nearbuy

38 ms·

541.
by nearbuy 6y ago
If we observe that the targeted advertising doesn't seem all that good, it's a bit of a leap to suspect there's actually a great algorithm that's so subtly manipulative we don't notice it. By Occam's razor, the
542.
by nearbuy 6y ago
That's circular reasoning. According to Twitter's statement, they blocked directly linking to hacked materials (which includes personal, intimate photos of Hunter Biden). They haven't suppressed any other discussion on Hunter
543.
by nearbuy 6y ago
I don't think anyone is sure what it is yet. A common tactic in misinformation campaigns is to mix authentic (possibly hacked) photos with forged material. The authentic material is added to make the leak seem more believable.
544.
by nearbuy 6y ago
> the public officials involved mean it has a clear public interest. It's clear only to you. You cannot normally legally publish hacked or stolen photos of celebrities. The personal, intimate, or family photos of Hunter Biden almost
545.
by nearbuy 6y ago
Twitter was entirely consistent between this and Trump's tax returns. What you're proposing is a double standard. The rule is they blocked links to hacked content. They did not block reporting on either issue. Any discussion of Hu
546.
by nearbuy 6y ago
That's exactly why it's a legal grey area. We don't know if the content is true or forged. Publishing stolen content is illegal unless you can prove it's in the public interest, and even if some of it is, it's doubt
547.
by nearbuy 6y ago
Twitter's objection was that the New York Post article contained hacked or illegally obtained material (personal intimate photos, etc.). Publishing those materials is a legal grey area. I don't think Twitter ever said that article
548.
by nearbuy 6y ago
Twitter's objection was that the New York Post article contained hacked or illegally obtained material (personal intimate photos, etc.). Publishing those materials is a legal grey area.
549.
by nearbuy 6y ago
> This kind of power for a good reason has been historically reserved for elected governments, made accountable to the people. I actually think that if the current government administration (or any administration really) had power over s
550.
by nearbuy 6y ago
To expand on the dollar store example, they will take back an item that was sold outright broken or defective (although I've never seen anyone actually return in item to the dollar store). They don't have to take back all their lo
551.
by nearbuy 6y ago
> Microsoft wasn't prosecuted because Windows was a monopoly, Microsoft was prosecuted because it leveraged that monopoly to block out other competitors (you could not buy a PC without a Windows license, even if you wanted to put an
552.
by nearbuy 6y ago
> In contrast, Amazon does not buy the inventory from the suppliers, instead it charges them money to store their inventory in Amazon's warehouses. That part seems entirely reasonable. Would you rather Amazon pay sellers for unsold
553.
by nearbuy 6y ago
That's the reality for companies with high volume and low margins. The number of customer service representatives per user they can hire is proportional to their profits per user. You can't change that with legislation. A company
554.
by nearbuy 6y ago
> If you drive full time you deserve full time benefits. That means more than a 50% payment of ACA You might have misread the parent comment, as it said full time drivers must get at least 100% payment of ACA.
555.
by nearbuy 6y ago
Taxes, presumably. > Part of the deal for Uber, Lyft, etc is to push off expenses into others. Auto maintenance and repairs is another example. It's kind of arbitrary to consider auto maintenance as being rightfully Uber's expe
556.
by nearbuy 6y ago
I think you reversed the support and opposition numbers by mistake.
557.
by nearbuy 6y ago
Unreal undoubtedly has more features built-in, which is an advantage, although it's tempered by quite a few of them being buggy or broken (e.g. SoundVisualization, parts of Cascade). > It's incredibly useful to visually see at
558.
by nearbuy 6y ago
Funny, for a programmer or hobbyist, I'd recommend Unity hands down over Unreal. Unreal's main strengths its rendering engine, better tools for artists and animators, and that it's set up for making multiplayer first-person s
559.
by nearbuy 6y ago
It says they have a program to donate the items to charity in the US and UK, but it's not available in Canada.
560.
by nearbuy 6y ago
The seller has the option of taking the item back if they prefer. If they don't want it back, they can donate it.
561.
by nearbuy 6y ago
You're overthinking this. It's not a scientific analysis of how real aliens would perceive humans. It's just funny. Sure, there is a core idea in there about how aliens might have prejudices and skepticism against a vastly di
562.
by nearbuy 6y ago
I don't think it's trying to imply they eat meat. It's written for humour to make human existence feel absurd. They could have used the "flesh" to the same effect, although "meat" sounds a bit funnier. You
563.
by nearbuy 6y ago
Could you say it's a feeling of powerlessness? Could we perhaps group together embarrassment, loss of dignity and shame and summarize the point as follows? "Invasions of privacy cause psychological harm."
564.
by nearbuy 6y ago
Of course it matters. If the parent comment had said, "it's the loss of foobar that comes from having no control...", would you know what their argument is? Or that foobar exists? Or that foobar should be respected? Or that y
565.
by nearbuy 6y ago
>> It's more of an appeal to emotion than a rational reason. > But that is precisely the rational reason. I'm not following your reasoning here. You list several logical reasons why digital privacy is important (it protec
566.
by nearbuy 6y ago
Sure, I don't want to embarrass people. We should try to accommodate people's feelings. But I don't think it's the strong argument in favour of privacy that we want to make, because: 1. We do give people privacy in the b
567.
by nearbuy 6y ago
I suppose it might have value if it causes closed-minded people to be more open-minded.
568.
by nearbuy 6y ago
What does "loss of dignity" mean in this context? How does it differ from embarrassment? Why does being seen pooping cause it? I'm not arguing, I'm just not sure what you mean.
569.
by nearbuy 6y ago
I never found this type of argument satisfying. It's more of an appeal to emotion than a rational reason. In our culture we feel deep embarrassment if someone sees us using the toilet, but this is not universal across people and cultur
570.
by nearbuy 6y ago
The fact that most of us already believe it is reason for increased skepticism. We have a bias towards accepting things that mesh with our existing beliefs. That doesn't mean their results are untrue. We just have to be careful not to

More ›