curiousObject

Sorry. But you speak from a position of privilege of which you are unaware, and you clearly have no idea about how this stuff sometimes works in the real world.

I apologize for being very rude. But you have never experienced this and you are wrong. I hope you never have this misfortune to learn this from personal experience.

I apologize for my impolite manner here.

Very true. It’s almost always a non-issue (and could probably be ameliorated if you’re prepared in advance).

But, I’ll guarantee you, that one time in your life when you suddenly NEED $25,000 for emergency medical costs, or to close a critical business deal, or to pay for your wedding, or a parent’s funeral, or to help out friend or family in dire trouble?

Then, that one time, it is the biggest issue of your life. If a polite and cautious bureaucrat blocks it, then you will be angry about it forever.

And that one time is enough for one life.

You will not understand this until it happens to you.

But, looking At Washington right now (for example), can you honestly see this happening anytime soon? I’m sorry, but I can’t.

I think we should think about how we can work around that gridlock, even if we’re just doing it to pressure the powers-that-be (government, banks etc) to do a slightly better job.

Yes, but…

Just Google “large withdrawal problem”

Or just read this: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/sep/12/big-cash-withd...

It depends who you are and where you are, but there’s no doubt that bank customers often have sudden, expensive, unexplained hold-ups in their attempts to withdraw. Sometimes, even for tiny amounts of very low 4 figures even. It can be terribly inconvenient.

It’s annoying, but you can ameliorate withdrawal bank hitches by advising the bank in advance of your plans. But if you don’t confirm it first, then do not expect to roll up at your bank and be handed $10,000 without hassle. Especially if you didn’t do it before.

This is NOT usually an issue of banks being frightened of a bank run, like some folks are guessing here.

It mostly is the bank’s low-level staff concern that a scam is in progress, that you are an idiot being cheated, and their fear that the bank will be liable and have to pay for your loss.

It’s a good question.

The soft libertarian crypto-advocate answer might be: Because this discrimination based on ‘badness’ of transaction purposes is antithetical to the whole original ethos of Bitcoin.

The practical answer, in my opinion, might be: Because this powers the adoption of Zero Knowledge obfuscation technologies that make tracing transactions almost impossible. So then the only solution is a total ban on all non-approved, untracked financial transactions, which is a frightening intrusion into personal liberties.

And, obviously, many people’s answer would be: Yes, that sounds good, and it will protect us from many bad things.

Because both Google and Facebook are unaccountable private companies that might be difficult for some users to access and might not respond to attempts to correct false information.

North Shore Rescue even has its own website at NorthShoreRescue.com, but still chooses to only use Facebook in this emergency situation, unfortunately.

Edit: North Shore Rescue is a volunteer organization, but is partly government-funded

There does seem to be a slight sawtooth effect. A smoother rise followed by a more rapid fall.

But if you think about what vegetation is doing, that fits. Plants slowly gather resources and build structures for reproduction. This extra mass and activity absorbs CO2.

When the plants have successfully reproduced (spread fruit and seeds) the most efficient strategy is to quickly discard the reproductive support structure and processes that are no longer required. So the CO2 intake falls rapidly.

Autumn leaves falling are one of many symptoms of this, though decaying vegetation also releases CO2

Good idea, though AI is much better at doing that in 90% of situations. So filter it thru AI first

Copy: https://archive.ph/BixFB

“Wu’s changes led to gains of $450 million in total for some Two Sigma funds—including those in which the firm’s own executives and employees invest, as well as those available to clients. But they also led to a total of $170 million in losses for other funds compared with how they otherwise would have fared—losses largely borne by clients. Two Sigma has made them whole.”

$450-$170 is not $620

Allegedly SEC is investigating and allegedly these trades might have been unauthorized and self-dealing, but the title here is misleading. The final outcome seems like a large net gain not a $620m loss like the title implies.

The real question is was this company trying to steal from its clients for the benefit of interested individuals? It’s not an issue about one rogue trader.

So the path to a potential sale is shorter and you’re more likely to buy (less time to get decision fatigue), and certain vendors might be prioritized.

I think that’s what she is implying

Something important about it is this article, by Megan Gray was in Wired’s Opinion section which usually means the writer has more freedom to express their own opinions, and Wired does not claim this it is accurate reporting. But still it was removed.

How Google Alters Search Queries to Get at Your Wallet

Testimony during Google’s antitrust case revealed that the company may be altering billions of queries a day to generate results that will get you to buy more stuff.

RECENTLY, A STARTLING piece of information came to light in the ongoing antitrust case against Google. During one employee’s testimony, a key exhibit momentarily flashed on a projector … [1]

This onscreen Google slide had to do with a “semantic matching” overhaul to its SERP algorithm. When you enter a query, you might expect a search engine to incorporate synonyms into the algorithm as well as text phrase pairings in natural language processing. But this overhaul went further, actually altering queries to generate more commercial results …

The “10 blue links,” or organic results, which Google has always claimed to be sacrosanct, are just another vector for Google greediness …

Google likely alters queries billions of times a day in trillions of different variations. Here’s how it works. Say you search for “children’s clothing.” Google converts it, without your knowledge, to a search for “NIKOLAI-brand kidswear,” making a behind-the-scenes substitution of your actual query with a different query that just happens to generate more money for the company, and will generate results you weren’t searching for at all …

[0] Complete article here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37802265

[1] A link to the actual slide, that she saw. This image was supplied later by Google apparently - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37802302

Edit: my opinion is Google should respond to the accusations. Removal of the article without a detailed explanation looks real bad for Google and also for Wired

With insane regulations, like those that forced airlines to schedule tens of thousands of empty flights to keep their airport slots during Covid?

No, it’s on regulators, not on the industry

>Lufthansa said it ran 18,000 empty flights in the winter of 2021-2022 to ensure it didn’t lose lucrative deals that gave its planes spots at major airports.

This article should be required reading, whatever your views on Covid and other conditions.

Although the attack method of the infection is significant, and the potential victim’s defenses are significant, the raw quantity of infectious agent and the exposure rate are also both important

Nothing is certain. Everything is statistics.

But that Windows <<SNAP>> when you drag something too far so the dragged object and the pointer just suddenly disappears, and snaps back to the original position without warning!

Can’t believe Microsoft still believes that is smart UI design. It utterly confuses users. You may even see them caught in a yo-yo situation or just scared to release the left mouse button while they don’t know what’s happening

Cancellation is a huge often overlooked issue - I agree with you and it’s not a simple issue. Common users don’t know that ESC can help.

I’m not disagreeing. I simply don’t know

Though seasteaders may argue.

But what is the habitable land area available for our current population? Any ideas?

[I don’t know]

But that’s a problem with tiny houses: sometimes they’re appropriate but in many intelligent scenarios they are foolish

Edit- I meant that tiny houses may be foolish because there’s better ways to live

[0] probably I’m wrong, correct information is welcome

Sometimes they fall far short of that goal

I think I agree with you

Then, opt out should be the default.

How can the company explain this?