fumblebee

Very possibly! This is the Thames side of Deptford, so very close to Greenwich.

This honestly reads like a “The Onion” headline.

I’m reminded of the (fantastic) documentary about a building I once lived in: Aragon Tower in Surrey Quays [1].

Since it was built in the 1960s, it was one of the tallest council estate buildings in all of London, but ~twenty years ago private developers bought it out and converted it into “luxury” flats. At the base of these flats however, is the notorious Pepys council estate, of which Aragon Tower was once a part of.

The documentary aims to shine a light on the disparity between the varnished lives of glossy marketeers and new residents of those in the “upgraded” tower, with the folks forcibly removed, and those in the Pepys estate with exceedingly hard lives.

Highly recommend.

[1] https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4asu6x

> pretty much everything I'm saying is already unfolding.

By definition, cynics are validated in a bear market. That hardly substantiates the claim that the space "needs to be destroyed", nor does it consider the reality that it's here to stay in one form or another.

Instead of screaming murder from the sidelines, maybe it'd more instructive to provide a list of ways that the space could be improved.

> Disappearance of the high-street due to Amazon

My own anectdata, but I've made the opposite observation. At least in my hometown (~10k population), I've been pleasantly surprised at just how resilient the high-street has been. In the past year, we've had a new bakery, a new arts and craft shop, a new cafe, and the farmer's market is going from strength to strength.

While several years ago, I would order relentlessly from the likes of Amazon, I've found myself purchasing local goods in local stores far more, and am better off for it.

Anyone else notice that the text labels on the image "Vienna waits for you" aren't embedded as part of the image itself, but rather distinct divs overlaid, meaning you can highlight/copy/etc. the text.

Is this common? / any ideas on why they've done it this way? It's cool, but surely adds unnecessary complexity and require testing to ensure it displays as expected on different devices.

Maybe. But I think a lot of folks have a short term memory; it was not so long ago that Word2Vec and AlexNet were SOTA. Remember when the thought of a human besting a world-class player at Go was impossible? Me too.

We've come ludicrously far since then. That progress doesn't guarantee that innovation in the space will continue at its current pace, but it sure does feel like it's possible.

This x100.

Sure, Apple have a disproportionally large power that should be acknowledged and stifled sensibly by regulators, but man do they create truly beautiful products that make my life better in myriad ways.

Facebook, on the other hand, maintain a business model that seems to do little but incentivise actions that exhaust ill societal outcomes. It's exhausting (pun intended), and I've certainly felt my mental health crack slightly under the burden of some of their products (not WhatsApp, which is fantastic and I hope isn't integrated further into their ecosystem from a user perspective).

Maybe, though impossible to know what proportion of folks who searched that actually voted.

Another consideration here is that hosting a queryable model like this becomes expensive. I remember a couple of years ago lone developer had to take down his site which hosted a freely accessible version of GPT-2 (3?) model because the bills were running to some $20k. (Chump change for Google, but still).

>"Just like News feed started out as friends content only but eventually expanded to included more content that is now critical to everyday engagement..."

Aged like milk, and not only in the context of the 2016 election.

Friends' generated content was the main reason why I started using Facebook back in '08. Content that showed up on my newsfeed not created directly by friends triggered my - and perhaps many other folks' - leaving the platform.

My first thought here is to relate this to the problem of early colour film, which was largely tested and validated with only light skin tones in mind. Once it was put out into the wild, folks with darker skin tones found the product to be total crap. Why? Because there was a glaring OOD (Out of Distribution) problem during testing.

Similarly, if the train/test sets used here - for X-ray based diagnostics - using Machine Learning relies only on specific races, then the performance might be worse for other races, given that there's a new discriminatory variable in play.

The obvious solution here is to reduce bias by ensuring race is part of the dataset used for training and testing. Which, due to PII laws in play, may actually be quite challenging! Fascinating tradeoff imo.

I agree.

But in a hypothetical where, all things held equal, it's you verses someone else up for promotion, and they're friendlier with the decision-maker, they'll be the one receiving it.

Every comment I've witnessed on this matter suggests scrapping the dislike ratio was a bad idea.

The YouTube monopoly on general videographic content means I can't go anywhere else. But man, the lack of competition here makes me sad. This was such a blunder.

I wonder how many execs at Google want to reimplement the feature but refuse to because it will dent their ego.

As someone fortunate enough to have worked remotely over the past two years, I've found the change enormously refreshing.

But, as with most things, there's tradeoffs, and the author correctly points out a few of them:

> These concerns have substance. Virtual work risks entrenching silos: people are more likely to spend time with colleagues they already know. Corporate culture can be easier to absorb in three dimensions. Deep relationships are harder to form with a laggy internet connection.

Another issue I'd add to this list is that promotions partially hinge on "chummyness" with decision makers. Remote work makes this challenging, and consequently, it might explain why folks are eager to get lucrative pay-rises and promotions by jumping ship to different companies. (Maybe this has always been the case, but it seems to have been exacerbated).

This is something that really resonates with me - this should be a norm adopted by all banks, not the exception. Kudos to HSBC.

However, my interactions to date with the company have been riddled with signs that they are a dinosaur-corp, built on a foundation of inefficient and illogical processes, legacy tech, and Kafka-esque bureaucracy.

Ingenious. A similar method has been employed for monitoring species’ density using roadkill as a metric [1]

[1] https://www.ucf.edu/news/new-study-shows-impact-of-roadkill-...

I can’t help but feel that intimately knowing the models behind this test helps you game it.

I consider myself “above average” creatively, but I credit scoring much higher than expected by approximating how the models behind the test actually work.

If you - as a hypothetical person living in Russia - literally aren't aware of the atrocities happening on the ground (because of the information you're able to consume) then it seems pretty unfair to call them stupid.

It's not that simple.

The limit of shame is entwined with the information we consume.

If you were presented the War through the lens of "denazification", you might think the war was ethically justifiable.

A wonderful and colourful book on the subject of rewilding is: Wilding by Isabella Tree [1]. It's made me really want to do what you, she, and her husband, have done, though unfortunately my dank city flat lacks the sufficient acreage.

[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38891828-wilding

In other words, you want to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Just don’t go drinking too much! Beyond the surface level issues associated with too much coffee (dependency, sleep issues, skittishness, etc), it’s known that coffee does contain small amount of the carcinogen acrylamide. And while the jury is still out on the extent of the risks, it probably won’t increase the risks of cancer in the long run if you’re an average coffee drinker.

This article gives a good overview [1]

[1] https://theconversation.com/amp/fact-check-does-coffee-cause...

As another commenter mentioned, for the EU many fintechs will opt to get a banking license in Lithuania.

For example, Revolut is a bank in the EU via a Lithuanian banking license, but only an "e-money institution" in the UK (though the application to become a British bank -- and for that matter, an American bank, and other jurisdictions -- is in progress).

Monzo is a UK bank, but opted to cancel their US banking application, and I don't believe is an EU bank either (someone please fact check me here!)

Depends if you're talking about neo-banks (Revolut, Monzo, Starling, etc.) or the high-street banks (Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds, etc.).

Some of the neo-banks (less so, Revolut) would be a rounding error in Apple's market cap valuation. Relatively "cheap" for Apple, more feature rich than American alternatives, and for good measure wouldn't bring with them the legacy issues you mentioned that are associated with the dinosaur institutions.

I used to use Wise exclusively but Revolut is now my go-to. I've found it to be consistently cheaper.

The atlantic.money option looks great for larger transfers, however - will definitely bookmark this for the future.

I agree, but in discourse I strongly subscribe to the Principle of Charity [0]

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

Thank you for calling this out; the comment serves only to heighten animosity against your average Russian. I'm sure OP aimed it at the Kremlin leadership, but being precise here is important.