Avanera

joined 1 year ago
[–] Avanera@kbin.social 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Just got a Mac last week, and was able to set up file sharing with my PC in less than 5 minutes last night. In fact, it was way easier than getting the sharing working with my Surface, which refuses to acknowledge my desktop's existence.

I don't generally encourage buying a Mac, I'm not at all convinced it's worth the price premium. I'm only commenting insofar as I have context.

[–] Avanera@kbin.social 35 points 6 months ago (3 children)

It's seemingly closer to $6b for that year, which is obviously a ton of money, but considering they employ north of 50,000 people, if each person costs them $75,000/yr that's already $3.75b. NYC spends $2b on just their department of sanitation. It's a city with like 8.5m people, everything costs crazy amounts of money.

https://council.nyc.gov/budget/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2021/05/NYPD.pdf
https://council.nyc.gov/budget/wp-content/uploads/sites/54/2021/05/DSNY.pdf

[–] Avanera@kbin.social 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

To stop the part from sliding off, not the whole pedal.

[–] Avanera@kbin.social 7 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Put a fastener through the thing, preventing it from moving?

[–] Avanera@kbin.social 30 points 8 months ago (1 children)

It's not explicit from the article one way or the other, but the "investigation" seems to refer to officials from the fire department, which doesn't imply that charges are being considered but instead that questions about policy adherence have been raised.

It's a poorly written article, with polarizing ambiguity.

[–] Avanera@kbin.social 46 points 8 months ago (3 children)

The hell is going on with this article, is this bot-written? The top-line reads that the CCDH are the ones running the analysis. But the very next line reads "Streaming Platform YouTube said they analysed over 12,000 videos across 96 channels using an AI model crafted specifically to be able to distinguish between reasonable scepticism and false information." So it kinda sounds like this should be titled "YouTube study investigates changes in climate denial rhetoric, finds deniers are succeeding at skirting older protections." and then go on to explain that the new model inherently identifies this problematic content.

Listen, I'm not a big fan of Google, but as written this is just a shitty hit piece arguing in favor of an activist group that seems to be calling on YouTube to do the thing they've just said they already did. Unless the claim is that YouTube just went "Huh, weird. Guess we'll keep making money on it anyways!" and there's proof of that, this feels pretty deliberately misleading.

[–] Avanera@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago

Sharing this graph casually is rather unhelpful despite your note, since most casual observers aren't going to observe the scale change in the X axis, and instead will see only that today is similar to the 12,000 years ago segment.

[–] Avanera@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (4 children)

What differences do you see when you use Vulcan? And what's the deal with triple buffering?