deusofnull

Reminds me of "really bad chess", a version of chess that was released as a mobile app where you play with a randomized set of pieces. was a big hit, and definitely added some new dimensions to one of the oldest games, period.

one of the most trivial annoying problems with switching between the two is the difference in how bookmarking works in FF vs chrome.

I have to use chrome for work cuz of a security rule of questionable legitimacy (to me).

in FF, you bookmark a page by dragging the tab into a folder.

in chrome afaik, you have to star it and then select what folder it goes into.

Ok.

Another thing, In chrome, if you context click inside of a bookmarks folder and create a new folder, it creates a nested new folder within the folder you clicked.

In firefox, thats not the case, wherever you click, i believe it creates the new folder at the top level, and then you can drag it to a sub folder. Its a small problem but if you're like me with lots of bookmarks[1], it is a pain in the ass.

[1] for example, i have a folder for every year, with a subfolder for each month, and whenever i find non-specific cool stuff, i toss the bookmark in this month/year folder. at this point i have these going back to 2016, and its become a cool sort of journal or scrapbook type thing. highly recommend this practice to ppl, and its basically the use-case of many 3rd party browser adons for bookmark management, but built into the browser by default.

anyway, long like firefox!

I very much want to make a stephen hawkings pun but i guess technically he wasnt a quantum computing guy, but damn close

i <3 django. thank you to all the people involved!

Cant you do the same thing in regards to renewables?

Well then thats the trick. A legal research team that develops the form for as many sites as you could find, and then a mechanism to send that form filled with each users data to those sites.

Miami herald for the big story last spring that lead to a lot of this coming back up.

i imagine another factor to why explaining actions taken would be harder for a unconscious competent person is that the skill of explaining that action is a different one than performing it. but, in the same manner, that skill of explanation also has its own 4 stages of (un)conscious ignorance/competence. interesting stuff for sure

Would be a great idea and I bet it could be successful, but maybe at a lower price point and using lots of automation of opt-out forms. As far as opting out of many credit reporting agencies, check out https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0262-stopping-unsolici... https://www.optoutprescreen.com/?rf=t

Also it seems like theres a service like this called Delete Me, but it also seems like theyre a manual opt-out shop. Would be cool if you could find a way to not have humans doing it. Bet they're just having people on amazon mechanical turk fill these out or something like that. https://joindeleteme.com/how-we-work/

if youre a smaller company making a product profitably and amazon sees this and duplicates your product to sell for less, they are able to do this only because of their gargantuan size. this only serves to further consolidate a market into a ever smaller tract. if you have no problem with monopolies or the business processes that create them, then sure, it isnt messed up at all. otherwise, yeah, its a dodgy business practice.

yeah, i think its mostly just a humorous title.

Largely, I agree with you. Just pointing out the appearance of hypocrisy could lead to tension in this decisive time where we need to act now, as you say. A mixture of tariffs / investment could be used to get the goal most effectively.

remember like a decade back there was a instant messanger aggregator? it was called like, chatzilla or something, i forget. but in the logic of today's walled garden system of tech fiefdoms, would never happen without some regulatory requirement.

i believe the only NLP/ML stuff we really had was at the level of positive / negative sentiment analysis for social media posts, which as far as i know is pretty basic and mostly just involves dictionary checks for +/- words. the elasticsearch aggregations & indexing was not ML/NLP based at all.

How about statehood for DC and Peurto Rico? Oceana too. As far as Cali goes, i think the plan would be to break Cali into as many pieces as you could with each new state retaining a major city (Sacremento, San Fran, San Diego, LA, idk Cali cities that well beyond those but you get the point). to make it a perfect plan, chuck in mathematically defined congressional districts to avoid the stupid game of gerrymandering.

interesting extra piece, i believe Texas has gone on record saying that if California ever broke up, it would also break up into smaller states. goes along the logic of maintaining what Texas lawmakers believe to be republican constituencies in senate. how that would play out considering texas has been purple AF recently is anyones guess. but in general I also support the idea of breaking up states into smaller bodies.

for a funny and informative recap of Adam Neuman's life leading up to the formation of WeWork, check out this episode from the Grubstakers podcast. Really, really wild the stuff this guy pulled and the bull it took to do so. https://soundcloud.com/grubstakers/episode-95-adam-neumann-w...

> How is China not a 1st world nation? Or not an advance economy?

Whether or not you think China is a 1st world nation, a great deal of political logic in China evokes a historical animosity towards Western nations for actions during the Chinese "Century of Shame". China has certainly caught up in many ways but is still developing, and the biggest leaps in development are still only a generation or two deep.

I think anything like that is going to appear retroactively very hypocritical to any developing nation that finds itself under such carbon tariffs.

A sort of reparation or settlement for western carbon output in the 20th century, which the same impact on the climate only differing in happening earlier, would help developing nations get on board. This arrangement could take the form of investment in a developing nations clean energy infrastructure or compensation in other forms.

Otherwise, developing nations besides China will probably continue buying legacy, retired coal fire equipment from China, which has been happening for some time now.

I have an idea then, lets break up california into 6 smaller states [0]. oh wait, that would give the formerly californian democrats more federal power through the senate... woops.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Californias

If the democrats were to become the single party of a 1 party state, you better bet the currently happening conflict between progressive / socialist and moderate / market democrats would result in a new 2 party system.

I personally have turned down offers such as this with regards to the NYPD so I am familiar. I didnt understand your original point, thought you were saying people should quit high paying tech jobs TO go work for the DoD. Sorry for the confusion.

Doesnt excuse it either way but do you believe the USA and its intelligence agencies doesnt conduct similar black hat cyber actions in China / Russia? That status quo is simply what modern espionage looks like and doesnt constitute hard military action until it crosses lines it has yet to (shutting down a power grid, for ex).

To build on my other response, perhaps intead of being a China warhawk, which could be the most devastating and destructive war in history if escalated to nuclear war, how about instead we revist things like permenant normalized trade relations with china? How about we invest in local high tech skilled and automation assisted manufacturing such as can be found in south korea? there are many other options besides hard military force and to rush to that is immature and dangerous.

So what are you suggesting then? that tech workers leave "high paying jobs" to work for the DoD? To what end? Exert military force against China? I'm not sure thats the right course of action, even though the 21st century almost certainly will see escalating conflict between USA and China.

Rather than the DoD, i could see what you mean if instead we were talking about other federal and local departments of trade, labor, environmental policies, etc. Exerting soft power instead of hard, military force. NGOs with a focus of international labor organizing might be applicable too.

I think that was the joke

I worked for a company that had a "big data machine learning" product. Yeah, it was mostly elasticsearch aggregations.

I've been trying to get my family to install signal for our family group chat to no avail... i feel signal is so much smoother than fb msgr, but no one outside my techie / ativist friend groups ever agree to even try it.

I currently have probably my best manager yet. She takes the time to actually understand what is going on from my perspective, and she does that for our whole team. Empathy. Moreso, she's also always coming up with new variations on meetings... Like at the end of sprints we do a new Retro exercise. She comes up with 10 or so funny cool names for each sprint and then we all vote on them. Things like that. She also advocates for us when we have a technical opinion and feel like we cant get it passed through on our own. Stuff like that.

You're right, Facebook is a broken company. Along that point, we should break it up.

No, definitely not going to be using these new 'zuck bucks'.

I think services like venmo or cashapp are fine, and also i dont particularly see a need for it to be a cyrptocurrency.

tbh, i think all of this could be a publicity / marketing effort at its core. Especially considering that Reps from congress asking facebook to "pause" development on it. It should be pretty obvious that Fed regulators arent gonna be super into the idea of facebook creating its own trans-national currency, and not difficult to imagine the hammer falling hard on facebook.

Also, the whole thing feels oddly.... post-peak-cyrptocurrency-hype... Like it would make way more sense if Fb came out with this in 2016/17, right after that big bitcoin peak, and right before FB started getting a lot of shit for all the 2016 election / fake news / "russiagate" stuff.

But no, hell no, I won't be using zuck bucks.

in view of what you're asking about the development of technology, and whether or not civs tend to "peak out" around our current level, i think back to the drake equation* and the coefficients for the likelihood of intelligence evolving and the likelihood of intelligent life creating technology that emits detectable signs of that civilization (space infrastructure, dyson swarms, nuclear isotopes in atmosphere , etc). Those 2 being Fi and Fc.

Id like to share whata I think is one of the cheeriest possibilities:

- that earth-like planets are rather common (we have 3 such planets in the Sol system),

- basic life is less common but still pretty common (decent chance mars could have had life, maybe europa's sub-ice oceans has it now... conceivable at least),

- but what isnt super common is the development of human-level intelligence, and even less common is developing technology to the point we are currently at

- but (and this is the most cheery part) even though human-level intelligence and our current tech level is very uncommon, that once a species develops that level of tech, barring a catastrophic extinction event (DNA-hyper-plauge, mega-asteroid, all the nukes getting launched at once), that that life is likely to continue for a long time.

I say that last part because even with our current problems with the Anthropocene extinction and climate degradation, it's likely that humans will be here in 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 years.

Worst case could be even be so bad as humanity entering its first ever world-wide dark age (as opposed to regional dark ages) where higher technology is less prolific and more concentrated. Even given something like that that - which i think is neither a certainty or even a reasonable conception of the future - humanity would continue and 10 generations on our decedents would start something akin to a second Renaissance.

So what I'm getting at is once a civilization develops roughly our level of technology, it may be very durable even in the face of temporary disasters and darkness.

Now, as far as the fancy space tech you bring up, yeah, who knows... It seems like those tech have a big issue beyond Physics, which is the Fermi Paradox.

If say, Dyson Swarms were "possible" (they really seem like they should be... we could start building one now), then we should be seeing evidence of that all over the universe from those civs who've come before us and build them. That's scary to think about, that maybe we're the first life to get to this level in the universe. Then again, maybe advanced civs learn early to obfuscate the signs of their existence, or perhaps even use technology that we don't recognize / cant detect.

A great Youtuber named Isaac Arthur talks about both the drake equation and the futurist's existential bummer about the Fermi Paradox. Check him out if anything i bring up here sounds cool.

*Drake Equation is a simple(ish) way of plotting out how likely / many adv civs are out there based on the likleyhood of some conditions. From wiki - The Drake equation is:

    N = R ∗ ⋅ f p ⋅ n e ⋅ f l ⋅ f i ⋅ f c ⋅ L 

where:

    N = the number of civilizations in our galaxy with which communication might be possible (i.e. which are on our current past light cone);

and

    R∗ = the average rate of star formation in our galaxy
    fp = the fraction of those stars that have planets
    ne = the average number of planets that can potentially support life per star that has planets
    fl = the fraction of planets that could support life that actually develop life at some point
    fi = the fraction of planets with life that actually go on to develop intelligent life (civilizations)
    fc = the fraction of civilizations that develop a technology that releases detectable signs of their existence into space
    L = the length of time for which such civilizations release detectable signals into space[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation