shajznnckfke

I just installed Windows Pro on a new machine the other day with a key given to me by a friend. During the install process it asks if you want to use a personal account or domain account to log in. My guess would be you’d have to pick the domain account for the machine to be remotely administered. I’d be surprised if an existing windows install could be taken over merely by putting in an upgrade key.

Another commenter pointed out the factual error about vitamin D coming from IR vs. UV, but there’s another misconception in this post.

The amount of IR you get exposed to is not the same thing as how warm your room is. If you touch a hot pan, or get hot because you’re hanging out where the air temperature is high, that heat isn’t being transferred to you by IR. It’s being transferred by thermal conduction: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_conduction

So even if vitamin D was created by IR, you wouldn’t get any from sitting in a hot room.

The common knowledge is that Microsoft doesn’t need to be worried about antitrust action because they don’t have a monopoly on the OS anymore. But on the other hand, a lot of people are talking about antitrust against the other tech giants that also don’t have monopolies, because they have so much power within their share of the market. Interesting that Microsoft apparently isn’t afraid of that.

That story happened when both the company and financial markets in general were in the dumps. As you can see from the headline, times have changed.

I don’t think that definition is right. Nobody will argue that Apple isn’t a tech company, and the iPhone isn’t zero-marginal-cost.

There’s a public process when provisions are added to the laws, but the discussions where each side figures out whether their proposal is going to pass happens in private before the actual votes.

This is how negotiations work everywhere for any kind of deal. Think of some successful past legislation you support - I guarantee that it was negotiated behind closed doors.

Negotiation requires fluidly proposing alternatives in a give-and-take that ultimately leads to an agreement. When the items being given or taken are policies supported or opposed by members of the public, it would be self-sabotage for one half of the negotiation to expose its deliberations to public debate.

Imagine you’re a couple making an offer to buy a house. Do you think it would be smart to expose all your internal discussions about the purchase to the seller along with the offer? Do you think you’d ever succeed at buying a home at a good price if you always made such a disclosure?

I think this argument that a treaty was secretly negotiated is better understood as a general-purpose process argument that can be applied against any treaty or law, not as a meaningful criticism of any in particular. It’s just how the sausage is made.

Perhaps you’re eating some food that has been supplemented with vitamin D. For example, one cup of milk fortified with vitamin D might have 100 UI (as much as six steaks).

Humans in Northern Europe have adapted to those conditions with very light skin that maximizes sunlight exposure.

> And how do you that for a fact? It's nutrition science. It's not reliable. These numbers of how much we need has been changing for as long as I can remember.

The changing numbers are why I gave such a wide range. Regardless of who you believe, it’s completely impractical to get the vitamin D you need from meat. It’s not even in the right order of magnitude. What is your proposed required daily value of vitamin D? If you’re going to go around claiming it’s possible to get your needed vitamin D from foods, you ought to have done some math to back up this claim.

At the grocery store I can bolt at a moment’s notice if I see anything sketchy happening. No can do on an airplane. There could be a guy sitting next to me and coughing all over me for hours.

I read that there is 15 UI of vitamin D in a steak. You need 25 or 100 times that per day. It’s more likely that humans evolved to get their vitamin D from sunlight (although we also know that introduces cancer risk) than eating a whole cow every day. It seems like you’re trying to make the facts fit your preferred narrative re. meat consumption.

Wow, that’s astonishingly cheap. What’s wrong with these? How is the range? Can they drive at highway speeds?

I wonder if the deployment of EV charging infrastructure is how society starts recognizing the costs of free parking.

This way of thinking doesn’t quite make sense to me. Since those companies are huge, they could within them contain an organization that has more resources than Dropbox dedicated to storage. This organization will be completely focused on that goal. What if some company buys Dropbox?

As an advertiser how do I buy user data from Google photos?

How do they make money from giving their users free photo storage? I think the only path for that to be profitable was to grow the username for future subscription revenue.

So these random people are going to be put in power without making any ideological commitments, no platform, no coalition, no campaign promises. Where are these rookies going to get policy ideas if not from the lobbyists whose job is to convince them?

From my perspective, that’s pretty much how it works anyway. At the end of the day you’re sampling from a distribution. You can improve the outcome by networking, interview prep, and negotiation strategy but all of those are just changing the shape of the distribution. I would reject the idea of intentionally adding more randomness because the signal is already so obscured.

I don’t find it too surprising that more Democrats have an opinion of QAnon. There’s a small segment of people who actually have consumed the material and believe in it, and a much larger set who have heard of it and have a vague (and possibly wrong) notion of what “side” it’s on. I think due to the repugnant nature of the movement, most of that commentary is going to come from the left, so mostly left-wing people will form an opinion. Most of the people who are favorable toward QAnon in those polls on both the left and right probably have little idea of what it actually is.

See: https://slatestarcodex.com/2020/05/28/bush-did-north-dakota/

The important question is how much demand does each dollar of marketing create. It would be poor decision-making to just assume marketing is a bad idea because they are already able to sell through everything at current prices. Presumably there’s somebody doing that math at the company.

Demand is affected by price. If marketing increased demand they could sell the same number of units for a higher price.

I can imagine some marketing genius saying that “up” and “lift” are both positive words while “in” and “crease” are neutral.

Auctions feel unfair to consumers. The free marketing hype from the product selling out may be worth a lot more to them than selling a few consumer-grade units for high prices at auction. It’s possible AMD knowingly targeted stock levels and prices to cause the sellout.

For the real high-value users they have completely different products for sale to capture that margin at even higher prices (Epyc, Tesla).

Yeah, I don’t think this thread is entirely relevant to this particular case, but the parent comment was about the anti-tech actions uniting the two political parties.

I think that there’s a dichotomy between east coast oil/finance/defense/old money power and west coast tech money power that’s somewhat independent of the right-left political dichotomy. There’s a desire among Washington and New York power brokers and journalists to knock big tech off its pedestal, which creates an insatiable appetite for anti-tech narratives.

I think this explains why so much of the conversation around the 2016 election blames Facebook for the result, when it was one of 100 factors, and some of the more proximate factors were choices of institutions like the FBI and the New York Times. Facebook and Twitter’s measures to visibly suppress Trump’s claims of winning the current election can be seen as attempts to head off this kind of scapegoating, neutralize the narrative, and bow to those east coast institutions. These actions are legally unrelated to antitrust, but seem to be part of an effort to cede ground in the larger conflict the antitrust actions are part of.

> Inflation is a vector NOT a real number, any asset that people care about has become generally unaffordable i.e: housing, education, healthcare.

Inflation is not the cause of unaffordability in those areas, the cause is limited supply. Using bitcoin as our currency wouldn’t make more houses, more medical professionals, or less administrative bloat in universities. However, it would probably mean a complete collapse of the economy during times like these when a central bank can intervene to stabilize things.

“Deserve” doesn’t do anything for the people hurt by this, and it doesn’t justify the behavior of the hackers.

This seems like a general argument against product reviews.

The manufacturers are surely going to track the results of these tests and try to improve their rankings. Publishing the results doesn’t prevent that, it just gives consumers that information too when they are making choices about what kind of car to buy today.

Keeping test results private wouldn’t be consistent with the Consumer Reports mission of informing consumers.

I’d expect that they are doing that. This story only quotes a few reviews, but we don’t know how many more customers complained through Amazon’s customer service system (customers are probably more likely to do a return than write a public review). Amazon likely has some threshold for when to initiate action against a seller based on this data.

You can use Amazon for fulfillment without participating in commingled inventory. In that case, Amazon would still have possession of your inventory, and if you didn’t cooperate when they tried to return it to you, it might end up getting destroyed.

If Amazon didn’t offer fulfillment as a service, and just bought product from suppliers to sell, this same issue can arise - the supplier can deliver items which seem possibly fraudulent. Then Amazon will fight with the supplier about returning those items and depending on what kind of contracts are in place, could end up destroying them (this seems to be essentially what happened here).