Avanera

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Just got a Mac last week, and was able to set up file sharing with my PC in less than 5 minutes last night. In fact, it was way easier than getting the sharing working with my Surface, which refuses to acknowledge my desktop's existence.

I don't generally encourage buying a Mac, I'm not at all convinced it's worth the price premium. I'm only commenting insofar as I have context.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's not about an honest belief that someone will identify as trans to commit a crime, it's about the advantage of identifying as a victim in order to push an agenda.

[–] [email protected] 35 points 4 months ago (3 children)

It's seemingly closer to $6b for that year, which is obviously a ton of money, but considering they employ north of 50,000 people, if each person costs them $75,000/yr that's already $3.75b. NYC spends $2b on just their department of sanitation. It's a city with like 8.5m people, everything costs crazy amounts of money.

https://council.nyc.gov/budget/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2021/05/NYPD.pdf
https://council.nyc.gov/budget/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2021/05/DSNY.pdf

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (1 children)

To stop the part from sliding off, not the whole pedal.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Put a fastener through the thing, preventing it from moving?

[–] [email protected] 46 points 6 months ago (3 children)

The hell is going on with this article, is this bot-written? The top-line reads that the CCDH are the ones running the analysis. But the very next line reads "Streaming Platform YouTube said they analysed over 12,000 videos across 96 channels using an AI model crafted specifically to be able to distinguish between reasonable scepticism and false information." So it kinda sounds like this should be titled "YouTube study investigates changes in climate denial rhetoric, finds deniers are succeeding at skirting older protections." and then go on to explain that the new model inherently identifies this problematic content.

Listen, I'm not a big fan of Google, but as written this is just a shitty hit piece arguing in favor of an activist group that seems to be calling on YouTube to do the thing they've just said they already did. Unless the claim is that YouTube just went "Huh, weird. Guess we'll keep making money on it anyways!" and there's proof of that, this feels pretty deliberately misleading.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

Because protecting user privacy is not a priority.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The federal government spent something like 6 Trillion Dollars last year, meaning the cost would be about 6% of our national budget. Knocking off 1/3rd for the people who would refuse to participate, 4%. If the process happened over 5 years, you're talking about <1% increase to our annual budget. And practically speaking, 15 years might be a more reasonable time frame simply given the enormous scale of the thing.

Sure, $332b is an absolute fuck-ton of money. But it's not an inconceivable amount of money. That's not to say we should do it, simply that the argument we can't afford it doesn't really check out.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

No one would ever say millibits, because a bit is the smallest meaningful datapoint. It's a non-existent term, and a very pointless pedantic hill to try to build so that you can die on it

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There aren't any limits on working more than 40 hours either. Many jobs you'd be entitled to overtime, but there are millions of people who don't get overtime despite working it.