Tbh mastodon and pleroma hadn't even ocurred to me for this project. Plus, I know more about the twitter API than I do mastodon / pleroma so it seemed a natural fit.
On your last point, you're spot on. I've already had the account banned and reinstated for spamming. Even though I was posting to my own account only...
Are there any apps or setting which reduce the saturation of colours? I notice that in many publicly available screens, such as in gyms, the saturation is extremely high drawing my attention to it. I find that this is also the case on my iPhone and Mac.
Certainly I can go monotone. But not desaturate partially.
No; additionally, the conflation of rape with all boundary violation also makes it less likely for people who are victims to identify when they're being abused because abuse takes way more forms than sexual violence. Please consider the implications of such.
The SPR was set up as an emergency reserve. Not to manipulate the market price, which is only a temporary reprieve anyway. As soon as its exhausted and the supply issue is not addressed, we will likely be in the same boat as before without the cushion in case of a true national security emergency.
The SPR was created during an era when the US was an oil importer, fundamentally dependent on foreign supply. That’s no longer the case, thanks largely to the shale industry. So the national security calculus is completely different: instead the SPR is mainly an economic tool designed to buffer our economy against global price shocks during times of foreign turmoil, which is exactly the use-case it was just put to when Russia invaded Ukraine and global prices spiked. It should be refilled now, absolutely. But it is not a matter of national security anymore.
If done right, I don't see what's wrong with it. A dozen weeks back, oil was 120, now it is less than 80. We should be able to fill it back and make money while doing it.
We did the same thing saving GM more than a dozen years back.
Is there any meaningful difference between "achieve a lower market price for oil" and "alleviate oil supply shortages"? If the SPR is not intended to alleviate oil supply shortages in a time of war, what else would it be intended for?
Think about what has happened in the past nine months. Russia, the country with the most nuclear warheads in the world, invaded its neighbor, where it proceeded to systematically torture and murder unarmed civilians, filling mass graves. Russia simultaneously threatened to invade members of the European Union and the NATO alliance, while threatening to use its nuclear weapons against any country that might dare to assist its victims in defending themselves.
In other words, there is a war in Europe, where the aggressor is one of the world's largest energy producers. How is this not the kind of "true national security emergency" (as you put it) that the SPR is intended to address?
It's worse than that: once we start refilling it we bring back all of the demand that releasing oil from the SPR kicked into the future.
It follows that if either 1.) demand drops or 2.) supply increases the refilling will create exactly the same problem in the future that releasing oil from the SPR was supposed to solve.
> It's worse than that: once we start refilling it we bring back all of the demand that releasing oil from the SPR kicked into the future.
Translating this into HNese, your argument suggests that disk drive caching shouldn't work. The answer is you can fill your reserves at a much lower rate than you empty them, taking advantage of many small windows.
It will set a floor on oil prices, keeping them from going as low as they otherwise would have. Some have argued that this is a good thing, since it will help to stabilize the "boom/bust" nature of the industry -- guaranteeing that oil producers continue to invest in expanding supply.
To what end? The EU is no closer to oil independence and the Ukraine War looks no closer to ending with Russia’s mobilization.
There’s an election coming up in a little over a month for a president’s party who is historically unpopular. Everyone in this thread assures me that they hadn’t even considered the possibility that the SPR was used to buy votes, even though it looks like that’s the only tangible outcome of this since no strategic goals are being met.
Perhaps we got a good deal on the open market. Even if so - to what end? Temporarily depressed gas prices have yielded no significant strategic victories. Once prices rise again during the winter, we’ll be back to square one without the SPR.
Russia's actions have shown that it is not a reliable partner, and the "cheap" energy it sells actually comes with a very high political and national security cost. As a result, most European countries now know that they must realign their energy policies and economic relationships.
This kind of re-alignment takes time. By opening up the strategic reserve, Biden has given Europe more time than they otherwise would have had. Hopefully, it will be enough.
Western Europe has known this for decades and did not care. Germany used the past decade to decommision nuclear power and coal power. This was not a mistake and US taxpayer oil reserves should not be used to bail them out because they knew what they were doing.
Although it does benefit Europe, it also benefits the United States for Europe to finally turn away from Russia. Germany's prior willingness to engage with Russia may have been purposeful on Germany's part, but it was against the interests of the United States. The United States is not "bailing them out", but is instead making it economically possible for Europeans to align themselves with our own national security interests.
The alternative is for Europe to abandon the fight in Ukraine. This is something that the US taxpayer should be willing to pay to avoid.
Gas prices go up, everyone gets mad. Dude adds supply to try to lower input prices, everyone gets mad. Conclusion: some folks were born mad and are gonna stay that way regardless.
It is a survey by https://mclaughlinonline.com/
They are clearly hyper partisan, but being charitable that should be fine, we just need to see what exactly the survey methodology is, I can't find it. Wonder why.
Or its just obviously nonsense and we can ignore the crazy person?
It's a pointless strawman anyway. He's clearly not the one making the decisions, so it doesn't matter if he's sane or not. A big chunk of his cabinet is equal to Obama's as well. And before you come in with "but Trump did X". Yes, Trump was an idiot as well. Different people can be morons at the same time.
This is the first time your hearing that people want him to take a cognitive test?
It comes up in almost every one of the (very rare) times he talks to the press. I guess that means the strategy is working. That’s kind of frightening to be honest.
I’m curious if you just don’t follow political news?
The Biden campaign, and subsequently administration’s policy has been extremely limited press availability. Biden has for most of his political career been a known gaff machine; he is a compulsive liar, and will essentially make up stories on the spot which are false. He’s been doing this since the 1980s. I don’t mean this to sound like a partisan attack, and I know it sounds like that to a non political news junkie. Before you make that assumption just please google it. However in the last few years this has gotten extremely bad to the point where many even within his own party have been calling his mental faculty into question.
Anyway, the fact you didn’t know this seems to indicate that the stately of restricting his interactions with the public is working.
Honestly I can’t even remember the last time he had press availability. Was it right after the Afghanistan disaster?
He does give pretty frequent “remarks” where he’ll post some prepared speech that he reads, but that’s usually it. That’s not what I mean.
And honestly: I just don’t get where you’re going with this. Bidens mental decline isn’t even a partisan thing at this point is it? Even his own part seems to be indicating they don’t think he could handle another campaign.
(We should stop this convo though since it’s just going into politics crap now)
> Bidens mental decline isn’t even a partisan thing at this point is it?
Unfortunately, it very much is a partisan allegation - one I find poorly sourced.
> Bidens refusal to engage with the press has been a constant frustration
From your source:
>> The one measure where Biden has outpaced the men who came before him is in informal question and answer sessions – of which he has done 216 compared with 120 for Trump and just 46 for Obama.
That doesn't scream "mental decline" to me: informal Q&A's are less structured and more mentally taxing (broader topics, so coaching & prep don't help as much). In the clips I've encountered, Biden sounds very lucid, and very off-the-cuff.
Maybe "squandered" would be a better choice of words then. Anyway, the point is that there wasn't an actual oil shortage; prices were just high enough that it was making the government look bad. Releasing the oil only served to temporarily and artificially drop prices.
I was visiting Birmingham when "safe" was taking off in England (2006?) but hadn't reached Scotland yet. Was talking to a random guy in a bar, and I couldn't understand why he was so insistent that Birmingham was "safe"
"laters" would just be a short way of saying "see you later" - but it sounds really a bit lame and try-hard to me, or the kind of thing a middle-aged, middle-class person would write as dialogue for a working class urban teenage character in a TV show. I think quickthrower2 is saying the same thing but maybe they can correct me (sounds like they're England, so they'll know better than me).
Don't worry about either, you won't hear them particularly often :)
Fair enough, but what does that imply? The magic N-Ball that has a minor chance of saying something unintentionally racist is such dangerous technology that it must be kept out of the hands of the peasants?
The archetype of this argument is of course the (in)famous "P doesn't Q people, people Q people" *
While this is "true", the sense in which it is true is so limited as to be entirely unhelpful. If you manufacture P, and you know Q may be an outcome, why are you manufacturing P, and how are you preventing Q?
* Where, as we all know, Q is usually "kill" or "harm", and P might be "guns" or "autonomous vehicles" or "military robots" or "facial recognition" etc.
I see this has attracted some downvotes, which is of course fine. However, it would really help improve the quality of this conversation if people could reply here, and perhaps explain objections to the archetype I've described.
Perhaps it was just my overly convoluted writing style? :) If though it was about the content...
The statement "P doesn't Q people, people Q people" is absolutely devoid of any useful information or novel insight, and doesn't take the conversation in a new direction that is useful. In fact, it can kick the conversation into an anti-productive quagmire.
Let's see... "Stable Diffusion doesn't produce racist memes, people produce racist memes." Well duh. A more useful conversation might be about how we protect against possible automated mass-generation of racist messages (or whatever), what roles SD et al have to play, how we deal with possible outcomes, etc etc.
For what it's worth, I do not think Stable Diffusion should be kept under wraps. Paradigm-shifting technology should be discussed in the open. Developers/engineers should be prepared to walk away from anything with a significant downside if that downside hasn't been exposed to thorough debate. And we should be prepared to shoulder responsibility when shiny new toys are used to do terrible things.
> The statement "P doesn't Q people, people Q people" is absolutely devoid of any useful information or novel insight, and doesn't take the conversation in a new direction that is useful. In fact, it can kick the conversation into an anti-productive quagmire.
Are you presuming everyone reading and responding to this thread are on your level of interpretation or analytical superiority? This is the first time reading about "P doesn't Q people, people Q people" on HN and I imagine won't be the last. There is no "In fact," here and it already rubbed off as a completely pretentious statement, which given the circumstances is not unusual in a place like this.
(I didn't downvote you but am expecting a downvote)
> Is the knife a murderer or the person who wields it?
I attempted to abstract that, to make my response impersonal. The archetype is based on a phrase well known in some countries, but certainly not all (my apologies for making assumptions): "guns don't kill people, people kill people".
Another reason I avoided that specific sentence was to avoid the strong emotions it invokes.
About what I wrote starting "In fact...", the sentences following that were my attempt to expand the point about quagmires.
That doesn't seem a) particularly useful or b) like it was hard to do before.
I could easily gather a corpus of racist slogans, a corpus of racist images, and smash them together to get a few thousand racist memes. It would probably take less time than relying on an AI model to generate each one (which takes a few seconds to a few minutes each).
And it's not as though there aren't millions of actual racists out there spewing out racist content constantly anyway.
I originally created a gist with a bunch of curl commands that were difficult to figure out due to poor documentation. So it’s good to see someone creating a cli.
It might be pointless to do so, however you could also make it illegal for the existing employees to continue to work in the respective industry. It would prove to be a huge incentive to ensuring best practice.
On your last point, you're spot on. I've already had the account banned and reinstated for spamming. Even though I was posting to my own account only...