And you didn't bother posting a comment like this in response to the guy bringing up Fox News. My comment was exactly correct. Here I am getting threatened with a ban after posting a second, angrier comment in response to the first getting flagged almost immediately.
You've set up a community here that feels free to post lawyerly, I'm-not-hitting-you level bullshit comments where people attempt to troll the discussion and get nothing remotely close to a penalty. That dude probably even got actual upvotes, so he can continue to be a little dickhead with his occasional "durrr fox news" comments and use his downvote privileges on this site.
The difference is that my comment didn't suggest anyone had an unhealthy home environment based on their opinion on this topic. The parent comment did.
It's a bit of a leap to assume that not wanting or allowing your 11-year-old to watch pornography means that such topics (presumably, sex) are completely "taboo" in the home.
> Russia dismisses the accusations, claiming they are not going to invade Ukraine.
What's your point? That the Russian gov't is capable of lying, therefore they blew up the pipelines? What if I said that the US lied about weapons of mass destruction, therefore the US must have blown up the pipelines? It seems like a non-sequitur. State governments can deceive, especially about their plans for war.
That said, I'm not supporting Russia in this war, nor Ukraine. So I'm not going to participate any further in this other debate about the war that you appear to want to have.
Extremely far-fetched, you'd have to convince me that the Russian government and military are full of total morons.
Building a pipeline is not cheap, not in money or time or bureaucratic effort. It's easier to just stop supplying the gas if you want to make an obvious threat.
The utter stupidity of that idea is along the sames lines as rhetoric, also present in OP, that Russia "weaponized" its gas pipelines. (To use that language, nearly anything can be a "weapon.") I'm going to just go out on a limb here and say that I won't take seriously anything that doesn't immediately address how insane those initial accusations, of Russian sabotage of its own pipelines, were.
I suspect the ratings are partly based on expectations. Eating a duck fetus doesn't mess with someone's expectations nearly as much as getting "vegetable roll" and it's really a hunk of beef.
But I'm not sure how they actually rated these. Does seem silly, but a fun list to see some foods I've never heard of before.
I still remember when a company I worked for had a spreadsheet where people were anonymously sharing their salary information along w/ title, demography, notes, etc. Most of the people who posted their info with some self-perception that their salary was "low" for the role added notes to the spreadsheet suggesting they think it's "low" because of racism or sexism.
To you, that might be good, positive, and normal. IMO it was toxic and fueled by envy with no actual information to support their position (and, admittedly, no information to deny it either). They only wanted my salary information to help progress their position in life, which to me is not so different from Google or Facebook wanting such private information for their own monetary gain.
> The bill takes a wrecking ball to the very fabric of encryption, by requiring encrypted messaging apps to scan for abusive content within the app (or the app’s underlying operating system).
Perhaps I misunderstand the analogy, but this doesn't seem to do anything to the "very fabric of encryption."
It certainly would make me have zero trust in any encrypted messaging apps that continue to operate in the UK and follow this law. Otherwise, anyone who wants to have truly encrypted messaging can do this on their own. And if the barrier of entry for learning how to sign messages is too high, I don't doubt that open source encrypted messaging apps already exist or will quickly come into existence and will refuse to comply with laws like these.
What are they going to do, force math to comply with their laws?
Unsure why you had to turn this into a dig at Michael Jordan.
And before you say it's not a dig at him, what could possibly be the implication of calling Kareem a true "winner" in comparison to the previous statement about a competitor like Jordan who always wants to win?
Did I miss something where Michael Jordan said he doesn't want to spend time with his kids or grandkids if he has them? Is that what the "fuck them kids" meme is actually about?
You could start by going through some Accounting or Finance videos from edu sites like Khan Academy, and also spend some time looking at the financials for public companies on a site like Yahoo Finance. Annual statements are also available on EDGAR (https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/companysearch) rather than, e.g., Yahoo Finance, but maybe a bit harder to parse even though its closer to source data.
I think you only need some basics to learn how to look at a financial statement and understand information like whether or not the company is profitable, or roughly how long the company can survive if things continue the way they are, or get better, or get worse. If you want to be able to really understand and assess a business and its financial health based on these statements, I'm not sure you can just learn that. I certainly don't have the confidence that I can do that yet. My feeling is that I'd probably have to work in the industry in some capacity where I am looking at this information daily, across dozens or hundreds of companies.
At best, I can pick up on anomalies that can later be explained (e.g., I saw there was a large amount of cash added to GitLab in the past year, and later it was clear that this was largely because of their IPO, which seems obvious but nobody told me there was an IPO before reading the statements (granted, the existence of the statements tend to imply this is a publicly-traded company)). That gives me some confidence that I know what I am reading, but I haven't done much outside of Khan Academy videos and taking a university-level accounting 101 course where I learned about the accounting equation, the accounting cycle, and how to write financial statements based on the financial events for a business.
Interesting. Looks like the bulk of their spend is on sales and marketing, which I suppose makes sense in that these companies require using this kind of money to acquire new customers. But obviously that spells out the questions, how sustainable is this business model, and also, how much of this are they decreasing in addition to or as part of the layoffs?
This is on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. Total OpEx: 351,625; Sales and Marketing as part of that is 190,754 or about 54% of their operating expenses. I don't read finance statements that often so I don't know how normal this is for the industry.
> I want a definitive, authoritative answer to a question.
As others have pointed out, AI is not yet capable of this. I do agree though, I want this too. But I don't trust OpenAI or Google or anyone else to do it correctly yet.
This might be true, although I think it depends on the age group of the people committing suicide.
I forget where I heard this, but I believe a significant number of people committing suicide have a high correlation with other issues like chronic pain (e.g., https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24916035/) or addiction. I'm suspicious that those white people have the kinds of problems you're referring to because I suspect their peers are less likely to be successful or affluent, as people with chronic pain issues probably are more working class, performing physical labor that results in their issues.
(Granted, I suppose there is probably a racial element that would account for why, if this is the case, more white people with chronic pain issues kill themselves vs. black people with chronic pain issues.)
This is obviously speculation, but so is your comment. I find both to be potentially likely. The scenario you came up with seems more likely for younger people (probably not experiencing chronic pain), and the scenario I came up with is potentially more likely for older people. But we're just spitballing some hypotheses here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34016817
Meanwhile you basically allow someone to call me gay and let that slide without any threat of a ban:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34014963
This site should probably burn. Fuck your moderation, go ahead and ban me, I'm changing my password to something I'll never remember anyway.