There are _literally_ dozens of links I could provide for each point since these behaviors happen constantly, but I just google'd and picked one each.
Donny, love him or hate him, does say a fair few things that are ... questionable. Jack has talked about this a bit, and their conclusion thus far has been that anything he says, by virtue of the office, is newsworthy enough. Policies for thee, but not for he. It's been a battle with users, but everyone seems to just grumble along.
That policy has worked up until today.
A lot of work went into this decision. They A/B tested the color of the note, likely the font, the positioning, the exact words, the fact check itself, etc. This thing went through meeting after meeting and was run past some good legal counsel. Twitter isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but it's also not a rusty shovel. They red-teamed this a fair bit, I'd imagine. They must have known that Donny would not view it favorably and would do exactly what he is doing currently.
All the same they went ahead and decided to make the move at the end of May, ~6 months before the 'fit hits the shan'.
Their stock is, well, fairly ok. Jack seems to be doing alright. Monthly users are flat-ish since 2015, but compared to FB, it's a bit of a wash.
There are papers out there that have multiple uses of using language to identify specific authors, determine multiple authors, and even decode known language. That's my first shallow example and would be a pretty reliable indicator if you could get your hands on their code. With a budget of millions of dollar I'm sure they have dozens of ways that can be combined. It would make no sense to reveal every single method they use to defend against people on the internet. That also assumes they don't just have a mole who told them about it, which they also wouldn't reveal.
It's not my intention to victim-blame here, yet do bear in mind that there are many, many ways to use the services and to expose resources to the bottomless appetite of the internet. Maybe Digital Ocean or Linode or the like would be a better option for starting out.
Perhaps because it's not the same people in the two different cases? HN is a pretty diverse bunch at this point; I'm sure there are a lot of people here who want FB to be a disinterested publisher, and others who want FB to curate like mad.
If those are the stats and you're still not actually solving many customers' problems; if tons of people are being hung out to dry with no recourse, then you're doing a bad job. If you don't have enough people to do the job, then hire more people. If you can't afford to hire more people, then don't do the job, or limit the number of customers you deal with.
And, of course, the discussion isn't actually about voting-by-mail, yes-or-now? Because that has been possible for a long time and isn't going to change. The discussion is about making it easier and/or the default to protect people from communicable diseases.
The issue, then, isn't even if voting by mail allows fraud. It's if the likelihood of fraud is significantly higher when, say, 50% instead of 30% choose that option.
This is yet another blatantly obvious attempt to stack the deck in Republican's favour. It's sickening to see people pretend to care about the integrity of democracy by engaging with all these phantom debates about voter fraud, in the complete absence of any actual fraud happening (except that Republican in South Caroline, of course).
Meanwhile, real damage is done to democracy by the unrelenting attempts to selectively make it harder for people to vote. Take a look at these changes in polling locations in Milwaukee for a blatant example (the red, suburban spots are predominantly Republican locations, while the urban core leans democratic) : https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EYoIrdZXQAILKlB.jpg
What laws prevent someone from hosting a website with billions of pages and taking content submissions from anyone. If what he is doing is wrong, then why are there no laws against it. What are the damages he has caused. Where are the lawsuits to recover them. Web posting or Tweeting complaints -- how effective is this as a strategy for change. What if the complaints were instead directed to commenters' respective legislative representatives.
Right on the money. I think that's the most approachable revenue model; "free unless you don't do your chores" or some such. Perhaps a paid tier with additional features or gated by household size ... I dream of making housing coops (10+ people to a house) much more scalable.
I have high churn ATM though so most of my concern is there.
They also got involved tactically, even someone like Palmerston who was an interventionist didn't intervene before the point when it was necessary. And a lot of the direct military intervention was to secure trade in countries where you had a gun, and the enemy had a spear. So they really maximised what they spent in a way that others couldn't.
Compare this to France, who probably spent the most on military, if war breaks out then they don't have a choice...you are getting invaded. Britain didn't need a big standing army (and really didn't have one until WW1).
Also, whilst British expenditures were small relative to budget (I don't know this but assuming you are correct), it was still very difficult for anyone to catch up until the late 19th century because their economy was so much larger.
Germany invested in a fleet because they, correctly, concluded that the only way to beat Britain was their navy. France tried the exact same thing in the mid 18th century, they were actually predominant for a short period, but they imploded financially (this was pre-Napoleonic, although they obviously tried to rebuild with Napoleon).
I think the issue for Germany was their economic strength was kind of shaky (they were still a largely agricultural economy until the 1960s) and there was no scenario in which they wouldn't need to spend heavily on the army as well.
But it wasn't useless or opposed to what their aims should have been. War started, they got blockaded almost instantly (just like France in the Seven Years War), and that crippled them. So I don't think there was any easy answer (there was no way in which they were going to avoid war either).
I am not sure I said military spending by itself is valuable...but I don't think it is.
>Can I get a refund of my Premium upgrade?
>Yes, you can get a refund if you have been charged a new monthly / anualy payment and you haven’t used the Writing Facilitator since then.
Doesn't sit well for a product that promotes writing.
While I don't disagree with the program, I'm also not sure what it solves.
How could you possibly know this, and how could twitter possibly know this? Surely that is the intent, but what do you make of stories like this one: https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2018/11/05/goldstein-investi...
"Only registered voters will receive ballots", you cannot state a future event as a fact, since it hasn't actually happened yet. Stories like the one linked show that in the past, California has had problems with this.
Should twitter now fact check their fact checking? Perhaps the idea of future-telling is flawed to begin with and twitteer should not attempt to be a source of truth!
So let's consider if such fraud could possibly be substantial. Let's use California as an example. Registering to vote is easy, all you need is a web browser and a mailing address where you reside or with a resident willing to give you ballots or ignorant that they are receiving them. Also, the State of California faces an impractically large legal hurdle to reject suspected fraudulent ballots so it can be assumed that most if not all will be accepted. It seems clear based on the observable facts that substantial fraud is certainly possible under the California regime. Please note I am not claiming such fraud actually happens, merely that it is easily practicable for an organization as well organized as, say, a political party. To be honest, I bet literally hundreds if not thousands of readers on this site could build "California vote fraud as as service" as a side gig. Let's disrupt the electoral process for a billion dollar valuation!
From this I conclude that while I personally disagree with the President, this particular statement is a (probably, I sure hope, incorrect) opinion, not a factually incorrect statement.
Counting numbers are defined as the integers starting from one. I'm probably lacking a bit of rigour there. err ... Define 1 = S or is that S = 1 or S is a thing or 1 is a thing or something and then put more S (s) in until you run out of S (essessses) then you have reached infinity. If it's not a really big infinity then keep adding S (sssssss) or remove a few and add some more. You'll get there eventually - lots of Ss or infinity, or not, who knows? If you run out of S then try adding some T. Everything is better with T.
He would have better off with: "Do you prefer green trees or brown trees?" That would have simply sounded silly, rather than +1 insightful.
He is in a position of power and influence. His words have far-reaching consequences.
However, it’s easy to draw a strong correlation between this and the the departure from farm / manufacturing life into modern urban / suburban office life.
In, perhaps, 60 years, we will be at a point where the vast majority of people won’t even know anyone who works hard (from today’s perspective, such as a garbage man or farm hand). In the long run, these kinds of jobs simply won’t be valued; they’ll all have been “tractored out”.