To be fair, in that specific case it is almost certainly not YouTube directly censoring the phrase. They aren’t known to do any kind of editing like that on uploaded videos.

What is happening is the person that uploaded that video censored themselves…because YouTube’s policy around monetization. They’ll demonetize videos with certain no-no words. Part of that is YouTube and part of that is advertisers demanding their ads not be placed on content that they find objectionable.

Indirectly, YouTube and advertisers are censoring our content. A lot of it is also TikTok, which will ban you for no-no words. This seeps over into YouTube where something that might be fine on YouTube but is banned on TikTok gets censored anyway in case it gets clipped for TikTok.

Genuinely the power TikTok and it’s advertisers have over how we communicate is pretty scary. Imagine how often you hear “unalive” instead of “suicide” these days. “Pdf” (or others) instead of “pedophile.” The list goes on.

No one’s keeping you here.

It’s actually very difficult and expensive to leave your home country for 99% of the population.

Just in terms of cost you need a plane ticket (or other travel costs), money to navigate the country’s immigration programs and all the fees associated, you probably need to pay to learn a new language for a year or two before you’re fluent enough in that language (DuoLingo/self-learning has very mixed results), you need to pay for housing for when you arrive until you’re able to get a job. Realistically the ones fed up with our society are the ones living paycheck to paycheck, do you think they can shoulder those costs?

This is all assuming they even let you in, most developed countries won’t unless you have an in-demand skillset and/or a job already lined up in the country of question (i.e., the type of jobs that are doing well here already). And often times even if you have valid reasons and a job lined up they can still just tell you to go fuck yourself.

Add on top of that that if you somehow get that far, get past all of that, you’re giving away your right to vote in your new society for several years due to requirements to become a naturalized citizen.

Makes a lot more sense to try to improve your own country and local society when you consider all of those factors. “Don’t like America then leave” is something only the privileged that can hop on a jet to a new country at a moment’s notice think is a valid suggestion. At best it’s shit advice and at worst it’s a bad faith argument to push aside any and all criticism of the current system.

And we found that overwhelmingly employees were happier and worked more efficiently from home.

I don’t care if they were intended to be temporary. I do not owe my employer any more than the work they pay me to do. If I do that same work from home, in less time, more efficiently, and effectively, than any employer making me go to an office can go fuck thesmelves.

Again, you haven’t said a reason employees should have to go in. You reek of “Well I suffered so everyone else has to hur dur”

The world changes, get with the fucking times and stop licking the boots of your corporate overlords.

I’ll bite, what’s the reason you think people have to go into the office if they get their work done more efficiently not doing so?

Do the employees somehow owe their free time to the employers? Should we kiss their boots while we’re at it?

Last time this came up, just spoofing the Firefox user agent to Chrome made it work perfectly. Maybe they block it because they haven’t tested it on Firefox yet, but it works as well as it does in Chrome.

And if they haven’t had the time to validate it in Firefox yet, that is a conscious choice by MS to not dedicate time specifically to validating in Firefox and treating it as a second-class web browser.

Note that isn’t illegal, it just means the company doesn’t get to get out of paying unemployment when it happens. And that’s only if someone is willing to challenge them on it.

Don’t listen to what he said… But SD cards are generally not very reliable. They might be fine they might die on you silently after a week.

Higher quality ones are better of course, but the quality of flash in SD cards varies wildly. I wouldn’t store anything on an SD card that I don’t already have a second copy of somewhere. (If I want to preserve it and it would cause problems for me to lose it)

This is a pretty big overstatement.

DO NOT USE AN SSD to store your data long-term! Solid-state storage has a very short, finite life-span.

This has not been true for years. SSDs are generally more reliable than HDDs except in write-intensive applications (and even then… It really depends on what exact models you are comparing). SSDs have a life-span mostly talked about in terms of TBW (terabytes written) rather than years for a reason, if they’re powered on and not written too they’ll last as long as or longer than a hard drive. (Note: Powered on regularly, SSDs can lose data if stored unpowered for a long time (months)). If you just have an archival drive you’re not constantly erasing and rewriting data to, an SSD is a great choice. Reads also barely affect the lifespan of at all, so you can still access the data you want to protect (hell, write-lock the drive even and it’ll last decades if powered on).

What you want to do is buy an even number of hard drives, plug them in long enough to copy your data to, and then unplug them and store them in a climate-controlled area. bout once a year, copy the data to a different hard drive

This is just plain silly. Yes, the mechanical wear of the drives spinning up and down means they’ll die faster. But we’re still talking MTBF measured in years. And replacing a hard drive that’s barely used every single year? That’s not just bad advice it’s creating e-waste for no reason. Also note drives fail on a bathtub curve… If you have two good drives that lasted a year, you are increasing your chances of a failure by swapping them for two brand new drives… The best thing you can do for your hard drives is to not power cycle them constantly, any typical usage is fine. Also mechanical parts can actually wear out from disuse as well. Even archival services don’t go to these extremes you’re recommending.

If you really care about saving your data follow 3-2-1. 3 copies of your data (live, archival (external HDD or similar), off-site), two-different forms of media (HDD, SSD, cloud (yes cloud is an HDD or SSD but they have their own redundancy)), one off-site (in the event of a fire etc.)

Honestly 99.9% of consumers would be fine with a 2-2-1 scheme, 2 copies (live and off-site/cloud), 2 forms of media, 1 off-site. If you don’t trust Google or don’t want to pay for cloud storage, set up a server with redundant disks at a friend’s house. Just keeping a second copy on a server with redundancy is plenty of fail over for most use cases. 3-2-1 is for data centers and businesses (and any cloud service you rent from will follow 3-2-1…) Let’s not overcomplicate how difficult it is to keep data intact, if I tell someone to buy a new 12tb HDD each year they’re just gonna give up on keeping it safe.

The not-so-quiet part here is “Homeless or poor people don’t deserve to have their basic need of a toilet met”

They call it a “need” but proudly talk about how they’re taking it away from the less fortunate.

You’d think those giant loop videos would be taking up far more space

Someone above posted an article saying they aren’t actually. But you’d be surprised at how little space those 10 hour videos can actually take. They’re highly compressible since they’re just the same still image and the same audio on repeat. A good compression algorithm (which Google certainly is using) would basically compress it into one instance of the song and how many times to repeat it (more complex than that, but that’s the idea)

If it was part of the initial work agreement that it would be remote then almost certainly it would count.

A rapid shift in job responsibilities or expectations (such as commuting two hours a day vs. 0) can be considered as “Constructive dismissal”

Even if it wasn’t part of the original hiring agreement, if it’s been that way for years or you have direct emails stating it’s fully remote from now on you likely have a good case.

Agreed, they both suck but I’ll at least stick with the one that begrudgingly lets me install what I want vs. the one that tells me what I’m allowed to install completely.

I have not researched these specific cases, so may be wrong about them.

You’re not obligated to do research on every individual bill the political parties push and what rider clauses they slip into unrelated bills. That’s fine.

You, however, should have research and examples to back it up if you’re gonna “both sides” this. The Democratic party is far far far from perfect or what I would want, but at the very least most of them seem to be campaigning in good faith or at the least not inciting actual violence and treason.

Saying “so may be wrong about them” isn’t a free pass. Know that people read what you say, and we have a huge problem of political apathy (circa 2016) due to the constant repetition of “but both sides are the same.” Let’s please not exacerbate it unless we’re bringing facts and evidence to the table.

12V sealed lead-acid batteries are a standard size and chemistry… They are absolutely not comparable to a BEV battery. The lithium ion 12V batteries are built to the emissions standards and regulations of the 12V lead acid, that’s a known quantity and a hell of a lot less energy. BEV batteries contain kwH of energy, they are significantly larger, are a nonstandard size on every single vehicle. Even if Toyota made it the same size and shape, the energy density might be enough to fail EMC regulations (without having to change the size and shape)

I don’t know what else to tell you man, I work on electric vehicles for my job. Literally an engineer. You can choose to not believe me but it just isn’t anywhere near as simple as you’re acting like it is. Just because you think it’s like swapping an alkaline AA for a NiZn AA doesn’t make it true.

Different battery chemistries do not behave identically in terms of failure modes, EMC emissions and interference response, and tons of other things. Just swapping one battery for another has a huge effect even before you consider auxiliary components like charging circuitry.

My assumptions as to why you can just drop in an aftermarket battery and crate motor into an existing ICE vehicle (also, far from any vehicle, it is a relatively niche product) are that A. The batteries are way smaller and aren’t structural to the frame the way they are in BEV-first designs (but this is how we get good range out of them). B. The companies selling these probably aren’t held to the same emissions standards that an automaker is.

Again, these are assumptions, I don’t work in conversions but in BEV designs primarily. I know there’s a ton of red tape for us to even think about changing battery chemistry, and we 100% would have to get all new certifications for it.

What certification does it need other than be certified by Toyota for use?

Engineer in the automotive industry here. Vehicles need a ton of certification by tons of different governments and face very strict regulation.

Just a battery alone is going to be subject to lots of EMC emissions and interference tests. Then you have the capability to survive crashes, fail operational requirements, how does the battery fail (does it explode or just disconnect itself?), etc. etc. These are all dependent on the chassis the battery is in, so they can’t just swap it into an existing chassis and say “Oh it worked with battery A, it’ll work with battery B.” Unfortunately the requirements are just way too strict for that.

Additionally I can’t go into details but the sentiment others are echoing of “If it’s coming in 2028 they should have a functioning prototype” are true in my experience. It takes several years to design and release a car, and when you’re introducing a new battery tech or drive train or similar changes it takes even longer.

then it probably isn’t sustainable to pay that same person for doing nothing…

Why is that unsustainable?

That person isn’t going to spend their life doing “nothing,” humans have an intrinsic need to do something. Psychology has shown us pretty conclusively. The difference is once we’ve automated so much, that can be whatever we want instead of focusing on the bare necessities to survive. The only way “paying someone to do nothing” is unsustainable is if you’ve bought into the lie that our value as human beings is inherently tied to what we produce for capitalism.

149 hours of total renewables generation, 95 of which saw the Portuguese grid exporting to Spain

Pretty sure this is why. They sold the excess energy to Spain which probably paid for those costs by itself, leaving nothing to bill citizens for.

How do we intend to pay a person who contributes nothing to society?

Why must we value how a person “contributes to society” via their output for capitalism?

Is studying philosophy useless? Is making art? Is reaping the benefits of a society built upon tens of thousands of years of human innovation to just sit back and relax a bit?

Humanity worked hard to get to a point where this is even a question. If you listen to the capitalists saying “If you’re not working you’re worthless” then you’ve been tricked. Tens of thousands of years of human innovation and suffering to advance society to a point where we don’t all have to work, but the rich want you to think that’s a bad thing. It is not natural that the benefits of all of that effort and suffering should all collect in the hands of a few at the top while everyone else suffers.

The “simple answer” is UBI because there literally is no alternative short of outright killing people that don’t work to maintain automation. You and everyone else deserves a cut of that pie, we and all of our ancestors put blood, sweat, and tears into it. Let the people relax and enjoy the fruits of that society.

Doesn’t Tesla only use cameras and image processing though? As in no radar at all?