youpassbutter

> There are also deep socio-economic problems to solve.

The biggest problem is that india has a mindset problem. They, especially their leaders, academics, etc do not see themselves as a major nation. It's why india is still part of the british commonwealth.

> The Chinese kind of politics is impossible in a country as diverse as India. If you force through you only end up breaking the country.

That's the mindset I was speaking of. Indians themselves see progress as impossible. Also, China is a diverse nation as well, that hasn't prevent them from organizing and progressing.

What india needs is a healthy dose of nationalism and learn to stand on her own. But that will never happen as long as india is subservient to britain. India has a world of potential and none of the execution. All because of the mindset of the leadership and the people. It's tragic.

> I would be shocked if there's any fossil fuel generation online in 10 years, 15 tops.

What? Fossil fuel usage has increased not just in china but around the world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bp_world_energy_consumpti...

It's far more likely that solar will disappear than fossil fuel usage especially with china wanting to urbanize another 500 million people and India, ASEAN and Africa looking to industrialize.

> the rate of solar being installed isn't slowing down

It has slowed down tremendously. Seems like you haven't been paying attention, but the solar industry has collapsed around the world. Elon Musk even had to bail out Solar City.

What's with the ideologues. It's either the peak oil fanatics or the renewable evangelicals.

The only way we aren't using fossil fuels in 10 years is if civilization collapses.

Journalists, talking heads, etc don't know why something is happening. Only the insiders ( trump/pompeo, moon, kim, etc ) know and they certainly aren't telling the press about it. The noise in the media is just tabloid nonsense to sell ads.

I've been saying this for years. DNA sites are a goldmine for unresolved cold cases ( rape, murder, missing persons ) where DNA is available.

In the past, if there was a rape in a city, the cops couldn't force everyone in the city to give their DNA to find the rapist. Now, everyone in the city is paying to give their DNA to DNA sites. All cops had to do is submit the DNA of cold cases to these sites and see if they get a match of any kind ( cousins, siblings, parents or the suspect themselves ).

> I never thought I'd see this happen.

Why? Societies/nations/etc always change. Given the state of NK, what's shocking is that it didn't happen sooner.

> I'm not incredibly familiar with the situation as it stands, but is re-unification a legitimate possibility?

Reunification is inevitable just like it was between east and west germany. The only question is when.

In the meantime, if all goes to plan, it looks like the koreas + US/China are going to officially end the korean war and relations between north korea and south korea + US are going to be normalized and we will ostensibly get the "unofficial" end of the cold war. Of course the biggie being north korea giving up their nukes.

This is great news. We need more tech hubs and more competition in the tech industry. I'm still confused as to why europe decided to cede the entire tech industry to the US. Do europeans love us this much? That they want us to have all money/technology?

But this doesn't go far enough. Europe has 600 million people. They should have 2 or 3 tech hubs.

Look at what china is doing. They are developing their own tech industry. That is what europe should do. Foster their own tech industry.

> Or advertising in those places has relatively little impact on image and produced little controversy compared to the scale of audience it gives access to.

That's true of anything on youtube.

> I think Laura Ingraham is pretty good recent evidence that advertisers do respond to controversy in the TV advertising market.

No. That proves my point. The only reason some advertisers pulled their ads from her show is because of outside pressure ( AKA other news organizations and NGOs putting pressure on them ).

As I said, advertisers don't care about content. They care about reach. Saudis can kill gays and ban women from driving. The chinese can pollute and steal prisoners organs. CNN/Foxnews and the rest of the news media can clickbait dead children for ratings. Advertisers are willing to advertise in saudi arabia, china, CNN, etc.

As I said, from 2011 to 2016, advertisers were happy as clams to advertisers on youtube. What changed? The only thing that changed is that large media companies decided to attack youtube and advertisers in order to leech more money for themselves.

Everyone is dirty. It's business. There is no such thing as morality. Do you think advertisers peddling for oil companies or soda companies are moral? Do you think propagandists like CNN/Foxnews/NYTimes/Washingtonpost/etc are moral? Do you think youtube/google/alphabet is moral? Of course not.

It's simply a matter of who has to power to push whom around. The tech industry is too young, too divided and too weak to push back against a media war against them.

It also means that their employees aren't being paid as well as they should be. It also means that they are enjoying a monopolistic position.

Usually, when a business is as lucrative as google's, competition arrives. But it seems like tech doesn't work that way.

For example, if a chicken restaurant is making $1.5 million in revenue per employee, then you'd see tons of chicken restaurants pop up to compete. Even the employees, seeing such extraordinary revenue, would quit and open up shop. But for a variety of reasons, tech doesn't seem to work that way.

Is it lack of capital? Lack of opportunities? Lack of tech-oriented people? Lack of entrepreneurs?

> That's crazy

It's ridiculous. It's amazing how profitable large tech companies are. What's even more puzzling is why there aren't more googles/facebooks/etc, especially in other countries like france, germany, britain, etc.

The video isn't misleading. You are missing the point. It's pointing out that advertisers don't really care about how controversial the content is.

> In other words, if your sales team is essentially the "black box of YouTube" you are beholden to YouTube's "demonetization algorithm". Kimmel (ABC/Disney) does not.

That's the point. Why is coca cola fine with advertising on controversial video on kimmel's TV shows but not on other people's content on youtube?

You could discuss the same topic on youtube and you would be demonetized while kimmel isn't. Why? It can't be because advertisers don't like that type of content. Otherwise, they wouldn't be advertising on kimmel ( tv and youtube ).

Advertisers are advertising in china, saudi arabia, israel, russia, etc. So obviously they have no qualms about image or controversy.

From 2011 to 2016, they didn't have qualms about offensive content on youtube.

So what changed? It's simply a matter of traditional media like CNN constantly attacking youtube and advertisers to get more money for themselves.

That's it. If you applied the same rules on youtube as you did on TV, the entire industry would have to shut down.

Think about it. During the las vegas shooting, CNN shows dead bodies and was exploiting controversial topic for their own selfish ends. Advertisers had no problem showing their ads on CNN during that time ( on TV or youtube ). But if a ordinary youtuber covered the topic, it would be flagged as "controversial" and not advertiser-friendly. But that doesn't make sense since advertisers had no problem advertising everywhere else.

The only reason there is demonetization on youtube is because the likes of CNN has been constantly attacking youtubers and advertisers because they want the ad money coming to them. It's pretty slimey but what do you expect from CNN and the media.

> I'm surprised this made it by the WSJ editors.

Why does that surprise you? Obviously the misleading and clickbaity headline will be chosen over the honest headline.

No. That's how you write sql within your organization. Also there are syntactic differences between SQL flavors ( postgres, mysql, mssql, oracle, etc ) that make a SQL standard unrealistic.

The only generic rule is "be consistent". Whatever convention/style you choose, it should be consistent.

It's so funny how propaganda works. When we do it, we call it investing. When china does it, the propagandists spin it as something nefarious or underhanded - "buying it's way into europe".

> The premise that we think we can pack an infinite amount of information into finite space time just feel wrong to me.

Why?

Z = { x | ... -2, -1, 0, 1, 2 ... }

I just packed an infinite amount of information in a couple of characters.

> North America's attitude towards people of colour, absolutely disgusts me. I simply do not understand why that a country that was founded on on the principles of freedom continues to act this way.

North america isn't a country. And the US wasn't founded on principles of freedom. Slavery existed back then ( slavery brought to the colonies by the british ).

> Yeah, the UK (my homeland) has it's problems, but in the main, racial in-equality is not one of it's major ones

Where minority soccer players get bananas thrown at them. Where masses of white children are raped and police do nothing because of fears of racism. Where a half black woman is paraded around by the british press as some lapdog of your "prince".

No country is perfect so lets stop with the finger wagging. Has the UK ever elected a black leader? Go read about or watch black people's/minorities' recent experiences in europe. They've been spat at, had racial epithets thrown their way, been discriminated against, etc.

> Ageism is still the number 1 discrimination in the IT/software industry by a mile.

And it will only get worse I'm afraid. Not only is there a bias towards youth in the industry, there is also a growing move in the industry to lower operating costs. Unfortunately, the biggest cost for tech companies are their employees ( especially the older, more experienced employees with high salaries ). Add in the fact that most older tech employees are almost exclusively white and asian males, the drive towards diversity will mean the older white and male employees will have to bear the brunt of the diversity campaign. I think the next recession is going to be especially brutal for tech employees in general and older tech workers in particular.

Did dear leader buy his team a subscription to 2600?

Humans adapt to their environments? What's next? The tibetans and sherpas have adaptations to high altitude? The inuit have adaptations for the cold? Norse have adaptations for low levels of sunlight?

Is this really "news"?

The icons made the mac revolutionary? What a ridiculous exaggeration. The icons were an improvement over the "textual" xerox icons but it wasn't what made the mac revolutionary.

Right. And russia was sanctioned and attacked mercilessly by the media and the international community.

That's my point. Russia was wrong. And so are we.

Of course he did. Just like saddam had his soldiers kill babies in incubators. You have to be extremely naive to believe government and media lies.

Lunacy. Under what rule, law or authority are we just allowed to bomb/attack other nations? Imagine if china, russia or any other nation acted like this. The media would be screaming bloody murder and calling other nations evil, depraved, etc. When we do it, it's "strikes on chemical weapons sites", it's for democracy, it's for freedom. One day, I hope leaders of all nations are held to account for their crimes and not just the leaders of poor and weak countries. And most importantly, I hope one day the media are held accountable for their part in war mongering as well. Rule of law should be applied to all, not just the poor and weak.

> Most of the so called news / journalism isn't news / journalism any more than Aspartame is sugar.

News was never news. It was actually branding by the news industry in the 20th century that duped everyone into thinking that news was objective. If you are interested, go look at what newspapers were in the 1800s. They were propaganda outfits created by wealthy individuals to push agenda. The oldest newspaper in the US ( NY Post ) was a propaganda organization created by Madison to attack Thomas Jefferson and his agrarian ideals. The highest prize in journalism is the pulitzer prize which is named for the founder of yellow journalism.

I think we are better off removing the lie that news is objective and go back to the truth. News is propaganda. I think it'll be healthy for the nation to accept reality rather than blindly accepting an idealized falsehood.

> Call me crazy but it's time for a legal definition of news (vs editorial) and then have that definition forced.

How? That's an impossibility. For example, when CNN, MSNBC, NYTimes, WaPo write favorable anti-2nd amendment "news" articles and Foxnews write favorable pro-2nd amendment "news" articles, how are you going to define objectivity?

Are we going to have biased government officials deciding what objective news is? Do you trust obama or trump to decide what is biased and what isn't biased? I certainly don't.

I think all news should contain labeling informing the public that these organizations are all propaganda organizations with heavy biases and let the public consume as they see fit. Just like with cigarettes, alcohol, soda, etc.

I certainly don't want government deciding what is objective.

Sure. But it doesn't take a "team" to build up a CMS. This is why media "tech teams" are viewed as a joke in the tech industry.

> Driving cars for hire has always been a shit way to make a living

There are plenty of drivers who made a good living. I had a friend in college from britain. His father was a taxi driver and who was able to provide for his stay at home wife, send his 3 kids to college ( one to NYC ) and buy a vacation home in spain. A solid middle class living as a taxi driver. So your premise about drivers always making shit pay is verifiably false.

But I do agree with you that uber is a disruptive technology and a middle class life as a driver is not something that can be maintain in today's environment.

This is what is so weird. The stock market is at historic highs.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/S_and_P_...

Our housing bubble just surpassed the housing bubble of 2007.

Interest rates are at all time lows and unemployment is at all time lows.

If they are having trouble now when it's the best of times, what are they going to do when we have a recession?

A CMS team? Christ, no wonder NYTimes is losing money.

> I think it's always strange that the media frames this as "threatening" to shift power.

Why is it strange? That's the purpose of a nation's propaganda organizations. The chinese media does the same thing. Every nation's media does it.

What if you visit their websites?

> I think the entire foundation for their business is unethical.

Then much of modern business is unethical. What facebook is doing isn't very different from what newspapers do, what tv networks do and what much of tech does.

What do you think ABC, NBC, CBS, etc does? What do you think nytimes, washingtonpost, npr, etc does? What do you think google/youtube does? Even NPR sells "ads" to their corporate sponsors for "donations".

> for the data collecting they have pioneered and continue to do.

You are giving facebook far too much credit. They didn't pioneer anything. They are just the best at it. The business model that facebook excels in certainly predates its existence ( google did it before facebook ) and on a broader scale, predates facebook by decades.

The point should be that facebook should be forced to simply state what they are doing and collecting to each new user and the user should decide whether they want to use facebook's services or not.

>The real q is, why does government even subsidizing home ownership in the first place?

Firstly, older people own homes and they vote. Secondly, homes are a significant part of people's retirement assets. As companies do away with pensions and as the Social Security age gets increased, home values gain in importance. So the government has an incentive to keep home prices high.

This hurts the younger generation looking to buy homes and raise a family. But the older generation votes in greater numbers than the younger people.

If you are politician running for office, you aren't going to say "lets raise property taxes" or "lets get housing prices down so that young people can afford it".