Removed by mod

so did Mao, see this comment

that’s because they are forced to by the yt algorithm: you flat out cannot run a business on yt without resorting to clickbait titles, stupid thumbnails, and a bit of sensationalization, because the algorithm will deprioritize your video and unfairly limit your viewership if you don’t do those things.

Steve’s videos are generally very much dry, factual reporting using fairly neutral language; or in other words: really decent reporting!

if you want to complain about some tech youtuber doing the exact things you complain about, look at linus and jay…

there’s some good reasons why steve is one of only a handful of tech channels i still subscribe to…

alright, then we’re talking about slightly different things: i was talking exclusively about the similar kind of government contracts…those are, afaik, almost entirely gone.

the EU contracts i know nothing about, but it’s gonna create the same problems if they’re structured similarly to the local governmental ones…

government employees rarely make more than private employees.

what they are getting mixed up is that some tenured positions get paid about 2x that of a new employee, because there are still some old contracts around that are simply much better than newer one in terms of pay raises over time.

and those older government contracts frequently include provisions that make these employees contracts impossible to terminate, resulting in some government employees that simply sit out their time on a stupidly inflated salary that nobody can fire…yes, that’s as bad as it sounds, but those contracts are, as far as im aware, no longer being offered anywhere, and the last ones to get those contracts are going to age out into retirement very soon. most are already retired.

it’s not related to corruption at all either, these contracts used to be standard in many governments all over the world, europe just happened to have some of the cushiest jobs associated with them…

but it is true that these employees generally contributed a LOT to governmental inefficiencies…which is why they’re no longer available.

like that other comment said: it’s not for everyone.

some kids are gonna love it, some are gonna hate it.

target demographics for products aren’t monoliths ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

it’s about being able to read emotions:

a large portion of autistic people have trouble reading emotions in others.

that’s why they’re often drawn to things like books, comics, animated content, theater, and, like in this example, robots that clearly express their emotions.

speaking for myself (diagnosed ASD), it’s the ambiguity that bothers me more than anything. i like it when things are nice and clear, neatly organized, and generally don’t require a lot of attention to interpret.

interpreting the environment is taxing enough, adding a lot of emotional interpreting on top can quickly get overwhelming, which leads to poor mood, performance, and ultimately just straight-up headaches…again, this isn’t a hunch, it was part of the ASD diagnostic test.

so i can imagine how much easier it is for kids with similar problems to relate emotionally to something that shows it’s emotions in clear, easily recognizable ways, rather than having to guess constantly. that constant guessing gets real tiring, real quick…

on top of which it creates a security issue too:

by teaching users to always instantly click on “OK”, “Accept”, etc, they stop reading the actually important messages, because they’re being bombarded by so, so many useless pop-ups everywhere…

would be nice, but isn’t true according to Douglas Adams himself:

Inspiration for the number 42

Douglas Adams revealed the reason why he chose forty-two in this message .

“It was a joke. It had to be a number, an ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations, base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk, stared into the garden and thought ‘42 will do’”.

personally, i think it’s way funnier that it is actually, completely, deliberately meaningless ;)

you’re arguing government action with a user that hails from “@lemmy.libertarianfellowship.org”.

i don’t foresee a fruitful discussion, mate…

I love that trilogy.

i mean…technically it’s like 15+ Books…but who’s counting? ;)

sidenote: Stormlight Archives Book 5 is coming in December, i think?

this is exactly, and i cannot stress enough just how exactly, the plot of “Don’t look up”

i mean you weren’t actually off on the altered carbon, it just isn’t described in as much detail, but is effectively the same thing ;)

Thirteen, also by richard morgan, features similar themes as well!

all of the words you listed that use a soft g are loanwords from other languages (pretty sure they’re all french) soooo…yeah. no wonder those have different pronunciation.

when you look at anglo-saxon words the difference becomes clear:

• gift
• graveyard
• ground
• gay

all hard g’s.

mixing up languages is the common denominator here.

the G in GIF stands for graphical, neither english nor french in origin, hence the confusion about pronunciation.

alternatively; English is a terrible mess, and the only “correct” pronunciation is reached through general consensus. if the majority pronounces something a certain way, that’s how it should be pronounced.

Orconomics (Dark Profit Saga, Trilogy) for the exact same reason!

excellent fun to read, incredibly funny!

this is not true.

it entirely depends on the specific application.

there is no OS-level, standardized, dynamic allocation of RAM (definitely not on windows, i assume it’s the same for OSX).

this is because most programming languages handle RAM allocation within the individual program, so the OS can’t allocate RAM however it wants.

the OS could put processes to “sleep”, but that’s basically just the previously mentioned swap memory and leads to HD degradation and poor performance/hiccups, which is why it’s not used much…

so, no.

RAM is usually NOT dynamically allocated by the OS.

it CAN be dynamically allocated by individual programs, IF they are written in a way that supports dynamic allocation of RAM, which some languages do well, others not so much…

it’s certainly not universally true.

also, what you describe when saying:

Any modern OS will allocate RAM as necessary. If another application needs, it will allocate some to it.

…is literally swap. that’s exactly what the previous user said.

and swap is not the same as “allocating RAM when a program needs it”, instead it’s the OS going “oh shit! I’m out of RAM and need more NOW, or I’m going to crash! better be safe and steal some memory from disk!”

what happens is:

the OS runs out of RAM and needs more, so it marks a portion of the next best HD as swap-RAM and starts using that instead.

HDs are not built for this use case, so whichever processes use the swap space become slooooooow and responsiveness suffers greatly.

on top of that, memory of any kind is built for a certain amount of read/write operations. this is also considered the “lifespan” of a memory component.

RAM is built for a LOT of (very fast) R/W operations.

hard drives are NOT built for that.

RAM has at least an order of magnitude more R/W ops going on than a hard drive, so when a computer uses swap excessively, instead of as very last resort as intended, it leads to a vastly shortened lifespan of the disk.

for an example of a VERY stupid, VERY poor implementation of this behavior, look up the apple M1’s rapid SSD degradation.

short summary:

apple only put 8GB of RAM into the first gen M1’s, which made the OS use swap memory almost continuously, which wore out the hard drive MUCH faster than expected.

…and since the HD is soldered onto the Mainboard, that completely bricks the device in about half a year/year, depending on usage.

TL;DR: you’re categorically and objectively wrong about this. sorry :/

hope you found this explanation helpful tho!

and your source measured the effects of one single area that cathartic theory is supposed to apply to, not all of them.

your source does in no way support the claim that the observed effects apply to anything other than aggressive behavior.

i understand that the theory supposedly applies to other areas as well, but as you so helpfully pointed out: the theory doesn’t seem to hold up.

so either A: the theory is wrong, and so the association between aggression and sexuality needs to be called into question also;

or B: the theory isn’t wrong after all.

you are now claiming that the theory is wrong, but at the same time, the theory is totally correct! (when it’s convenient to you, that is)

so which is it now? is the theory correct? then your source must be wrong irrelevant.

or is the theory wrong? then the claim of a link between sexuality and aggression is also without support, until you provide a source for that claim.

you can’t have it both ways, but you’re sure trying to.

you made the claim that the cathartic hypothesis is poorly supported by evidence, which you source supports, but is not relevant to the topic at hand.

your other claim is that sexual release follows the same patterns as aggression. that’s a pretty big claim! i’d like to see a source that supports that claim.

otherwise you’ve just provided a source that provides sound evidence, but is also entirely off-topic…

your source is exclusively about aggressive behavior…

it uses the term “arousal”, which is not referring to sexual arousal, but rather a state of heightened agitation.

provide an actual source in support of your claim, or stop spreading misinformation.

not necessarily, but it can be a good idea to have a distributed, tamper proof ledger of transactions.

that way anyone can provide proof for basically anything to do with the service: payment, drive, location, etc.

it might also have advantages from a security perspective for riders and drivers.

there are advantages, they’re not entirely necessary, but they may well be the best option for a distributed network (i.e.: no central server infrastructure, at least not beyond some simple software repository for downloads/updates)