dibstern

Evidence: Search “European History” or “American Inventors” in google.com. Now go to www.google.es and search “gente europea historia” or “inventor americano”.

They’re not just click bait, they do create incredibly biased content.

And no, Trump’s daily tweets aren’t hate speech. I think he’s an idiot, but he’s not spouting hate speech on there.

(1) The NBN falls under the portfolio, and the government knew they would have to deal with controlling the ever increasing costs of the program, which were hugely underestimated by Labour, and (2) The person in the role of Communications minister would take the blame for the public realisation that the costs were going out of control and had to be cut. (3) Any cut would result in a poorer NBN, because that's what cutting costs when you're building any product/service does.

So he was essentially handed that flaming pile of dog shit by Abbott, probably to lower the chance that Turnbull would ever be able to wrestle back power.

Turnbull's solution was to get the private sector to pay for a part of the network (FTTN instead of FTTH). So, costs would be managed, the 2020 target was still reachable, and it leaves the NBN open to improve the network to FTTH later on.

What could Turnbull have done better?

The bigger problem of the NBN is its business model, which charges Telcos for bandwidth on a total downloads basis rather than on a % use basis. This is what causes the poor service of the NBN. This could have been dealt with by Rudd, by using a different model for the NBN, as discussed above, but Turnbull couldn't do anything about that.

I believe proposition (1), there being more evidence that supports this view and more rhetoric that supports (2).

If he were elected with a significant majority of both houses, and the party returned to a more centrist state, such that he didn't need to appease the more Right-wing faction of his party in the same way, would he not still be the perfect PM many of us thought he might be?

An aside -> his election strategy was mostly: (1) use data to find popular buzz-words ("JOBS", "GROWTH", "INNOVATION"); (2) repeat those ad infinitum; (3) shy away from any compelling political narrative or vision for the future of the country (e.g. "MAGA" narrative); (4) ???; (5) Lose House seats to Shorten and Senate seats to Pauline et al.

People seem to be forgetting about Abbott, who in my opinion did indeed fuck around with rubbish policy his entire term (helped into the grave by treasurer/idiot Joe Hockey).

But I know freedom of speech needs protection, because today, it is easier than ever to be given a label and associated with the worst of humanity, and for people to think that you're a racist/sexist/etc., even when you are very far from it. We all just saw this happen to James Damore, a pro-diversity guy, who suggested ways to make his workplace more attractive to a larger proportion of women, and cited only science that has been backed up by a significant number of studies. The tyrannical Left felt some of his comments go against their narrative, the narrative that oppression is the cause of everything unless proven otherwise. A intellectually lazy and innacurate narrative, obviously. The world is never so simple, and the evidence doesn't support such a view. If we give up freedom of speech and punish people like James Damore, we will have lost the freedom that supports our society, and allows us to have political discourse.

Do you know what separates us from Russia, China, and the rest? The freedom of speech. Democracy is only truly held by a country when political discourse is allowed. Obviously.

The Left is guilty of demonisation of their opponents and alienation of their allies, and is, from what I've seen, the only group wanting to stop freedom of speech, and impose tyranny on all others. People need to wake up to its threat. It is much less obvious than the hideous Neo-Nazis, far more insidious.

The fact that I fear being called 'right-wing' for what I have just said is absurd. Friends of mine are members of both Left and Right-wing political parties in my country, and I refuse to be associated with either, because parties and wings create division and move us further apart, and distract us from the same values that we do share. And of course because I disagree with both wings. They are both driven by fear instead of reason. Nothing clouds one's judgement more than strong negative emotion. The crocodile brain. The worst part of ourselves.

My limit? The explicit threat or encouragement of violence. This is never acceptible. This is where we can and should be coming down on the neo-nazis, white supremacists, socialists, antifa, and the rest of them. They are violent people, so this isn't hard.

Encouraging neo-nazism, given the holocaust, might be considered encouraging violence. This makes some sense to me. So perhaps, where there is incontrovertible evidence of encouraging Nazi belief, or belief systems that are explicitly and historically supportive of violence, we can consider the implicit threat of violence an explicit one. Can anyone poke holes in this? Or any of what I've said? Unlikely anyone will read this absurdly long comment, but I still want to post it.

Gladwell misquoted Ericsson. Read Ericsson's book, Peak. Get your facts right.

Your messages are not private on any service that doesn't guarantee privacy. Most services do not.

Heck, your use of an app is often recorded and saved.

Using these services and presuming to be in private is foolish. People other than Facebook don't respect the privacy when they copy and paste your messages to a friend of theirs. Written messages have never been a way to conduct private business that you don't want leaked or passed on to a third party.

Is this person serious?

Do you expect to make a product that no one wants and somehow succeed?

Other industries are not so suited to this.

And just because he is asking for donations doesn't mean he's against monetising.

Especially if the data storage location is, for all user purposes, arbitrary.

The argument makes sense. If you are conducting your business via email using an American provider, expect it to be subject to American law.

I don't see how this could be unusual or a shock to anyone.

As previously commented, their advertising, at least in some circumstances, is highly effective.

The growth rate of revenue, how much more advertisers can spend on the platform before it's saturated, and how much Snap can jack up the price per metric, would also play a big role.

It's actually about whether or not it would cost more, over the long term, for a company to develop such capabilities themselves, or to outsource it.

Generally, due to economies of scale, a big, established provider will be able to provide such a service much cheaper than it would cost you to run an equivalent service.

However, it depends on how much that provider is charging you, on top of their cost of sales. It's pretty basic in that if it costs more to do it yourself, it's easier to let someone else do it. Especially when you take into account the considerable R&D costs that it would take to provide an equivalent service. Google's services would, I'm sure, be highly developed. This statement says as much, in that it claims Google has services offered by no other company.

So no, it's not arbitrary.

Gun ownership is not a crime. But the gun is shown in a scenario where a crime is about to be committed.

At first I didn't have any issue but this analogy seems to have convinced me it's a bad image to use.

Their property might be in the form of information, sure.

But one product being more widely distributed does not make any ethical difference. The fundamental is that the information/property has been stolen in both cases.

I completely agree, the motivation and environment that it gives you, the reinforcement that you're actually doing something official and serious as opposed to doing something that very few people outside of the software industry take seriously, the structure it gives you, the fellow students you meet and befriend, it's all huge. Additionally, looking at the Udacity/Coursera material, a lot of it is shallow, poorly taught, and would not have taught me nearly as well as my master's program has taught me.

Get your kids to do extracurriculars where they'll meet kids from lower-income households. It'll make them able to relate to them and understand them better.

you understand what is meant by the mistake in speech, and it goes unmentioned, so something...

*In the medium term...

:)

By the way, your English is far better than my Spanish... ;)

Also, as a kid who learned much better through class interaction with a teacher, your school would have been a nightmare for me, instead of doing so well in school I likely would have failed. Undiagnosed ADHD is terrible for self-driven learning.