Siri is quite bad though. Personally, I would get a lot of value out of a more accurate Siri that could function as a device/personal assistant. Right now, if I prompt Siri to “search calendar app for flights scheduled this month”, it just straight up fails. That should be a relatively simple contextual search; just asking it to pull existing data. Siri/Apple Intelligence is overhyped because it can’t even perform basic functions effectively, or takes more time than just doing the same function manually.
I absolutely disagree. Renting a room in a single family home vastly limits the number of people you have to share those intimate spaces like a kitchen or bathroom with. You also get the option to interview and pick who you’re sharing those spaces with. I lived with housemates for many years, and in dorms during university, and dorms are not even remotely the same from a social safety and privacy perspective.
Genuine question, who would actually want to share an intimate space like a kitchen or bathroom with dozens of other strangers on a daily basis? This is obviously a common setup in college dorms or prison, but that is specifically because it’s a temporary (and extreme) cost saving measure, or because you’ve lost the right to participate in society (i.e. prison, which is viewed by some societies to be cruel and inhumane). I lived with housemates for many years to save money and afford housing, but I could at least choose the few housemates with whom I shared those spaces.
I honestly do not know hoping that someone smarter than me figures it out. I suppose it will depend on the execution. If it is comfortable, looks nice, if it creates community, amenities, price, location, etc.
It clearly shows that Alex Pretti never drew a weapon, and his (legally owned and carried) CCW was removed by one of the agents from its holster seconds prior to other agents shooting Alex in the back. Agents are visibly using pepper spray, pistol whipping his head, and even though it’s 5+ vs one, don’t even appear to be attempting to handcuff or properly restrain.
I guess it would be a major step towards civil war, but I wonder if states have the right to protect their residents from unlawful conduct by federal law enforcement. ICE has established a clear pattern of behavior in the last year that should remove any assumption they are acting lawfully (and federal judges have told them as much).
If you watch the close up video from the 7 o’clock angle, you can clearly see that the tires don’t spin out by looking at the speed of the rims. Furthermore, imagine yourself in a situation where an aggressive, masked, armored, and armed person is trying to pull your door open while screaming in your face. You’re in full fight or flight mode, tunnel vision, scared, and confused. At this same time, unbeknownst to the driver, another agent had circled around counterclockwise behind the rear of the vehicle, up the right side in the vehicle’s blind spot, and across the front of the vehicle. Driver is still focused on the other ICE agent trying to yank her door open. Driver decides on the flight option, as obviously fight would be insane, and tries to leave the scene. Driver clearly turns to the right, trying to AVOID the agent that had crept around to the front while her back was turned. The driver isn’t a person with a violent criminal past and felony warrant. There is absolutely no reason for this level of aggression, corralling tactics, or escalation of force. This is not an appropriate way for law enforcement to interact with civilians in any sane society. The shooter immediately draws his weapon at the first sign of vehicle movement, while also placing his body at a 45° angle to the front corner of the vehicle. As the driver attempts to turn away at a relatively slow speed, the shooter brings weapon up, pushing shooting stance forward into the vehicle, even though he has an easy step away from the vehicles path. Even if he did get bumped by the vehicle, by the time the first shot is fired, he’s already positioned to the side of front quarter panel, out of the vehicles path (you can clearly see this not only in the video, but also in photos of the angle and placement of the bullet hole in the windshield). The threat of serious bodily injury or death is literally already passed, yet the shooter fires two more rounds point blank through the driver’s side window. It is after these final two rounds are fired that the vehicle actually accelerates. I speculate that the driver was likely already dead or incapacitated at this point, and lack of motor control caused weight of their leg to push into accelerator. It doesn’t matter if this person was protesting ICE, or blocking traffic. This is not justified self defense (the threat of death or serious bodily injury had already passed), there was no threat to anyone else, and this is not an appropriate way for law enforcement to interact with general civilian population. At a minimum this is a reckless disregard for public safety, manslaughter, and lack of professional discipline.
I'd add that since, as ICE claims, Ms. Good had already been non-violently interacting with them, they had the opportunity to note the license plate and, if they felt criminal charges for obstructing their operations were appropriate, they could just go to her (nearby) house and arrest her later.
There was absolutely no reason for the attempt to pull her out of her car, and even less for escalation to use deadly force and, IIUC, DOJ guidelines and DHS policies[1] back that up.
This was an execution, not a law enforcement officer "defending" himself. That the decision was made in the heat of the moment doesn't make it any less an execution.
What's more, shooting peaceful protestors (cf. First Amendment[0]) is illegal on its face:
"Congress shall make no law...prohibiting...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.*"
Well... it was said for a long time that Trump could execute someone on broadway and nobody would bat an eye, in fact that they would defend him. This effectively is precisely that, there is ample evidence that this was a cold blooded execution and yet there are plenty of people that are defending it. It's going to be a very interesting job for historians to look at this era to try to figure out how we collectively managed to go this far off the rails. We have no excuse either, the Germans at least could claim they didn't know (even if plenty of them did, it must have been true for some of them). For everybody with an internet connection that is not true.
Except, NB (at least their classic casual models) is actually a pretty decent value on quality/price spectrum compared to other brands. Despite being an “old man” vibe, the classic pair I have is better materials, way more comfortable, and often less expensive than competing classic sneakers. They also still have a few made-in-USA models. Their popularity also increased as retro aesthetics has made a come back among Gen Z and younger millennials, who tend to value form AND function, and personal taste, over louder mass market status brands. Maybe NB marketing strategy was more of a response to an existing shift in consumer demand, but the value proposition was already there.
I have two pairs of their made-in-USA models. One pair I bought 2-3 years ago, and one I bought a year ago. Guess which ones wore out first? Yeah the ones from a year ago.
You are valuing different things than someone else. Neither way is more or less marketed to, just different segments of the same market (people who wear shoes).
True, but I was replying to the linked article that implied that NB recent resurgence in popularity was due to their new marketing strategy. A fun thought exercise: Which comes first, social trends that generate market demand, followed by marketing tactics catered to those trends. Or marketing projects that that influence social trends, creating market demand? At the root of consumer demand is generally a unique mix of status, social signals, and aesthetics, but also base utility and functionality.
The success of a Netflix>WBD acquisition would consolidate a third of US streaming markets under one roof, which should receive anti-trust scrutiny. Despite this, there is still a strong appearance of conflict of interest in Trump’s public remarks regarding denying Netflix acquisition the necessary regulatory approval, in conjunction with his son-in-law Jared Kushner being one of the financial backers for Paramount’s cash bid.
My guess is that if it went to trial Netflix would win tbh. That’s why Paramount is having to raise its bid substantially, they can’t rely on getting Trump to serve WB up on a platter.
Same thing happened in south Texas last year. Years of deferred maintenance on transmission lines resulted in almost two weeks of power outages from two major storms, that could have largely been avoided. The utility provider is mostly allowed to regulate itself (while donating to the campaigns of the dominant political party), and allowed to keep excess profits/return dividends to shareholders, rather than re-invest in infrastructure. There is very little regulatory structure or checks in place to ensure the grid is being maintained. And there have essentially been no consequences, other than an apology and excuses, with an attempt to raise delivery rates even higher. As a home owner, its on me to bear the additional cost of a backup generator, because I can’t rely on the state to regulate the utility to provide the service I’m forced to pay them for.
I don’t think a rational person can deny the value of skilled immigration, but the context in which immigration exists in the US is not a simple dichotomy between net benefit/loss.
HN obviously tends to skew towards tech and Silicon Valley; an industry and location that has been somewhat insulated from these effects, but its a very real struggle for many people throughout the US across varied fields from finance and accounting, to medicine and engineering.
It is in this environment in which the current H1B debate exists. While there may be a net benefit to the US economy overall from skilled immigration, much of that benefit (similar to higher productivity) tends to increasingly be enjoyed at the top socioeconomic level. The “layers of indirection” are in many cases owned and controlled by corporations through IP law, patents, copyright, non-compete and NDAs, and other legal mechanisms, which can delay their benefit to society at large, and create further perverse incentives if not regulated fairly.
And while globalization as a root cause might be inevitable, it can certainly be managed through regulation in a way that more equitably distributes the benefits. It can also be manipulated by regulatory capture to enable corporations to lower costs and increase profits at the expense of US labor. There are many examples of this occurring before now. Any sound policy change regarding the H1B visa program needs to take all benefits/risks into account, and I personally would like to see a little more nuance from the incoming executive administration in this regard. Folks like Musk and Ramaswamy have a lot of profit to gain from importing cheaper skilled labor, with a higher degree of control over domestic employees vs those located overseas. I also have a hard time believing any corporate executives would have predominately altruistic intentions, and there is an obvious conflict of interest in them being involved in any policy decisions that impact their balance sheets. I realize this doesn’t negate a net positive benefit, but when that benefit is largely realized by a select few through regulatory capture, and is easily abused, it’s not anti-immigrant to criticize policy implementation.
reply