It’s just a big antenna. If you can broadcast a large signal on all the same frequencies you can drown out the other signals. It takes lots of power. More targeted approaches can make it more efficient, that probably where most of the money went.
Without a twitter account you can’t expand the thread, and not having a twitter account means I have no idea if there is a PDF in there or not. Nothing like using a walled garden platform to literally hide information behind Musk’s paywall.
EDIT: I managed to find them elsewhere and put them somewhere easier to access:
Igor Shushko should not be trusted for OSINT. He has claimed repeatedly that the FSB was going to stage a coup, etc. since the beginning of the invasion. He also just makes stuff up pretty frequently.
He’s in the “completely ignore” category in the OSINT community.
I was taught that the default is to write out numbers, but if you’re comparing multiple numbers, they’re normally supposed to be written in numeric form. I feel like they should have either started with a number or restructured the sentence.
googles
Apparently AP style guidelines say that for ten and above, you should use numeric form. Below that, write it out. That may be the driving factor here.
In general you should spell out numbers one through nine in AP Style. Consider the following examples of AP Style numbers,
The Chicago White Sox finished second.
She had six months left of her pregnancy.
You should use figures for 10 or above and whenever preceding a unit of measure or referring to ages of people, animals, events or things. Also use figures in all tabular matter, and in statistical and sequential forms.
I generally agree with most press conventions, and I’d buy into some of that, but I don’t think I really like the “ten cutoff” convention.
Spell out all numerals that begin a sentence, except a calendar year. Unless another specific rule applies, spell out whole numbers below 10 and use figures for 10 and above.
Shit like this is why I’m in favor of legalizing everything, paired with actual education on what drugs do. Not that DARE bullshit that lumps weed and heroin in the same “don’t do it” category.
There also needs to be significantly better mental health care because many of these people are self medicating. I speak from experience with a terrible benzo addiction fueled by my anxiety and enabled by cheap, extremely strong clearnet research chemical benzos. I’m very lucky to have gotten out of that habit with not much more than a few wasted years and slightly worse memory.
I feel for those people in the depths of opiate/opioid addiction. It’s a dark place.
Education is part of shifting from a criminal to a medical issue. Without that education people aren’t likely to accept the change. Look at the opposition to legislation of cannabis, most of it is from the reefer madness crowd.
Education is the proactive part of it. I agree treatment needs to be fixed as well, but that’s after the damage has been done. If we had honest education about the effects of drugs, both positive and negative, I think this would reduce the number of people getting addicted in the first place.
We need a fundamentally different relationship with mind altering substances. It’s part of human nature, and found in every culture. It’s not an inherently bad thing, but we’ve painted it as such, and the current addiction crisis is the result.
Crazy right? Weed I’ve plenty of experience with. Never been interested in cocaine or meth. They really don’t belong in the same group at all. Ketamine though… I’d be interested to test. I’ve read repeatedly about is helpfulness with depression.
I’m not referring to legality, but rather the impact it has on one’s life. There wasn’t any nuance to the discussion; it simply was “don’t do these substances”. This does not prepare one for real life encounters with drugs.
There are more things to a stable and sustainable society than economy.
With many European countries doing budget cuts to education, social security, healthcare etc many people are dissatisfied with their goverments. This can make it very hard to justify spending said budget on migrants or programs with aim to integrating migrants to the society.
All those countries also suffer from a huge demographic catastrophe coming in. Unless they get a massive amount of young immigrant workers to stabilise the social systems, those systems will collapse alltogether.
Sure, but in order to solve that through migration we would need good infrastructure and effective processes to properly integrate these people to our societies. Unfortunately most of these countries do not have the money, expertise nor the will to implement these things properly making them fail not only their people but the refugees / migrants as well.
These migrants also increase the need for more social security and better education as many of them struggle to find jobs due to lack of education, language skills or just general distrust/racism towards migrants. Add in the additional need for healthcare and day care services well further putting presure on social systems in verge of collapse.
Now add in the possibility that artificial integeligence will cause causing unprecedented levels of unemployment in near future and how climate change may throw a wrench in the system at any point. I just don’t see how we can solve any of these problems under the current market economy.
It’s just that the austerity cuts on basic living necessities create more instability, for native-born and new members of a society. But that’s probably the purpose, masses are easier to control when they struggle and are helpless
This is just bullshit. I’m sorry but it isn’t true. The blanket statement for immigration being good is wrong.
Immigration can be good and it can be bad.
The problem is immigration is used as a huge catch all term. It’s hardly ever “immigration from the EU” “Highly educated immigration”.
If you look at the data, not just throwing out what makes you feel good, the actual data shows a lot of immigration is bad. Both the UK and Denmark has shown this recently.
The fact is we have been lied to over this. The government doesn’t want to raise taxes to invest in locals and they want to keep wages down and house prices high. Immigration has net been a negative for the individual.
People wonder why so many are going to the far right. It’s because the left and centre are trying to gaslight us into thinking something is true when it isn’t.
My wife is an immigrant, pretty sure I can demonstrate multiple different ways how me (an individual) have received a net positive in my life because of her. Starting with big things like our children and ending with little things like how she helped me clean the house today.
The stats say that it costs the company money and the Danish data also says they commit way more crime. I’m sure victims of violent crime can mention multiple ways they have had net negatives from immigration.
Yes. Everyone just gets their “facts” from feels. Believing the world to be a certain way when the data says otherwise is dangerous. But people don’t want real information unfortunately.
Sounds like a great way of making all bureaucracy grind to a halt. How does he expect this will turn out, when even those who support him on this start have to spend a full day in line to renew their driver’s license or file their taxes?
Depends on how many people government employed. If they have multiple people in the same positions, or in useless positions then a new government can greatly reduce public spending and free up a lot of funds.
I know my country is not Argentina, but I am from South Africa, where it is the current and ruling (for the last 30 years) government’s policy to employ people closely aligned with them, or as they like to call it cadre deployment. So many people in government are just friends here with salaries way more than the private sector, where the government employs about 2% of the population but 30% of the current budget for the whole country is allocated towards their salaries.
Don’t get me wrong, pulic sector workers do a great deal in ensuring a functional society. But what happens when a government turns this idea into a grafting scheme to enrich their friends.
Now I do not speak for Argentina, but if their previous government did the same I am with there new effort in reducing public sector wages to lower the tax burden and free up money to rather help a larger part of society than a few
Even if the state apparatus is bloated and needs to be improved, simply firing 10% of your workforce isn't going to magically improve things (especially when done so quickly). You basically can't know if you fire useful people or bloat. And for each "unnecessary" person you fire you also fire someone who was the only one in their department understanding their job and doing their actual work.
Agreed, but similar to how businesses retrench and let good with bad people go they do make mistakes, but hopefully they are not doing it blindly with a dart board and pictures, but rather through analysis in determining what fat they can cut and what part is muscle. I am right now as we speak in the middle of a company restructuring, where they are retrenching about 13% of employees. Won’t lie it is not nice going through it but also this is my third time going through it and on a personal note it is not fun but in a broad sense I understand why the company has to do it.
They’ll still be blaming the “liberal elites” after the state has completely fallen apart and society consists of nothing but roving bands of cannibals.
Yes. We have realized as a species that we are beyond max capacity and it just affects us negatively. It’s one of the most amazing things that we realized just as nature does.
I agree with you, that ecologically, this will probably be a good thing. Economically, we will need a different system as i doubt that any increase in consumption per capita could outweigh the increase in people we currently see. And our economic system is dependent on growth.
It will be very tough economically as fewer people will need to work to support those in retirement. Economic problems, in turn tend to lead to social unrest and a turn to extremist political positions and solutions.
But it should at least take some pressure off the planet. Maybe AI can pick up the slack. Time will tell.
In indeed is an economical and political issue. It seems like there is enough money and resources to support the elder people. It is just accumulated in the hands of corporations that are only valued by their growth. I hope that the negative growth can rub off onto companies too, so that they are valued for their stable income instead of needing to grow
This is exactly why Japan is investing so much in robotics. They have a rapidly aging population without enough young people to replace them or care for them when they’re too old to work.
They will probably eventually have to relax their immigration policies, but that will be a last resort for them.
They need to trade with people for money and food. If their closest neighbor let them trade, I guarantee Cuba would be saying the opposite to stay on the good side of them. But since they can’t, and Russia was iced out of the world economy pretty much, of course they’d extend a hand to Cuba, which is similarly iced out. And of course they’d accept for the good of their people. Who knows if they actually care how that war goes, they’re just a tiny island nation that wants to be able to eat and survive. We can’t blame them for making decisions under this kind of duress.
I don’t see the US restricting AI development. No matter what is morally right or wrong, this is strategically important, and they won’t kneecap themselves in the global competition.
Great power competition / military industrial complex . AI is a pretty vague term, but practically it could be used to describe drone swarming technology, cyber warfare, etc.
LLM-based chatbot and image generators are the types of “AI” that rely on stealing people’s intellectual property. I’m struggling to see how that applies to “drone swarming technology.” The only obvious use case is in the generation of propaganda.
Q. Let’s make a distinction between cell phone and smartphone. Which one do you think is more appropriate?
A. A non-smartphone, that is, a cell phone like the ones that today’s parents had when we were young and with which we made calls and sent text messages, was enough for us, and it did not cause addiction.
Text messaging was absolutely addicting, and had the distinction of being one of the very first forms of always-on, instant-access bullying. Osorio seems blind to the detrimental implications of her own experience.
I agree with you however I do think there’s something to be said about the actual actions behind it.
Addicted to texting was certainly a thing, I remember others certainly having it growing up and I myself remember the anticipation. But, it literally is just talking to your friends. At the very least the nature of conversation, to me personally, takes away some of the negative connotations. Being connected to a friend as a form of escapism of the real world, often with kinship as your friend felt very similar to how you did.
Compared to the usage today where it’s not conversational. The endless scrolling through posts, to the point where people like and I didn’t make enough content for the feed so other random content starts getting added. If the social media does have communication interactions, it’s likely not someone you know from real life and the depth of the interactions aren’t as deep. When texting all day you either run out of things to say and become complacent with the menial texting or you engage and delve deeper. Some early socials were able to mitigate this by still being able to have personality through it - obviously MySpace, but others like Gaia Online as well were apt for having an online presence. Now everyone and everything is so bland and exactly the same.
It was a tactical move by social media, widening the scope of meaningful interactions out into the friends list on the internet. Why stay talking to one to three people all day when you can be talking at 150+ people every day!
Anyway I hope this makes sense lol. I definitely agree that both were addicting but I do think texting at least is rooted in a social bonding and then reinforced with friendship at school, unlike the contemporary options where the friends likely aren’t even in the same state (which isn’t inherently bad by any means, but having that tactile friendship makes a huge difference)
Even before mobile phones, there where paid phone services, some about sex but some just to talk to people, that got people addicted.
I remember something called “the party line” where you would dial a paid number and you would be connected to sort of a group chat with some other people.
Some people even got in debt because of massive phone bills.
The cycling in my area has increased infinitely from 0 to 1. After fifteen years of not once seeing a bike commuter, I now see one almost every week. He usually has about 50 cars lined up behind him trying to get around, I had to pass him three times one day taking my daughter to school because he doesn’t stop at the lights.
He wars bright yellow reflective gear but I still fear for his life, a number of roads around here have bikes painted white on the shoulder in memory of someone who died. Maybe if he keeps slowing down cops and government types we will get bike lanes someday. I can dream anyway.
Thanks for sharing your story. I guess I should be thankful once again to live in a bike friendly area. (btw, you have a small typo in it. I don’t mind, but maybe you or others do)
Yep we all eat too much. I started counting calories and found out that I was eating twice as much as I should have. It’s not obvious and every place serves big portions.
I’m counting calories too, it’s not even the amount but it’s that some foods are total calorie bombs. You can pretty easily ingest a day’s worth of calories in a single meal at the restaurant without really feeling like you overate, but if I pay attention and select my foods properly I can feel like I ate plenty and be under 1500cal a day.
I find the premade mixes from Birdseye (sold basically everywhere that has frozen food) to be a pretty good lazy way to get a big meal. Usually a decent mix of meat, veggies, and grain, but the whole bag (3 servings) is only like 600-900 kcal. Sometimes it feels like an obscene amount of food for the calorie count.
I’ve been counting calories for the last few months, and that was my big realization as well. I could have easily put down a single meal at a restaurant which is my entire (or more) daily intake now.
I just used an online calculator. It said something like 1500 kcal a day for my activity level to maintain weight.
I don’t really count calories, but I do look to get a general idea of what a meal or a snack is. Sometimes I’m way over, sometimes I’m way under, it’s all about balance and being in the ballpark.
It’s not just that we eat “too much” but also that we’re eating too much non-nutritive foods. The United States has entirely too many so-called “food deserts” where people are unable to purchase healthy foods
english.elpais.com
Top