probably because “talent” is more specific:

that would be like “why not call them dogs?” when talking about poodles…yes, it’s technically correct, but not really representative, is it?

…what are you talking about?

the policy is the solution to the problem.

which means the problem very much is landlords!

the entire purpose of policy is to provide legal means of regulating what is NOT working in society without it.

and the reason policy is required, is because landlords, in general, are greedy bastards that see their fellow brothers and sisters as nothing more than sacks of money walking around. their ghouls. parasites that provide absolutely nothing of value, and demand payment for “the privilege”.

when people talk about landlords, it’s never about the sweet old person renting one flat to supplement their income slightly. it’s always about the ruthless property conglomerates that own half a city, or the random guy owning 15 apartment complexes.

renting out surplus rooms, or a second home is not an issue, in general, because the people that do so usually rent to others in a very similar economic bracket as themselves. that means they know, from personal experience, about how much some in that bracket can afford. so prices stay pretty much reasonable.

but that’s not true for, let’s call them, “Big Landlord”. they don’t give a fuck, if anyone can afford the units they provide. these are the assholes that only see ‘funny number must go up!’ and literally nothing else.

it’s not renting that’s being criticized here; it’s specifically landlords.

renting is perfectly fine.

what is not fine, is that a public necessity is tied to a private individual or company that can charge whatever they want.

that last part is the problem.

vienna often gets cited as a notable example for large scale, affordable public housing projects, and while that is fair, the reason those are affordable, is because they are owned by the public, i.e. the city of vienna.

THAT’S how rent is supposed to work: for the people, by the people.

it’s how a society gets affordable housing, not this price gouging nonsense that neoliberal politics has popularized…

there seem to be 2 feet, right next to each other.

the keys are weird, but it might just be compression artifacts: since I can’t spot any other of the typical continuity errors…i think it’s real?

the gray tech boxes have neat continuous lines, which ai usually fucks up, the carpet seems properly rectangular, the hair doesn’t have that weird ai shine to it, the shoes have proper patterns, the hand seems mostly okay; might be a weird shadow, the mountains seem too good for ai, the curtains’ folds seem too believable for ai (fabric usually has continuity errors, afaik), probably some other stuff…

i think the keyboard is really just compression artifacts, since the big tree on the right has similar artifacts. the cable holes also seem too orderly for ai, too neatly arranged.

might also be photoshop or some other cgi but i dunno… doesn’t seem all that obviously ai to me…

…unless there’s been some very major advancements i missed?

like i said: I’m not entirely sure either way…

eta: also the vase on the right has what seems like proper reflections

on the flip side there’s the million “orphan crushing machine forgot to crush one orphan today! so wholesome!” type posts that are even worse imho…

you know the ones: “kids save up to buy wheelchair for classmate”, “kid works 80h weeks to pay off lunch debt”, “kid works at meat packing plant after school to afford bicycle”, and on and on.

each is more depressing than the previous.

these types of posts are the exact opposite of wholesome, yet frequently get upvoted on wholesome communities and it’s just…what is wrong with people? why would you think that shit is wholesome??

neither the stuff you mentioned, nor the orphan crushing machine stuff should be on wholesome communities.

tbf, i noticed the popular wholesome comms seem to be doing a lot better on this front lately! waaay less orphan crushing machine, and way less of the “x died, yippee!” posts.

so you just think dead children are an acceptable price to pay for… absolutely nothing. got it.

they were saying that the “patriots” (so maga, not actual patriots) are claiming that they would step in and stop tyranny, but are actually doing the opposite.

and them claiming that that’s the reason they need their guns is the most prominent reason that constantly comes up in discussions about gun control. which is true.

so they are saying that particular argument is utter bullshit, and that gun reform should disregard that argument.

and gun reform/gun control doesn’t mean nobody can have guns.

it just means stricter rules on who can have them. which, yes, is a necessary legislation that every civilized country already has.

autocorrect/spellcheck tripped you up friend: it’s serf (as in serfdom) ;)

that was super obviously sarcastic…

i can stop anytime i want! …i just don’t want to stop…

there’s a reason the community calls it cracktorio, lol

.:|:;

it only sounds like that, because it is. :/

saw a setup like that at work, until it was determined to be a fire hazard. which it was.

had to short the start pins of the MoBa with a paperclip to start the damn thing.

we called it “the scorpion”, cause it would shock you if you touched it wrong, and it kinda looked like a scorpion with the cables hanging out all over the floor…

#tales-from-IT

mosquito nets in third world countries

oooohhh…yeah…about those…

turns out the mosquito nets are devastating local fish populations, because people use them to fish, since they get them as a finished product instead of having to knit nets themselves. and starvation being a bigger immediate threat, they prioritize that over malaria.

the nets are also laced with toxic chemicals (against the mosquitoes), which are extremely toxic to fish.

they also have much smaller holes, so they catch the young offspring as well, leading to rapid depletion of stocks.

so, yeah…good idea in theory, but didn’t turn out so great…

probably highly dependent on your work environment:

it’s the exact opposite at our office…

• mail service goes down
• dafuq.jpeg
• check icmp; no ping
• was there an update, patch or something? …nope?
• check with network: did you guys change anything?
• oh yeah, new network config!

head>desk

yeah, took me a sec to figure out what they were talking about too…

username of the commenter below the pics

having not looked into it at all: it probably doesn’t “need” to be fresh water, but it’ll probably be rivers anyways.

i assume it works similarly to other large scale cooling operations: you have a closed loop for the heat exchangers and the cooling towers are fed by a local source of flowing water.

doesn’t need to be all that clean, or fresh water, but since rivers are pretty much the only source of moving water in most places, there’s not really many other options. (for the cooling towers, not AI datacanters…they could just NOT build them, if they weren’t fuckwits)

same as nuclear power plants, or any other industrial application that needs a lot of cooling!

yes, that’s why it’s called fingerprinting:

it’s a kind of mathematical function that takes the entire code as input and outputs a unique result.

the result is just some string of symbols (which really just represent a unique string of 1’s and 0’s).

this unique string of characters is, as mentioned, unique for any given input.

this string can then be compared to any arbitrary other string, and if they match, then you know it’s the same code.

so in the case of signal anybody can download the source, compile it, and verify that it matches the fingerprint of the compiled code on their own device.

that’s why it can’t be faked: you compare the already compiled code.

if even a single digit of the code is out of place, it’s not going to result in the same string, and thus immediately get flagged as a mismatch.

it’s mathematically impossible to fake.

yeah, alright then:

you are arguing from ignorance, ask for evidence, then reject said evidence in the first paragraph instead of reading the entire thing because of a boilerplate disclaimer (which you of course do not understand to be boilerplate).

you read the executive summary, even though you asked for the methodology, which is explained in the studies linked under the sources of the article.

you need to click through to the actual study to see the methodology.

the link i provided is just a summary of multiple studies.

the studies lack this disclaimer, which was added by factually, probably for legal reasons, not because the data is faulty.

since you’re apparently too lazy to even click the links already pointing to the exact information you asked for, here’s the abstract of the NBER/Stanford paper (most relevant part at the end highlighted):

This paper examines the impact of the UK’s decision to leave the European Union (Brexit) in 2016. Using almost a decade of data since the referendum, we combine simulations based on macro data with estimates derived from micro data collected through our Decision Maker Panel survey. These estimates suggest that by 2025, Brexit had reduced UK GDP by 6% to 8%, with the impact accumulating gradually over time. We estimate that investment was reduced by between 12% and 18%, employment by 3% to 4% and productivity by 3% to 4%. These large negative impacts reflect a combination of elevated uncertainty, reduced demand, diverted management time, and increased misallocation of resources from a protracted Brexit process. Comparing these with contemporary forecasts – providing a rare macro example to complement the burgeoning micro-literature of social science predictions – shows that these forecasts were accurate over a 5-year horizon, but they underestimated the impact over a decade

from the CEPR/VoxEU article (already in plain language and easy to read):

So, taking all this together, what’s the bottom line? First, the public is right. Brexit has damaged the UK economy. But, inevitably, the mechanisms and hence the impacts have been considerably more complex than economists could incorporate in macroeconomic or trade models, with their inevitably simplifying assumptions. To simplify hugely, however, it would be reasonable to say that the impact on trade overall has been broadly consistent with predictions so far, that on immigration much less negative (and perhaps even positive) and on investment somewhat worse.

so, yes, brexit has been bad for the UK economy. definitely, without question.

what IS still in question is how bad exactly it was.

THAT’S were the uncertainty is.

whether or not it was detrimental has been answered with abundant certainty: it was bad.