I'd love it if LinkedIn would enable recruiters to realize that their position doesn't fit me before they contact me. I have two fundamental requirements that I will not budge on (location and minimum spendable compensation (pre-IPO stock doesn't count)) and no matter how I've tried to configure the system to let recruiters know that they shouldn't bother contacting me unless their role fits those requirements, they still insist on contacting me. I politely reiterate my requirements and nine times out of ten they then disappear, having wasted both our time. So far the other one in ten ends when we get down to discussing the details of teams, projects, etc., because I'm picky and not particularly motivated to move, but I don't think those conversations are a waste of time even if they don't ultimately result in a job.

But the ones that don't meet my clearly-stated and very simple requirements piss me off. Don't tell me you'll relocate me when I've stated that I do not want to relocate, and do not ever offer me a big pay cut and think that you're doing anything other than wasting time.

I don't see how the integrity attribute helps to prevent the timing attack. Can you elaborate?

I guess it's time for BYD and other Chinese automakers to buy a few million dollars of DJT, then quietly let Trump know that if he reverses the ban and smooths the way for sales in the US, they'll spend tens or hundreds of millions more. Maybe toss some cash into Trumpcoins, too.

Of course not. But an industry telling Trump that they'll give him a billion dollars so that they can operate in China will.

This is a different world than the old one where politicians got campaign donations, or promises of a few hundred thousand dollars for speaking engagements or a consulting job in the distant future, with no way for the politician to hold their feet to the fire if they renege. Trump has arrange things so that they can pay him, personally, cash on the barrel head in unlimited amounts, and it's all perfectly legal!

And I'm saying you have no basis for the assumption that they can service more people than they service now.

I think they are close to capacity right now. It was only two years ago that they stopped making people get on a waitlist for anywhere in the US, and there are still regions of the US where subscription is capped. They also offer premium plans that prioritize your data over others in the case that the available satellites/downlinks are bandwidth constrained.

What they used to call the V2 satellites are what they're calling V3 now, basically (though additional upgrades have been made). They ended up creating an interim generation of satellites that are more capable than the original ones but could still fly on Falcon 9. That interim V2 generation is still 1-2 orders of magnitude less capable than the V3 design.

You're assuming they could service 100X as many people with their current constellation and downlinks without excessive negative impact to performance.

Sure. But nothing you said is incompatible with the idea that their current pricing is maximizing revenue and profit in the US.

I strongly suspect that they are, and I expect that prices will go down as their capacity goes up... especially when Starship becomes operational and they start putting up their third-generation satellites, which are far more capable but too big to fly on Falcon 9.

Typically, yes, but Trump has already demonstrated that he can be bought, and has set up nice ways for people to funnel large amounts of money to him. His bribery vehicles are ideal because they work by enabling his "clients" to boost the value of assets he already owns, so assuming he doesn't cash out right away the clients have the ability to take back their bribes if he doesn't stay bought. Not only that, so far it looks like bribes benefit from enormous leverage: The $18M for flipping on the TikTok ban boosted Trump's net worth by a couple of billion. That won't always be the case, and it would drop a lot if Trump tried to take cash out... though borrowing against the asset is probably a better strategy than selling anyway.

It's a near-perfect setup for a politician who is openly for sale, and for his clients.

Either's he's serious or he's joking.

If he's joking, it's funny, laugh.

If he's serious, it's funny, laugh.

I think the wacko Greenland, Canada and Panama stuff was mostly to generate controversy in the news to reduce the coverage of his officially becoming a felon.

The Social Security Trust fund is basically a fiction. Social Security revenues are invested in Treasury bills, which means the cash goes into the general fund and the trust fund gets IOUs -- to be paid back from the general fund. This is effectively no different at all from eliminating the trust fund and just routing SS revenues into and paying SS benefits out of the general fund.

Also, $6.5B (or whatever smaller amount the DoJ actually gets) is miniscule relative to social security revenues and expenses. The US is projected to spent $1.7T on social security in 2025.

Nah. It'll just go into the general fund. Given that the general fund is operating at an annual deficit of $1.4T (which Trump aims to increase, though 2025 will be Biden's budget), it will merely reduce the 2025 deficit by about 4%.

Well, that assumes they'll get $6.5B for it... which they won't. How much the price of BTC is reduced by this sale will be interesting. BTC has enough market volume to take that sale these days, but it's still very volatile and the price is held up by the fact that a lot of BTC is held by hodlers who won't sell for any reason except to exchange with other hodlers to boost volume, which means that BTC price will take a bigger hit than market volume would normally predict.

I really hope they dump the entire lot in a single sale. Economists will be able to write many interesting papers.

Sure, sure. That's not what's concerning here.

What's concerning is that they, and Facebook, and many others, are making changes out of fear of the new administration. That is something I've never seen in my lifetime. Yes, all sorts of organizations shift with the Overton window to try to stay relevant and look forward-thinking, but not like this, not in response to an election outcome. They're doing it because they've -- probably correctly -- decided that the incoming administration is going to actively target anyone who appears not to be be politically correct, per Trump's definitions, and not just within the normal regulatory process. They expect extra-legal, if not outright illegal, harassment.

This is a bad time for the rule of law.

You have a startlingly-broad definition of "narrow" in this case, and seem to apply an entirely different definition in the Roe case.

Deeply, deeply disagree. And you will, too, when a president you don't like but is willing to ignore precedent and norms takes office.

You might like my take on the paradox. Or not.

https://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=23571965&cid=65071299

I think the paradox of tolerance isn't a paradox, it's a category error. Recategorize tolerance and the paradox goes away.

The problem is that the statement treats tolerance as a principle which must be either observed or not. The better formulation views tolerance as a mutually-beneficial agreement, not a principle. I'll tolerate you if you'll tolerate me, and the generalization, I'll tolerate things I don't like if you'll tolerate things you don't like. Within that framework, the intolerant choose not to participate in the agreement, so they forfeit its benefits. They can, of course, change their behavior and rejoin the pact at any time if they don't like the results.