pms

Try searching for some objectives data, e.g.:

* Estimated Iraqi civilian fatalities: from 3k to 7k in 1 month, 1 week and 4 days [1]

* Estimated Ukrainian civilian fatalities: from 1k (according to UN) to 4k (according to Ukraine) in 1 month [2]

In short, Western news are unsurprisingly biased towards the Western perspective.

Edit: note also that Ukraine has a larger populations than Iraq, so I'd expect more civilian casualties in Ukraine than in Iraq, but actually there are less.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukrai...

Isn't Sublime Merge a great cross-platform replacement for Git Tower?

Won't Netherlands be under water because of global warming?

Denying climate change is also becoming unfashionable, while vegetarianism and electric cars become fashionable. These are good trends that have been slowed down for many years by corporate campaigns such as Global Climate Coalition [1]. The same thing happened with tobacco.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalition

If you think that Belarus is close to being as autocratic as Hungary (it isn't) and then you think that Hungary is nearly as autocratic as Poland (which is far from the truth as well), then it's time that you learn more about these countries.

Belarus is probably as autocratic as Russia. Hungary significantly less so. Poland is significantly less autocratic than Hungary.

As a Pole, I don't support the current Polish government, but putting Belarus, Hungary, and Poland into one basket simply feels wrong.

Could you point the specific tweets that you find suspicious? I'm genuinely interested in this topic.

FT and WSJ are both worse than NYT in this respect -- they require a phone call at a specific period of time and there is a waiting time. I'm not going to subscribe to FT and WSJ ever again. If I really need to read them, Bypass Paywalls does the job. I much prefer Guardian/Bellingcat/Wikipedia's model, which is based on donations. I donate regularly to all three.

Taking the last week out of context makes little sense, because the last week is just a snowball that started on the 11th of January 2021, when Ryan Cohen and two of his friends from Chewy joined GameStop’s board, after building up a 13% stock position in the company over the course of the last few months. They believe that GameStop can be reimagined as a force in online retailing: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2021-01-25/money-...

Do you have any sources for this? I'd love to read more about it.

Why won't you simply tell us your hypothesis?

I think that the value of IQ is overestimated. IQ tests don't capture "nuanced understanding of the universe on a variety of domains". They measure something much more narrow, i.e., how good you are at the particular type of IQ tests.

Try Heroes of Might and Magic 3 (HD version with Horn of the Abbys). This turn-based strategy game is excellent. It's 20 years old, and yet it has a larger average Twitch viewership than AoE, because of its awesome competitive scene.

I wait for this trend to grow further. Procedural generation offers higher replayability, requires players to adapt their strategy every time, and shifts the focus from map design to core gameplay, which distinguishes games from books.

Procedural generation has nothing to do with multiplayer. There are games that have competitive multiplayer and procedural generation, e.g., Heroes of Might and Magic III: Horn of the Abyss. Interestingly, this game offers both human-created and procedurally-generated maps, but players compete nearly exclusively on procedurally-generated maps.

Do you mean reasons such as alleged weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to not exist? Such reasons are enough to warrant killing 500k people? Isn't 500k people dead a mass destruction? Just look at the reality.

Are you talking about the US? The US has started more wars and killed more people in the last 20 years than China. It spends on military half of what all countries together spend on this planet. Under Trump, things only worsened: the country is becoming more nationalist and is exerting its power for its own interests, while rejecting international agreements.

Invasion on Iraq led to many deaths and was based on false premises and similar "disagreement in management styles". War with China would be a terrible calamity. I don't understand why, but the US is turning into a bad actor, and the most scary thing is that it's convinced it's a good actor.

Volatility is the main concern [1]. Making trading decisions based on microseconds is speculation. How can anyone or anything reach an understanding of something as complex as markets in this short time?

Other concerns include unnecessary waste and unfairness [2]. The point is that this is a zero-sum game that makes us invest in infrastructure that will soon get obsolete once someone else builds a faster infrastructure.

Fast trade isn't "efficient". Long-term stability is.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_flash_crash [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Boys

I've recently acquired a used Surface Pro 5 with Cellular connectivity as a replacement for my old iPad (many apps don't work yet on the newer Surface Pro X, the successor with Cellular connectivity to Surface Pro 5). I take it with me everywhere nowadays and I'm very happy with it.

I agree that Tablet Mode in Windows isn't as good as iOS on iPad. On the other hand, I just want to carry with me one mobile computer/tablet, not two.

And I thought the $100 Surface Pro keyboard is expensive.

Actually, COVID-19 has lower infection rate than flu, according to WTO.

Once oil producers have to pay the carbon tax, the consumption will go down, because the price of oil will go up.

False. Scientists and economist have proposed to introduce carbon pricing, which would increase the prices of fossil fuels and oil, without forcing any utopian ideas, by simply including the cost of fighting the effects of global warming in the prices of fossil fuels and oil: https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/bxgd5p/single_mo...

Indeed. Note that you wrote "either keeping it or reselling it would be better for the environment than recycling the device". My point is that recycling means exactly "keeping it or reselling it", while you keep on using this word the way Sonos started to use it. Sonos misused this word on purpose to make it sound as if its policy of giving discounts for deactivating its devices was a good thing for the environment, when in reality it isn't. At its core, this is a marketing lie (stunt), aka greenwashing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing

Haven't you noticed that the word "recycle" is used here in the exactly opposite way than it should be? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/recycle

This is purposeful marketing misinformation. The goal here is to incentivize a naive customer, apparently including you, to make their devices non-reusable and to buy new devices. This has nothing to do with recycling, yet Sonos purposefully uses this word, because in this way they achieve their goal.

This isn't even a new technique. Unfortunately, it's widespread. Yet another example of greenwashing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing

Please stop using word "recycling" in the wrong way. Sonos used this word purposefully to promote the deactivation of their devices, which has nothing to do with real recycling: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/recycle

Welcome to marketing in capitalism, in particular greenwashing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing

It's a common marketing stunt and techniques with similar harmful effects were applied to other things as well, e.g., nicotine or prescription drug marketing. Public good is only a secondary objective in the american-style capitalism.

I think the whole point is that Sonos misleadingly calls the operation of permanent deactivation of a device as "recycling", when the true meaning of recycling is the exact opposite: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/recycle

Sonos uses the word "recycling" as a marketing tool to increase their sales by giving naive customers discounts, who fall for this marketing stunt or don't care at all but like being associated with a (false) "environment-friendly" company. Yet another case of greenwashing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing

Haven't you noticed that the word "recycle" is used here in the exactly opposite way than it should be? https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/recycle

This is purposeful marketing misinformation. The goal here is to incentivize a naive customer, apparently including you, to make their devices non-reusable and to buy new devices. This has nothing to do with recycling, yet Sonos purposefully uses this word, because in this way they achieve their goal.

This isn't even a new technique. Unfortunately, it's widespread. Yet another example of greenwashing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing

For starters: "NSO (Israel) hacked Jamal Kashoggi's contact via WhatsApp & passed whereabouts of Kashoggi to Saudi Arabia which eventually led to his death." I've never heard of this news until I read this thread today, even though it was covered by NYT to some extent.

Not only negative news about some countries don't emerge in the Western society, but also positive news debunking the falsehoods and stereotypes about the "blamed" countries don't show up neither: https://theintercept.com/2019/08/14/trump-iran-worst-lies

A major problem of our global society is that public perception is biased towards the "winners" and we learn the truth, if we are lucky, about their negative impact long after the damage was done. Example: the US invasion on Iraq was based on the false narrative about the weapons of mass destruction. Again, there were some news outlets that were telling the truth, but it was ignored.

Is this true? Why nobody talks about this?