Not just the CEO. The entire management branch. And everyone involved in this decision from bottom to top.

Google used to be a contender, but now the search is 70% ads and the company is a random funnel-to-graveyard of competing projects with mediocre to bad UIs. Their search has gotten simpler and simpler until it's useless to intelligent people now.

Remember when you could click in your Google results and see the cached version when the site was down? That was back when they were useful. Whoever suggested they take that out, instead of firing them, they did it, and it's been all downhill from there.

Who cares about custody when the whole currency is controlled by a single central corporate for-profit entity? Do you think they'll voluntarily give up control over the node farm controlling the blockchain? No, they'll pretend it's the same thing when it's centralized, just like so many others have done, and the currency will crash. The whole idea of a pegged stablecoin is ridiculous as we've seen in multiple corporate failures resulting directly from bad attempts to profit from not keeping the actual amount in real dollars that they issue in crypto dollar tokens. Anyone who falls for it deserves to lose their money.

Screw teams. They would have to be paying me a hell of a lot for me to take a teams meeting, I wonâ(TM)t install MS malware on my machine without some incredibly strong motivation. NOT everybody is interested in letting that trash on their system. Zoom on the other hand is not constantly trying to sell you other stuff and sneak install things.

I have been paying for zoom to conference with clients for a long time now. Remote work is the only work I care about. If they are treating their workers this way, they should not be making money. It is easy enough to connect again after 45 mins if you absolutely need to use zoom instead of moving to another platform. I think I am gonna stop paying them over this - and make it clear to them exactly why, I recommend everyone else does too.

Maybe they will make a subway system for cats and dogs, they would fit. It would be roughly as useful / sensible / cost-effective as what they are planning now for humans.

He just might pull off drilling some tunnels to drive cars through at 35mph? Wow!

And when he had originally only promised vacuum-sealed magnetic-levitating pods that would transport groups of people and even cars at hundreds of miles per hour! Best CEO on the planet, hmm?

This is correct. It's all about trust and always has been, digital or not.

Currencies, or perhaps commodities. A security wouldn't really make sense, to me at least, because they are not shares of anything and they aren't markers that the company that you buy them from owes you anything in return (except in the case of things like stabecoins or wrapped eth, but those are special cases - I'm talking about coins not derived from other coins or currencies. I have a LOT less trust in derived coins.)

For what itâ(TM)s worth, I am not a typical âoesnowflakeâ whiner either. Iâ(TM)m too far left to support most democrats, and Iâ(TM)d be thrilled to see trump spend the rest of his life in prison. It also offends me when democrats who refuse to say the words single payer healthcare in public, let alone try to do something to get it for us, call themselves progressives. I like when words mean something.

Thank you for explaining, that at least makes some rational sense for how it could have started. Of course soon those sites will start censoring un-alive and then the cycle will go on.

I don't know the story behind the sentence: "They even un-alived a person and a dog.", or if the story behind it is true or not, but I do know, the choice to use "un-alived" instead of killed or a similar real word makes them seem less serious about discussing this issue, and kinda ridiculous, at least from a linguistic standpoint.

I don't know whose feelings are supposed to be being protected by avoiding using the word killed, but I don't see how it could be working, or how that tiny extra unconscious step of mental calculation could possibly prevent anyone from feeling the pain of contemplating death or the infliction of it by a robotic car. This is just stupid and changing language to make sad things more vague or hard to grasp is just annoying and makes the person saying it a less effective person. This whole trend of rewriting perfectly good words that are not offensive, and are necessary for normal civilized human communication, to soften them, should itself be killed.

*you would have the option to do it as a book of photos

If you were a concert owner and wanted that badly, you would have the option to do it as a booking photos for your local venue, and if you really wanted, you could exchange sheets of photos to add to your book with other venues, and then you could ask your human bouncers to try to memorize these photos and look for those people and then look through the photo books as people were coming in.

Then if a match was found it could be double checked before messing up anyoneâ(TM)s night. But of course it would be slow as hell. And probably a lot less accurate, biased based on human prejudice, differently useful depending on who is checking, etc. But overall, thatâ(TM)s probably better than something that is incredibly efficient but still likely to make silent mistakes you will never know about, and also a huge liability problem on top of a massive technology cost, not to mention the moral and customer experience implications.

If you want to keep people out based on a list, keep a list of names and ID numbers, and check IDs, they even have a barcode on the back to scan. Require IDs at the door. No facial recognition required, and you can say itâ(TM)s to match tickets to the person and make sure they are old enough to drink.

It's important to add in your simplified explanation that you'd include the frequency of the word pairs also. In ngrams, a primitive form of language prediction model, that would be all you need to store for a value of n=2. But for it to be useful, you'd want a value more like 4 or 5 at least. A value of n=3 would mean in addition to storing the frequency of word pairs, you'd store the frequency of word triplets (three words in sequence). n=4 is four words in sequence and so on. The size of the data store grows exponentially, but the realism of the output starts to get decent around 3 or 4 for a very simple algorithm that isn't even AI. Anyway. That's all.