I'm not seeing how banning interior security cameras is going to prevent people from trying to hide cameras inside the house that were already breaking the existing rule.

Correct. But, let's look at it from the perspective of a guest. The old policy requires a two-step process to claim there is a violation: (1) the guest(s) must judge whether or not a camera is a violation; and (2) the guest(s) must write up the claim in sufficient detail so that Airbnb can understand the situation well enough to act upon it.

Step 1 requires judgement, and step 2 requires evidence collection and writing effort. If there are multiple guests then there is an increased burden since a consensus must be reached.

The new policy reduces the effort needed to lodge a complaint and reduces the effort to review complaints. While there may be little impact on compliance initially, there is good reason to believe that compliance will increase over time if Airbnb receives and acts on relatively more complaints.

According to https://www.eia.gov/energyexpl... US capacity was 1,200 million kilowatts in 2022. That is 1200e9 / 1e6 = 1200000 megawatts. Thus 11,236 megawatts represents a proportional increase of 11236 / 1200000 = 0.00936 (i.e., a 0.9% increase).

There are no numbers, no study, no measurements in the article to support the headline's claim that the Internet is "flooded" with racist images. Anectdotally, the article says images were posted to a TikTok account, which was removed. A better summary would say racist images are being removed from the Internet. Which is not news because that is the status quo.

It is not acceptable to attack an electrical substation to stop a social event from occurring.

I feel it is necessary to say this after reading the parent comment by phlinn since this is a discussion about an attack on an electrical substation and not a discussion about the merits of a drag queen show. phlinn's off-topic comment correlates disapproval of drag queen shows (phlinn's comment) with an attack on a substation (the topic of discussion). This correlation would not exist without phlinn's comment because no reasonable person would imagine any connection between a drag queen show and an electrical powerstation. phlinn's comment is a form of stochastic terrorism, which creates a non-explicit connection between two unrelated events with the intent of using fear of one event to stop the other event. phlinn's message is a call to violence and should not be modded up.

Fiat currency works, has strong ties to real value (in fact basically all of the world economy), can be transferred nearly instantaneously and nearly for free, is accepted basically everywhere and typically also has a quasi-anonymous form known as "cash". Next dumb question?

For a private citizen the only practical way to move large amounts of money internationally is by an international wire transfer, which costs $40 USD and can take up to 5 days to complete.

A Bitcoin transaction (in 2021) can take up to 20 minutes to complete and costs $3.4 USD.

Bitcoin is 12x cheaper and 360x faster than an international wire transfer.

The cited article states "More than 19 million Americans are in the 1 percent worldwide," defined as "the value of financial assets plus real assets (principally housing) owned by households, minus their debts." This is based on a 2018 study.

The US population in 2018 was 320 million. 19 / 320 = 0.059375. I can't figure out how you got 19%.

A goal of Computer Vision is to mimic the ability of a person to describe a photograph with words. Describing a photograph requires understanding the meaning of each part of the image and the interconnected meanings among parts, which is analogous to how the word semantics is used linguistically. Is semantics the right word to describe this kind of work? It is twice-removed from its original meaning---referring to pictures rather than words and machine intelligence rather than human. Yet, for better or worse, the CV community calls it semantics and this jargon is spreading.

The moderators should be ashamed. Let's review these two posts. First,

"The most productive" means Tesla shits out more cars than any other factory, that's all. It's not hard when there's zero quality control.

I have emphasized with bold text the claim that Tesla is doing things poorly. In response,

They also have a large backlog of orders and among the highest gross margins in the industry, if not the highest (I looked up a handful and Tesla was way above all of the ones I looked at). And very high consumer satisfaction. So it's pretty hard to argue that they're doing it wrong.

I put the rebuttal of quality issues in bold text. It is intentional that there is no bold text—it is not a technical glitch. The responder failed to address the question of whether or not Tesla has any quality control. Yet, the respondent believes it fair to triumphantly claim that it is hard to argue Tesla is doing anything wrong. The moderators agreed with this! This is terrible moderation.

Trump is guilty of putting Americans in harm's way and not acting to protect Americans from harm, which makes him unfit to be President. This is worth talking about because it has not been resolved and will be relevant if Trump runs for office again. The disinfectant incident is useful because among the many cases where Trump put Americans into harm the disinfectant incident is an easy to understand story, which can be read in a few minutes. If you have not read it, please read it now.

From this story you can see two forms of Trump's guilt. First, by not informing Americans that it is dangerous to drink disinfectant to fight COVID he abandoned Americans to harm. It is a dereliction of his duty as President to protect Americans. His inaction makes him guilty. Secondly, it is clear that Trump himself placed Americans in harm. A mistake alone does not make someone guilty---we are human. But, when the mistake was pointed out to Trump he refused to take responsibility for his mistake. That is what makes him guilty. It is no mistake that Trump placed Americans in harm's way.

This case and other cases where Trump put Americans into harm's way (COVID and January 6, to name two) create a pattern of behavior which allows us to make a confident statement on the impact of placing him in a position of power over people. Trump will hurt people. If you are considering giving Trump power you have an obligation to humanity to consider this.

A high-impact way to protect people from Trump's harm is to find him legally guilty for one (or more) of the many times he harmed Americans and prevent him from holding office. But, only the legal community can do that. Another way to protect people from Trump's harm is to educate those who misunderstand Trump and who would place Trump into a position of power. The bleach incident is a way to educate them, and anybody can do it.

No, this is misinformation that has no purpose besides leading people into making a deadly decision.

Get vaccinated and wear a mask. A high-quality, tight-fitting N95 mask is best, but even a surgical mask is better than no mask at all.

Some people have gotten the wrong idea to take Ivermectin or inject bleach to fight COVID-19. This is wrong and dangerous. Wear a mask and get vaccinated. It is free and it will save lives.

There. Done. I just gave a better speech than any speech ever given by the 45th President. If the President had given this speech he would have saved thousands of lives. Given the opportunity to save thousands merely by speaking, what kind of person would not jump at the chance to give that speech? Ignore Trump. Wear a mask and get vaccinated.

Tiqui's post twists the facts for no reason except to promote Ivermectin and bleach. Why would anyone do this? Ignore him. Wear a mask and get vaccinated.

Facebook performs two roles: amplification and preservation. Amplification is when Facebook decides who will see a message and how intensely that message is delivered. Preservation is when Facebook decides to store a message and decides who can view stored messages safely. Amplification and preservation are intentional acts beyond the control of the message author. Yet, someone must be responsible for the acts. I see no other culprit than Facebook. Facebook is responsible.

Regarding amplification, judgement is needed to amplify correctly. In general, I do not see compelling reason to amplify harmful speech. But, in narrow cases, there are situations where the educational value of harmful speech can outweigh the harm. But, speech should always be amplified judiciously with care for public safety.

Regarding preservation, harmful speech may have value to scholars. But, harmful speech is like a hazardous material. It should be viewable on request by those who view it safely and view it purposefully.

In my opinion, Facebook is poor at both tasks. Facebook does not apply amplification carefully---rather, we have found that people were driven toward harmful speech by an injudicious algorithm. And, Facebook does not preserve messages for a scholarly purpose. Rather, messages are archived and viewed indiscriminately without any care for the harm of harmful speech.

Judicious amplification and preservation of harmful speech is not incompatible with the principles of free speech. But we will not achieve this by simply telling people to "grow up." It is going to require more structured effort than that.

A lot of people are terminating abusive relationships in the real world and in online communities, including Reddit. This has an impact on convincing the vaccine-hesitant to take a COVID-19 vaccine because the demographic overlap of anti-vaxxers and abusive people makes terminating the abusive relationship seem like silencing the opposition.

I buy the argument that this is making it harder to convince skeptics to take the vaccine but the mitigation requires asking victims of an abusive relationship to suffer by extending that relationship. I cannot ask this. Rather, we can explain to the vaccine-hesitant that the opposition is being silenced because they are abusive, not because their arguments are being suppressed.

Homeless per capita is a statistic that must be interpreted with care. If we take this statistic as the regret criterion (i.e., low values are better) of State homelessness policy then it would create a moral hazard where systemic cruelty towards homeless people is rewarded. For example, a State actor could lower the homeless per capita statistic by brutalizing homeless people, destroying homeless camps, relocating homeless people across State borders, under-reporting homeless population, forcibly sterilizing homeless communities and killing homeless people.

A better way to determine if a State is successful at homelessness policy is to look for answers to humane questions causally linked to State policies. For example,

1. How many non-homeless people become homeless due to State policies?
2. How many homeless people become non-homeless due to State policies?
3. How many homeless people are harmed by State policies?
4. How many homeless people suffer avoidable distress due to neglect by the State?
5. How is the quality-of-life of homeless people impacted by State policies?

On average a citizen of the UK is 22x more productive than a citizen of India [1]. Productivity requires energy expenditure so the UK's emissions are justified by higher GDP per capita and lower carbon emissions per GDP. The claim that Brits are pigs is offensive and lacks substance.

As for carbon per capita being the only number that matters, without justification there is no reason for anyone to believe this baseless claim.