefit applications.
Here's an article in Mercator's Payments Journal I found in 3 seconds:
https://www.paymentsjournal.com/a-look-at-blockchain-in-cros...
I asked about RAM as I'm aware some maths functions can be sped up considerably using pre-rendered lookup tables.
(And great library, lol'd a few times reading your humorous description.)
An example of the latter:
A worker in one country sending half of her weekly paycheck back to her family overseas has two options presently: days of waiting (which means no food on the table for those days), uncertainty it will arrive at all (starvation, stress and pressure toward crime), and exorbitant fees taking anywhere from 15% - 50% of what she sends (shamelessly robbing the most vulnerable). By using the correct crypto alternatives, she can send the full amount, at a cost of fractions of a percent, and know with certainty if it has arrived - in seconds.
There is a reason crypto adoption is huge in poor and oppressed countries such as Venezuela, parts of Mexico etc.
There are other benefits, but this should be enough. Nothing else has been able to, nor likely could be able to have such an impact in any short space of time in these areas, and not without possessing many of precisely the same core principles shared by most crypto projects.
This doesn't mean crypto is perfect or doesn't have problems. And it doesn't mean we should ignore those problems.
But it does mean that the endlessly served-up misinformation that crypto "has no benefits", works toward harming less-fortunate people who've suffered more than anyone should have to.
Is anyone aware of the nature and extent of the limitation here? Are we talking minutes or years? Would more RAM help?
A thought-experiment: how many people would be obese if it were impossible for manufacturers of unhealthy foods to market their products to anyone?
Look at the obesity levels in countries that such manufacturers exclude from their marketing campaigns.
The point is that advertising makes people do things they otherwise wouldn't have done. That's kind of the whole point of it.
It's an entirely valid and important argument for something such as obesity, that advertisers and manufacturers of obesity and diabetes-linked products, may play a major, even dominant and causal role in those diseases proliferation. How could people become obese, for example, to take it to an extreme, if there was nothing but healthy fruit, vegetables lean meat and water to buy - anywhere?
If you're a coder or engineer you'll know you find the faults of a system by pushing it to its extremes. Society/health and the struggles we face in those arenas are no different.
As for the pandemic, there are countries in "free Western Europe" that have violently arrested people for attempting to go and buy food. I've seen elderly assaulted, who - with trembling hands, hold their medical exemptions to merciless and uncaring store security, and a hopelessly split society pouring derision either upon the woman or the security staff. It's up to people such as ourselves to pick up the pieces.
These scenes are familiar to some of us, and people such as yourself discounting it is heartbreaking and frustrating.
Spend a little time rooting out what it is you're "not supposed to see". Maybe your perspective will shift. It's all there, if you're willing to look.
For your education, look up the several videos of holocaust survivors, and those who lives through other oppressive dictatorships, speaking out against what they perceive as a present-day repeat of exactly the conditions that lead to those horrors.
For example, any recent interview with Vera Sharav or any recent speech/press conference by Romanian MEP Cristian Terhes. (And if you don't find YT serving those up go to bitchute or odysee.)
And do bear in mind please, that one of the defining characteristics of the path to this level of societal degredation, is precisely that the majority of people at the time do not believe it could possibly be happening, and mock those who say it is, whilst simultaneously encouraging their silencing and censorship.
And the person might not even need to be there physically, they could just be an image.
Do we need to publicly shame and ostracise employees of all advertising and marketing companies?
All ice-cream manufacturers?
What about smoking? Smoking kills 10 million per year, COVID is a pittance by comparison. Should smokers wear a yellow cigarette badge to distinguish them from others?
1 million die from the effects of second hand smoke - which can come off of clothes, even imperceptibly. Best to know about it, and give them a wide berth. Eg, probably a good idea ban them from going into shops at all. And from buying food, starve them out of the habit, eh?
Do remember here, COVID is NOTHING compared to smoking.
That is, by supporting such measures against COVID and not against smoking or any other preventable cause of death, you're effectively a "murderer".
As such, I'll be giving you and folks like you a wide berth myself, though I wouldn't go as far as restricting your ability to feed yourself.
No need to thank me, it's just common human decency.
The "professions" that get replaced typically aren't professions by the time they can be reliably automated, in that they are usually monotonous tasks that don't contribute to the advancement of any field.
Everything evolves, but the bulk of people creating new software are still coding it after decades, just the same as the bulk of musicians creating new music are still playing instruments after centuries and millennia.
Perhaps our coding tools will eventually become so advanced we can just think it and a piece of software will be created, but that's also boring and unchallenging and will likely have the equivalent creative value of singing into a voice-changing social media filter. We have this in the present day but people still write and perform songs that others perceive as valuable.
The goalposts of what constitutes "creating" reliably move just as much as people continue to need to get their hands dirty in order to craft actual innovation.
The "no-code movement" is perhaps more an example of a "no-movement" trying to masquerade as a movement.
I don't mean to deride it, some things can and should be automated, and this is valuable in itself as it shifts the goals of innovation along. But it's misleading to elevate such things higher than their pay-grade.
And sure, maybe sometime AI and deep-learning could anticipate and create everything we need - "the singularity", etc - but at such a point, that innovation itself has been automated, we'll all probably just happily hang out at the beach, as there'd be no more work left to be done anyway.
Maybe by cross-referencing with one of the many sites tracking ownership, and the scheduling data FlightAware or others would provide, it could be figured out.
Society is a messy place - and has and always will have roughness where its edges meet. Some entertain an understandable fantasy that a perfect one-size-fits-all solution to this problem, that will make the messiness go away, is to be found in trying to force other people to do something different. Ie, by bullying them.
That's not where the solution is found. It's just the same problem repeated back.
I've been bullied, and it absolutely does not happen anymore. The bullies didn't change - I did, and I'm much better off for it. To put it another way: I hold the power.
When enough people realise that, that's when these problems end. If you look throughout history, nothing else works - it just leads to more bullying back and forth, and eventually, war.
Zucker is right, one component of this is not taking ones-self too seriously - the one thing uniting all bullies, all those who commit atrocities, is they take themselves too seriously. They are incapable of accepting the possibility they could be wrong. So high they elevate themselves on a pedestal of self-righteousness in service of some ideal utopian vision that they eventually lose all compassion and ability to empathise. This prevents the realisation of any such vision.
If anything, it's laughable.
Being able to laugh at ourselves is not just important, its essential. The current state of the world is testament to that. Granted, at the other extreme, where comedy knows no bounds and anything can be called funny - even watching people suffer - is just as bad.
And it's a domain entered by those who didn't check themselves at bullying, and went on to atrocity, and progressed to the final stage - sadism - as they push toward an ideal dream of a future perfect, above the reality of the dysfunction that push is creating right in front of them.