In your opinion. W3fools only pulled an “it’s ok now bro, don’t sue us” update. Anytime I give it a go, I’m still presented with inaccurate and harmfully incomplete results.
Want to learn from a “for dummies” website? Be my guest. But my hate is fully justified.
I don’t think many 80-year-olds are objectively good looking. It's not fair to judge the people who stay together for love and not for physical attraction past a certain age.
> that tells random strangers they are ugly
I don't go around telling people my lover's weaknesses, but that's how statistics are made.
Come on man, why do people say this? Do you actually think this? I understand there might be some disagreements or edge cases but it's really pretty close to objective
Nah. The most beautiful women I've ever had the pleasure of meeting were unremarkable in photos, but in-person radiated an ineffable energy that made it impossible to keep my eyes off of them. When a couple of octogenarians look at each other and describe each other as attractive, that energy is what they're talking about. Framing attractiveness as mostly objective belies inexperience.
That’s why I said “good looking” and “physical attraction” rather than generically “beautiful”. No doubt people can be “beautiful in person” but still “objectively ugly”
I mean, i think most people's definition of attractiveness is different from the societal orthodox view of what is attractive (e.g. your average movie star). That doesn't mean i dont know what people are talking about when they say these sorts of things.
Objective is probably a bad choice of words because in addition to not matching individual likes, the societal "orthodox" view varries by culture a lot.
OK, can you tell me, objectively, how attractive Tom Holland and Hailee Steinfeld are?
I can tell you objectively how tall they are, if one is taller than the other, and precisely how much. Height is an objective measurement.
What are the attractiveness measurements for Tom and Hailee? Which is more attractive, and by how much? What is the scale? What are the reference points? How are the instruments used to measure it calibrated?
If aliens showed up on earth, how would you explain this objective measurement to them? How would aliens rate on it? How would their native measure of objective attractiveness compare to ours? In comparison to how their measures of length, or time, or temperature, or mass, would.
> Which is more attractive, and by how much? What is the scale?
No scale, yet we have plenty of beauty contests, so I'd start there for an answer. Humans are regularly compared to others. We have different tastes but, socially, "beauty" is intended as an average.
Art studies could also point you in the direction of "objective beauty"
To developers, IE was the browser for which you had to spend hours debugging issues. Sounds like Safari to me. Considering you have to buy a whole device to use Safari, I’d argue it’s worse than IE was.
Aside from selling hackintosh computers I don’t think I’ve ever heard of Apple going after someone for running macOS on third party hardware or running it virtualized. If you try to make a business out of it they will come after you but they are going after developers.
Nowadays something like BrowserStack feels like a requirement anyways since I’ll never have all the devices I need to test.
There are people out there who do whatever pop ups tell them to do. I was in a meeting once and we need to check something on a site the other person just clicked yes on the cookie banner without reading. I told him “You should click no on those” and he replied “I know, every keeps telling me that but I just click yes anyway”. I just blankly stared at him for a couple of seconds and returned the focus to the meeting.
This experience reminds me the “normies” use the internet very very differently than techy people and it explains a lot of the weird quirks on the web.
We are at the mercy of the lowest common denominator which happens to be a majority
It’s crazy to me, after I stopped being a teenager, to spend almost any time customizing my computer to this point. I used to tweak every screw but when I started working I did the bare minimum to get by and be productive.
Shoehorning things into what they don’t want to be is something I only do behind compensation.
I used tweak my computer like crazy as a teenager as well for fun and then when I entered the workforce.
Now I've started to work part time and so I have a lot more free time and energy which made me pick this up again. It's been a lot of fun and I learn so many things that I then bring into my work. I've switched back to linux from os x and stopped using vscode to instead use emacs.
It mentions 2 petabytes of data per month, plus compute for a trillion requests per month. It sounds like all kinds of optimizations were made so probably it can’t be much cheaper. My guess is that the “tens of thousands” is calculated on CF Workers prices though.
Just because it sounds silly on its face doesn't make it not true. The basic premise is solid: many of the most successful corporations today make a large portion of their profit from convincing customers to park funds in their accounts, and investing that money in financial instruments.
Everyone's got millions of unsecured creditors at zero interest. What could possibly be problematic about that?
That's only a useful question if you're an entrepreneur trying to answer the question of "How do I get in on this game?" The question currently being asked is closer to "Is it a problem for society that so many players are in on this game?"
If every big business is just a moat and/or backdoor for banking, that might be indicative of a problem.
Sure but the problem might be internal find-the-lady accounting.
In fact it probably is. Much like internet advertising has to be. You can't have an entire economy based around free services funded by advertising for other free services, you can't have returns generated solely by investing in companies that invest in other investors. Unless massive numbers of private sector backers have been defrauded, the lady is somewhere. Though maybe not somewhere that taxman looks.
I might buy slighter fewer Starbucks, or Fords, or flights if they were no loyalty programs, but I'd be spending zero money on StarBank/FordBank/DeltaBank without the product to go with it.
why is it a problem, if it means that these funds are _more_ efficiently allocated?
For example, buying a starbucks gift card is money being invested by starbucks (elsewhere) and generates a profit. Had the customer not purchased such a card, would the cash have been invested in a similarly efficient manner? Or would it be in the proverbial cash-under-the-bed and not generating any returns?
> All and all, frequent flyer points are a massive business for airlines. According to some valuations, these programs are worth just as much as the airline itself.
This alternative currency that's been around long before cryptocurrency... is more significant / interesting than your cat printing money.
The original assertion is ambiguous - we can't determine if the GP meant that their cat operates a printing press that outputs currency, or that the cat itself outputs currency.
The only really interesting breakdown I’ve seen along these lines was a dissection of how cheap Starbucks’ cost of capital is due to their gift card system. It’s quite a remarkable business they’ve created totally apart from selling coffee!
In my opinion frequent flyer points are only interesting to consider in terms of the implications of a currency that will only get shittier over time.
They're notably distinct in that you can simply exit their system and choose not to participate. Calling them banks is apt, I suppose, but calling them central banks takes gravitas away from the most heinous, utterly unethical institutions that are the actual central banks.
That's not going to happen. Our finial system depends on centralization (not that I agree with that) and if your talking about crypto that's just another level of control we can't quite see yet.
In your opinion. W3fools only pulled an “it’s ok now bro, don’t sue us” update. Anytime I give it a go, I’m still presented with inaccurate and harmfully incomplete results.
Want to learn from a “for dummies” website? Be my guest. But my hate is fully justified.