The article reads as if the WSJ just needs a pretense to push their social justice viewpoints.
They really are not going to give the Gebru story a rest.
I wonder why Bezos doesn't stop them, after all Amazon is also a big player in AI. Maybe it is just the usual: pushing for government regulation to keep the weaker competition out?
A better comparison would be to say "the hottest 10 days were all this July. There seems to be a trend here". Then it would be obvious that it was simply the hottest July, so of course all days were comparatively hot.
Just saying that there could be climate patterns that span more than a year, and "all the hottest Julies where in the last ten years" would be similar to saying "all the hottest days were in the last month".
Not saying it is the case, but also not saying that I automatically believe the fearmongering.
Are years the appropriate units for such comparisons, though?
Anyway I give them their record, my main gripe is really the talk about averages. It's just plain misleading or at least not as informative as it could be.
I wish such articles would not always compare with averages. It is perfectly normal if sometimes measurements are above averages and sometimes below. At the very least, they should also give a range.
Not saying there is no cause for concern, but saying "this year was above average" is meaningless in itself.
As for the July record, OK - but also some points in time have to be the record.
Somehow there is little reaction when white people are being shot, though (or killed in general, like the white guy who died in the same way as Georg Floyd sometime before). I think there is more to it than just accessibility.
Is Apple's approach even likely to catch any pedophiles? Seems to me at most it would succeed in keeping such photos from Apple devices, which is perhaps good for their public image, but does nothing to catch predators?
It is very public now that Apple will scan for such pictures, so how many pedophiles will keep them on their phones?
I don't think that is the case, unless you want to claim black people have always been this racist.
I can say that for me it makes dealing with black people more difficult, because I have to be more on guard. I have to assume they have an increased probability of having been indoctrinated by BLM or CRT and are therefore resentful against me.
No doubt this will give me downvotes (and spare me the "after zillions of years of slavery, they are in their rights to feel that way yadda yadda"), but I am just telling it honestly as it is.
There is a push to prefer "black owned businesses", for example, so how should I not feel that a black person is less likely to want to do business with me than before?
I assume other white people feel the same - which in turn might lead to more actual discrimination when white people prefer to not deal with black people because of the aforementioned issue.
In my country (Germany) afaik a little over 10% of the population are at least millionaires. So I think the likelihood to have a millionaire living next door is quite high.
"If Read suffered from poor health during his working years or required long-term care, his estate would be a fraction of what it was."
So don't bother saving or trying to get rich, because you might become ill and have to spend the money on your health?
The whole article seems weird. What is their point? So 300$/Month is not enough, but 500$ would be? Surely that is something many people could at least aspire to?
I think the poverty discussion often overlooks the fluent nature of the economy. People who have low paying jobs today (say pizza driver) don't necessarily have the same job forever. But new "poor people" (often young people) will enter the market and become pizza drivers.
Should pizza drivers give up all hope and just "live"?
Also afaik the markets had good returns in the long run pretty much always. If it really would not be worthwhile to invest anything anymore, some serious questioning of politics would be in order.
I only recently read "The Millionaire Next Door", and while I didn't really like the writing style, I think it still made some good points.
I would imagine most Ethereum miners are pretty well off by now, so the "working class" analogy is really off.
Also "the ruling class" can not really force their rules on others.
Everybody participating in cryptocoins right now is hopefully aware that it is an experiment with uncertain outcomes. So the "promises were broken" thing doesn't really convince me, either. I don't think the users of Ethereum were promised a finished product.
"Code is law" also only applies if people accept the law. In the DAO case, people decided to change the law, or stick to Ethereum classic.