I don't think any of the third part devs are asking for it to be free. The Apollo devs initial response to the announcement was "I'm honestly looking forward to the pricing and the stuff you're rolling out provided it's enough to keep me with a job. You guys seem nothing but reasonable, so I'm looking to finding out more." Then they announced pricing which is 29x the current revenue per user, and are blocking NSFW content from the API anyway.
The snow is too deep on either side, with too many trees to quickly and effectively turn around without getting stuck. It might work, but he could very easily have gotten stuck trying to do it. You also need to drive forward to start the turn, and the moose absolutely can outrun your snowmobile in that snow, so if it attacks you're going to have a problem.
Reverse isn't always available on snowmobiles. Even if this one had reverse, in this loose snow it would likely dig in and bury itself. I guess you've never ridden a snowmobile?
Too deep? It's maybe 30-40 cm max. A snowmobile handles that without any problems. At the end of the video, you can see that he drives "off road" off the trail without any problems.
> It might work, but he could very easily have gotten stuck trying to do it.
If that were so, don't you think that person has feet? Or is the amount of snow too much for him to walk as well?
> And since you're stereotyping him as an American above, without any knowledge or experience in such a situation on your side,
I'm from Norway. Heard of it? We have moose, snow, snowmobiles etc. You can google it.
Also: where's the guy in the video from? Do you know?
> At the end of the video, you can see that he drives "off road" off the trail without any problems.
"off road" at the end is like 5cm deep powder on top of compact snow, which has been exposed to sunlight. The snow at the beginning, where he could have tried to turn around, is completely powder because it's sheltered by trees and looks to be more like 60+cm deep. His turn radius also would have likely led him into a tree: https://imgur.com/a/bDLV2lL. Then he would need to get away from a potentially charging moose, which can top out at 56km/h. You wouldn't be able to go that fast on this narrow and winding of a trail -> the moose will catch him if it charges.
> If that were so, don't you think that person has feet? Or is the amount of snow too much for him to walk as well?
If you expect someone to get in a footrace with a charging moose in any conditions, let alone 30-40+cm deep snow, I don't know what to say.
You come across as a deeply unhappy and unpleasant person, and I wish you luck with your life.
> If you expect someone to get in a footrace with a charging moose in any conditions, let alone 30-40+cm deep snow, I don't know what to say.
The OP article actually says that it's the thing to do: "Unlike with bears or even dogs, it is usually a good idea to run from a moose because they won't chase you very far."
Say yes or no to this question: do you think the human in the video is the most aggressive animal?
> You come across as a deeply unhappy and unpleasant person
I understand that, because I care more about wildlife than idiots.
If you want real intellectual honesty (and not just PR). How many millions have died due to famines caused by globalized capitalism? Just because they die in far-flung lands (e.g. Africa) and not on your doorstep doesn't make it better; it makes it worse IMO. Capitalism is really good at hiding its dirty deeds and covering them up with public relations (PR) narratives to divert attention (PR itself being a euphemism for propaganda), that's why I advocate for small-scale anarcho-capitalism as opposed to global-scale capitalism. The problem with global scale capitalism is that it hides its evils behind layers upon layers of complexity, misdirection and diffused harm; it starts wars to sell weapons, sets up debt traps when it's time to rebuild (enslaving populations of entire countries to servicing foreign debts), it erodes democracies, corrupts politicians, corrupts monetary systems, undermines social contracts, etc...
Communism is not as bad as capitalists claim (relatively speaking). There are pros and cons. Though I think any social system implemented uniformly on a national or, worse, global scale is potentially very dangerous and harmful towards most of its participants.
Adult same-sex hand-holding in capitalist countries generally does not happen outside of sexual relationships.
I assume you're saying that ads are irrelevant because we have AdBlock?
Ads would always exist, but think about how many great (even lifesaving) solutions we're missing out on because market decided they aren't worthy of pursuit.
I'm saying ads aren't "addictive", because they're pretty despised. They might be effective, when people see them, but I don't think anyone is "addicted" to ads.
It's the content (and personalized curation, based on what the platform's learned you want to see) that's addictive, not the ads.
Users are addicted to the content creators, and watching ads is the price they have to pay to sit through to watch free content.
Picking ads that are relevant, or at least not annoying enough to make you switch off, is part of the platform's experience.
And there are creators who blend ads in as organic content, or at least a personalized endorsement which doesn't come across as phony, which MrBeast said gets the most positive response.
I recently turned off tracking, and suddenly started getting served ads for 'green cremation'. I guess statistically few people are interested in that, but conversions are lucrative, although the 99% of users who don't want to see it probably get mildly annoyed.
You're nitpicking an irrelevant detail. Expand "ads" in my comment to "screen time" (for the sake of serving ads) generally and the "despised" counterargument falls apart. The whole point of my comment is that brilliant minds are working on making stuff more addictive to people, instead of making the world a better place.
They're working together. Youtube algorithms compute the most likely influencer that is going to occupy your attention and serve you advertisements in the process.
"Nobody is addicted to ads" is true if you think only about the pop-ups and couple-second videos as "ads" - but the concept of advertisements is much wider than that. Some adverisements may not even be presented as such - they may be presented as "useful content", but which is chosen above other such useful content by the virtue of being paid for to the advertising company.
Not the person you're replying to, but you can calculate the "implied volatility" using the current option pricing vs the current stock price. As the consensus of price movement (up or down) increases, the option prices go up.
> Indeed it's on the cusp of a full scale fascist take over.
From the democrats or republicans? ("Both" would be closest to correct, if we assume your statement is true.)
Edit: oooh did I make the left or the right angry with this comment? Both sides are authoritarian and infringing on your rights wherever they can, while simultaneously convincing their followers that only the opponents do it.
Yes, there are always elements of the far-left and far-right who lean authoritarian, and any of the "-isms" (fascism, communism, etc.) are fully correlated or anti-correlated to authoritarianism.
But, in this current situation, to claim it is "both sides" is either naive or willful ignorance, and plays right into the authoritarian line.
The FACT is that a number of countries have fallen from democracy into authoritarianism (Hungary, turky, etc.), and these are Right-Wing movements. In the US, while the Dem party works to protect voting rights, the Republican party has gone full authoritarian, literally stating that democracy is less preferable thatn their rule, actively taking measures to select their voters, control the academy, the press, and industry, all of which are flat-out authoritarian. Their leader literally has just declared that "I am your retribution.”. That is not the statement of anyone even remotely working to lead a democratic society; it is the statement of someone who wants authority to lead a minority in crushing and killing anyone who opposes him.
False equivalency is a cheap cop-out at best, and more accurately actively promoting ignorance and failure to respond to emerging authoritarianism. In the current situation, it is frankly disgusting.
No, I don’t think I will stop it, until people start to realize the democrats are doing the same thing. Also, what an authoritarian response for someone claiming not to be authoritarian.
The Democrats are actively ignoring Supreme Court rulings (Bruen case and the Hochul administration in NY doing exactly what the Supreme Court told them they could not do, which was to declare the entire state a “sensitive location”).
The Democrats also redraw voting districts as they like, just as they accuse the republicans of.
You have states like CA intentionally leaking the names, addresses and purchase lists of gun owners.
The entirety of “social authoritarianism” belongs to the democrats.
Right, acting like attempting some minor painting around the edges of trying to implement sensible gun restrictions to mitigate the onslaught of mass murders is somehow implementing authoritarianism.
Acting as if it is the same as the leader of a party claiming that "I am your retribution!"?
Acting as if it is the same as attempting to pass laws to require registration of anyone who writes about the govt and govt officials?
Acting as if it is the same as implementing laws to restrict other states from providing legal medical services, and using the entire state and commercial surveillance apparatus to criminally prosecute people who get medical treatment they don't like?
Directly writing laws that restrict teaching of actual history and other subjects they don't like?
This isn't small govt, this is authoritarianism.
In a free society, all of the institutions are relatively independent and in a balance of power and freedom, from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of govt, to the press, the academy, industry, religions, etc. Under authoritarianism, all of these institutions are coerced into service of the executive.
The Rs are actively coercing all of the other institutions into their service. The Ds are doing the exact opposite (I have plenty of issues vs Ds in other time periods, but this is the situation today).
Even on gerrymandering, the Ds are trying to pass national laws to use actual representative districting, the Rs arent. I cannot fault them for doing it defensively, and I guarantee you if offered a deal to stop it in EVERY state, the Ds would sign up that week, and the Rs would filibuster it to death. The Rs only hold the house because of massive gerrymandering.
If you cannot see any of that, you are beyond help. Just don't pretend to be some kind of even-handed, above-the-fray commentator. You are posting straight-up authoritarian apologias.
> minor painting around the edges of trying to implement sensible gun restrictions to mitigate the onslaught of mass murders is somehow implementing authoritarianism.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Just because it doesn’t affect you it’s “not that bad.” It is that bad. It is not “minor”. NYS is openly defying a Supreme Court Order, infringing on constitutional rights, saying “I don’t need data to prove (these laws) will change anything”, while citing racist laws from the 1800s as proof that their restrictions have history.
Antonyuk v Bruen: NYS Defense of the “good moral character clause” is “ From the early days of English settlement in America, the colonies sought to prevent Native American tribes from acquiring firearms”. But that’s fine justification for you, because you don’t like guns. NYS literally defended its requirement for character references with a CT law from the 1800s that said “any free negro who wishes to carry a firearm must obtain character references from several white neighbors, attesting to his character and temperament”. If this was any other topic, the dems would be decrying this racist rhetoric, but instead they’re the ones pushing it forward and standing behind it, while pretending to be the arbiters of racial equality.
I’m not disagreeing with you on the republicans poor behavior. But if you think the dems are the saints here and are “upholding democracy, law and order” or something, then I don’t think you can be helped. You’re just as blind as the republicans followers, and doing the same “frothing at the mouth” that they do about how bad the other side is, while ignoring pretending your side is the savior.
On Gerrymandering, even the article you cite has a sub-head specifically describing how the Dems are doing it defensively / responsively. You just count the maps and I think you'll find that the Dems should take any gerrymandering-disarmament deal in a heartbeat, because they are losing. They may claw their way back to parity, but you can't level the same accusation.
On voting, more critically, who is trying to pass laws enabling voting, and who is passing laws restricting voting? Ds are trying to get more voting, and Rs are restricting it, restricting times, polling locations, even banning people handing out water in voting queues (which wouldn't exist if they weren't trying to restrict voting. In democracies, voters elect their leaders, in autocracies, the leaders select their voters, which is what Rs are doing.
For the sake of discussion, even if I grant you 100% that NYs actions on gun control are not legal, those will get sorted UNDER THE LAW, and rolled back, and penalized.
Meanwhile I do see Ds doing zero and Rs doing ALL of these pre-authoritarian steps, identical to those in pre-authoritarian Germany 1930s, Chile 1970s, & Hungary & Turkey 2000s:
— Threatening to use the state to jail enemies (Trump from "Lock her up!" chants to most recently at CPAC)
— Infringing 1A free speech, requiring registration of writers
— Actively and pre-emptively denying valid election results
— Infiltrating police departments and the enlisted ranks of the military
— Taking over school boards and local boards of elections
— Banning books
— Burning books
— Firing principals and teachers who defend multiracial, multicultural democracy while banning books that contain such “dangerous” ideas
— Demonizing queer people and outlawing drag shows (again infringing 1A rights)
— Demonizing Jews and blacks
— Actively and completely rewriting history, in particular January 6th
— Gerrymandering states so regardless of how people vote, Republicans control the levers of power
— Changing election laws so they can both make it harder for city-dwellers to vote and to ignore and then change the outcomes of elections they don’t like
— Building media structures that will support the authoritarian takeover when it happens
— Organizing armed paramilitary militias, with back-channel connections to local police
— Creating legal organizations to sanitize and rationalize ending messy democracy
— Spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories about Democrats and Jews using the dog whistle of “George Soros”
— Firebombing Texas Democratic Party’s Austin headquarters and threatening them that if they don’t stop trying to get Democrats elected worse will come
Sorry, a4a4a4, but the Ds are doing exactly zero of this
False equivalency is a lie. What you are doing is called "whataboutism", simply attempting to deflect the conversation from the crimes of your side to avoid accountability and change. Or, perhaps you really are merely fooled. Rethink, because you've got next to nothing convincing.
1) "Look what they're doing and how bad it is"
2) "We would never do something like that"
3) Do something like that.
4) "What do you mean we're doing that? This is 'whataboutism', we were talking about how terrible the other group is!"
I hope you will come around some day. I'm equally worried about the authoritarianism of both parties, and can't decide which dystopia I'd rather live in. Option A: No right to self-defense but having abortion rights, letting violent criminals out on $0 bail. Option B: A right to self-defense but living in a country which wants to legislate based on religion.
Also, can you tell me where, just where, ANY Democrat or independent is propounding a Big Lie, that an election was illegitimate, when such claims were litigated and DENIED=LOST in over 60 state and federal courts of law - ZERO courts upheld ANY allegation, yet almost every R and an entire RW mediz circus propounds this Big Lie about who won the election. Where is ANY Dem doing such a thing?
Moreover this behavior extends to denying that the violent January 6h insurrection was "merely tourists". Again, nearly every R and an entire RW media circus is propounding such lies. Yet there is zero equivalece anywhere else on the rest of today's political spectrum.
Calling our "whataboutism" is NOT simply complaining that you are complaining that Ds do similar stuff. It is that you attempt to deflect the conversation by calling out DIFFERENT, IRRELEVANT faults. Of course anyone can find faults, it's the easiest thing in the world to do. Clever of you to try to say that claims of "whataboutism" are merely complaining about getting called out for the same thing, but it is not the case. j
I note that you have claimed only that "Ds also do bad stuff", never acknoweledged any of the the wholesale list of outright R moves to authoritarianism, and never actually cited anything remotely similar to R authoritarian actions. Show some actual equivalence or you are merely running interference for actual authoritarianism.
If there is some ACTUAL meaningful (and plausible, not merely some powerless loon saying nonsense) moves by Ds towards real authoritarianism — undermining independence of branches of govt, the press, the academy, religions, industry, or bringing religion into govt — I'm all ears. But I've heard nothing but a small complaint about one state maybe overreaching on gun restrictions.
Seriously, I'm all about authoritarianism vs democracy, but I need real evidence.
Please show me the list of what Dems are doing that even close to resembles the above list of what Rs are doing. Seriously.
I grew up in an R household, cast my first vote for an R POTUS candidate, and wrote the software that ran the 1996 R national convention (invited back, but the company had moved on to a different focus). I got a very intimate inside look and crash course during that '96 project.
These Rs are nothing like the current Rs. Back then, it was literally "Big Tent", and they were very concerned when Buchanon won some primaries, as those were uncompromising 'crazies'.
Today's crop is literally the inmates running the asylum.
Seriously, where are Dems attempting to RESTRICT the vote, or restrict anything else?
Where are they actually infringing on 2A "as part of a well-regulated militia"?
I've seen noting that is more than common-sense requirements so that literal lunatics can't get weapons of war as easily as a hamburger. I live Massachusetts, one of the most restrictive states, and it is nothing more than an inconvenience (3 hour course, regular bkgd check), and no, I can't have an AR-15, which is a weapon for people who can't shoot straight (literally designed for that). Oh, and airguns are entirely unregulated, so I can get a gun firing a 50-grain .45-caliber pellet at 900 fps with around 400 foot-pounds of energy without any question.
My personal view on gun restrictions is that it should be regulated by increasing firepower and firing rate. Kid's .22? Just a safety course and test, and you're good to go. More courses and tests of safety & marksmanship as firepower increases. By the time you get to AR-15++ (and I think ++ should go up to just short of WMD and NBC weapons), you'll have to prove high levels of skill, safety, psychological stability, and have insurance. And, when licensed, you'll be subject to militia call-up. Freedom, and responsibility as part of a well-regulated militia. Claiming that 2A means that any random angry nutjob can buy any weapon anytime is just lunacy, and it kills people by the hour.
No one is talking about no right to self-defense. Again, in the strictest state of MA, I can have a very nice arsenal. What we don't have is random mass shootings.
You are right about the "country which wants to legislate based on religion", but vastly understating it. Just go look at some of the literal Christo-fascist movements. You also overlook that under R authoritarianism, the right to self-defense will only be available to white males.
There is, and I've not seen you cite any even partial equivalence on the Dem side. I also see on the Dem side clear movements against the $0 bail, and the "Defund The Police" movement was effectively shut down, and the POTUS is strongly pro-police.
Yes, there are some pushing for "$0 bail", but two things. First, this is not autocracy, it is idiocy. Second, those rapidly get shut down, as people realize that living crime-free is also kind of a right that needs to be enforced.
As far as I can tell, the Ds are about PERMISSION and building, not locking down everything for the state.
Please show me where the Ds are actually doing anything like the list I presented of live, current R activities and bills that take away people's rights.
Or there are programmers who write both. Something that I want to write once, have run on several different platforms, handle multi-threading nicely, and never have to think about again? Rust. Writing something to read in some data to unblock an ML engineer or make plots for management? Definitely not Rust, probably python. Then you can also churn out things at 10x the speed, but by writing the tricky parts in something other than python, you don't get dragged back down by old projects rearing their ugly heads, so you outpace the python-only colleagues in the long-term.
Programming is secondary to my primary duties and only a means for me to get other things done. I'm in constant tension between using Python and Rust.
With Python I can get things up and going very quickly with little boilerplate, but I find that I'm often stumbling on edge cases that I have to debug after the fact and that these instances necessarily happen exactly when I'm focused on another task. I also find that packaging for other users is a major headache.
With Rust, the development time is much higher for me, but I appreciate being able to use the type-system to enforce business logic and therefore find that I rarely have to return to debug some issue once I have it going.
It's a tough trade-off for me, because I appreciate the velocity of Python, but Rust likely saves me more time overall.
Official perf reviews recently switched to yearly, but there's a "touchpoint" every three months, which is just a very light perf review with no ratings/direct outcomes until the annual one
You will never be _sure_ that it's limited to that age range, because what's appropriate for a given age is pretty subjective. I don't know why people are obsessed with making perfectly isolated bubbles for kids, it's just not possible.
Because internet consumption has addictive properties that can negatively impact the cognitive development of a child regardless of age range? Gosh, I feel so irresponsible for intervening with the kind of information that children consume. Perhaps it’s better I expose them to alcohol and drugs sooner than later!
Inoculation against the downsides of socmed is impossible without exposure. Given that we discuss this on socmed, it would be purely hypocritical to argue here that any access is giving in to addiction - unless you believe us no better than meth addicts fighting in the street?
Not everything is a conspiracy. If you buy a used laptop and the previous owner didn't remove it from their icloud first, you can still try to get them to unlock it for you. As a buyer, make sure it was removed from their icloud before you buy it. It's a very useful anti-theft measure, and Apple warns you about this on their site to take those steps before selling it.
Latest update from him: https://www.reddit.com/r/apolloapp/comments/14dkqrw/i_want_t...