We're way past it, sadly. Luigi was insanely popular for the cold blooded murder of a CEO. Hundreds of thousands of people celebrated Charlie Kirk's murder within minutes of it happening, let alone the discourse you see now, a year later. Plenty of people, even on this forum, openly advocate for "the funniest thing" happening to Elon.
No mention of a certain president and his cultists coup-ing the government to steal an election? Definitely sounded like terrorism at the time, with clear call to eliminating a vice president and other representatives
Yes. If you're exposed to one entrenched end of the spectrum or another, you might notice the rhetoric and threats have picked up quite a bit on both sides. Language and actions are becoming more divisive and more violent.
I increasingly hear insane not-in-passing phrases like "Someone should just [commit some violent act to further the speaker's political beliefs]." Lately, it's about sabotaging data centers and killing CEOs.
And it's not just talk, this stuff starts by motivating the loonier members of a group to commit acts like mass shootings, the Charlie Kirk assassination, violence against LGBTQ people and other targeted groups, and so on.
I feel like some weird outsider, sitting in center-left.
So it's fine for corporations to buy politicians, force data centers on communities that do not want them, impoverish those communities with higher energy and water prices, and poison their water supply with discharge? But when those communities fight back it's terrorism?
I'm willing to pay time or money to avoid ads, not to be spied and harassed by companies making me offers to buy something that almost certainly I don't want to buy. Those companies should pay me a percent of what I make them save by not buying ads to serve me.
And eventually when I want to buy something I research it and buy it and nobody had to pay anything to Google.
> That's why tools like uBlock and YouTube morphe are the only answer, negotiating with terrorists never works.
This is silly. The economy doesn't work if no one is willing to pay for goods. The content you're consuming won't be made if theres no market value to create it in the first place. Pirating is not a solution to our data privacy problem.
The capitalist economy is based on the explicit idea that everyone will do everything they can to extract value from everyone else, and it'll come to some kind of equilibrium. If you do not do this but you allow everyone else to do this, you receive worse quality products for ridiculous prices and do nothing about it.
In other words, you owe me $1000 as a condition of reading this comment. Your options are to unread the comment, pay me $1000, or pay me nothing to incentivize me to charge a price you'll actually pay (likely $0.00 for comments but not for everything)
Free riders send a market signal of failure or they cause friction. In the former, the service or creator just shuts down and moves on to something else. In the latter the service must make a choice with very little knowledge.. what should they do? Bake ads into the content? Ad block wall? Subscription? Pay per view?
Basically it doesn't make any meaningful progress towards a better outcome. It just temporarily makes the content more enjoyable to you at the expense of the person who created it and maybe to you if you enjoyed it and wanted more.
I don't understand your logic. Why would someone that never sees my ads be valuable to me? Why would I care? Everyone spends money on something, the fact you spend it on adblockers doesn't make you automatically more valuable to advertisers. I have never heard of this "advert paradox" concept you mention and I have worked in industry for a while now. All this is just conjecture on your part and doesn't really correspond to how it works.
If you have $20 to spend avoiding ads, you have $30 to spend on cool products so the advertiser is willing to spend up to $24 to make you not block ads about a $30 product you'll buy (that costs $5 to make)
> If you have $20 to spend avoiding ads, you have $30 to spend on cool products
Yes, but if you are so against ads that you spend $20 to not see ads (I am definitely in this group) and then see an ad for a "cool product" anyway, then that product is no longer cool. Any time something like this happens, I legitimately develop a grudge against that company and their products.
I might have bought that product before seeing the ad, but there is no chance of that after seeing the ad.
> Studies always show that you don't. You think you do, but you don't.
Did those studies have any outliers that DID have a negative reaction to ads? I am 100% certain I'd react EXTREMELY negatively in a situation like that.
The same way I wanted to buy a Tesla and rented one a couple of times in the past. Now I would NEVER AGAIN even go into a Tesla. Fuck that company.
That does not make sense at all. Why would you care about people who want to avoid ads? The real data shows very little people actually do that. How much you spend on adblocker is irrelevant to your profile for a business. They will get you some other way if you ad block on digital.
Sad but true. I paid for Prime to be ad free, easily worth 3$/month but sure enough now part of their catalog has become "only available with ads" or ads in their FireTV is before you hit the prime app (and then again when you do). So now their whole product is crap and I'm looking for a new streaming stick solution [anyone?] Sounds like it's time for a newcomer/disruptor like Angel Studios to release one.
Natural next step of the ad lobby is obviously to pay the lobby to make it illegal to bypass the money making machine if they haven't done so yet. I don't doubt that capitalism still works, it just takes time to "boil the frogs" dead [enough] to stop them from buying such crappy products.
It's a shame there aren't any good Chinese search engines. From what I've read the Chinese internet is mostly centralised around a few apps like WeChat.
How do the economics pan out? Do you pay more for gluten at higher purity than the ~10% you get when you buy it in sacks of flour?
The retail case is interesting, although maybe not indicative of wholesale
I suppose this is a function of whether gluten is a usable by-product of making low-protein cake flour. In that case i would expect industrial bread to simply add by-product gluten to cheaper flour. But that might obviate the search for higher-gluten wheat that the article describes. Really, i need more data.
The feeling that you haven't experienced something before, which should by all accounts feel familiar to you.
>A study by Chris Moulin of Leeds University asked 92 volunteers to write out "door" 30 times in 60 seconds. He reported that 68 percent of volunteers showed symptoms of jamais vu, such as beginning to doubt that "door" was a real word.
Thats an interesting poster. Is it real? Im just trying to understand what an MTA employee would do with that information. This seems very portal-y.
On the jamais-vu front, I once had to write "school" a few hundred times in detention and it stopped having meaning because I began to just see it as the jumble of letters id been writing for the previous hour, perhaps as a coping mechanism, rather than doubting it was a real world. Thats interesting though.
My wife swears that I have prosopognosia because whenever she shows me a celebrity face I'm like who's that? And shes like "Brad Pitt!"
I dont think I actually have it, because there's enough times where I'm at a social gathering and I know i recognize a lot of people but I may not remember their names, but it's funny nonetheless.
23andMe and similar companies don't transcribe your entire genome because that would cost way more than they charge you. They just sample a few tiny sections of it.
Thank you for the recommendation! I've been on a lookout for an affordable full sequence and 400$ is very reasonable. Very excited to just have my DNA on my own computer - this feels like the good kind of sci-fi :)
I did fair amount of research, and it seems like they take it seriously with GDPR, HIPAA etc. and all the privacy legalities, but obviously Uncle Sam will have his way with it as it's a US based company (California). They will share your DNA if legally compelled.
There is a "permanent delete my data" option, but there's no independent audit that permanent delete actually deletes anything. If you're in EU/California they kinda have to take delete seriously due to GDPR and CCPA, so I think you're safer here.
I've been thinking about this a lot, and I'm not sure how "protectable" your DNA actually is because of how easy it is to get if somebody wants to. Obviously having your DNA in US government is bad, but they likely have it already.
As I'm an EU citizen I will get the data and use the delete option with fingers crossed that US government doesn't want to destroy me for whatever reason. Seems like they have their hands full with other kinds of destruction anyway lol
This could be especially useful for people who get a VUS on a genetic test. I’m an ML engineer, not a biologist, and the precomputed Atlas meant I could just look up my own VUS and inspect the outputs directly, without setting up a genomics pipeline myself. I found it really helpful for understanding my variant better. I can also see how easy it would be to over-interpret the output, but I still think there’s a lot of value in lowering the barrier for patients to inspect and understand their own variants.
Probably not any 23andMe haven't already told you about. They test a limited set of SNPs, balancing between ones thought useful for genealogy, ones useful for ethnicity estimates and ones thought useful for health-related things (the latter they would like to make their main selling point, the two former are really all commercial DNA services' bread and butter).
It's unlikely that they would luck into testing some unknown SNP which turned out to be relevant for disease.
23andMe tests SNP's (single nucleotides) that are inferred to be significant in protein function/epigenitics.
Those SNP's i believe are testd from primers
so what 23andMe does is specifically on the back of previous research and afaik their data isnt technically clinically significant as most findings need confirmation or more tests.
Why not? There is no logical reason as to why this would not work, IF it works in the first place, which I don't know. In theory the problem space here is finite, so there is of course a way to predict everything. Whether this is the case right now - who knows; I probably don't think it is currently ready. But eventually it will be. And it should not be in the hands of private companies.
So it sounds like you're coming to this with very little knowledge about biology. I encourage reading up on modern challenges in pathogenic prediction, especially with regards to SNPs: on their own, with the exception of a few diseases, individual SNP predictions are meaningless in terms of actual pathogenicity.
reply