Sorry - I mean the "only way" as a manager, not as a software/technical professional.
You can't for example, use manager of a McDonalds to qualify as a manager under a TN as far as I understand it. If you are a manager, you need to be technical in nature.
Recently, I've been shocked to witness how normalized Jew hatred (which I distinguish from criticism of Israel) has become within Gen Z, even among people who exhibit progressive views and are otherwise vocally critical of racial/ethnic discrimination. I doubt it will stop with the genocide/war.
On the flip side, I see very little actual hatred of Jews, either cultural or religious, but I do see a lot of people claiming that any kind of opposition to the IDF flattening Gaza is equivalent to Jew hatred.
Your post is fair, but it's not how I read the OP, which seems less concerned with consolidation of power than with people supportive of Israel having power. And while I appreciate that criticism of Israel is not anti-semitism, believing that Israel is a legitimate state that has the right to self-defense is all it takes to be labelled as a "Zionist", and at that point it's practically a euphemism for "Jew". I'm not familiar enough with Bari Weiss's views to tell if that's what's being done here, but the use of a pejorative without clarification, combined with the fixation on "Zionists" and the implication that their intent surely must be to issue pro-Israel propaganda in particular makes it sound a lot like old-school anti-semitism.
The wider context here is that the TikTok ban had significant support on the grounds of, what politicians and Zionist lobbying groups called, "anti-Israel bias" and "support for Hamas". Not just the explicitly stated "China Bad" motivations.
The opposition to TikTok on grounds of it's Chinese ownership had been on a slow burn right up to October 2023, when it picked up steam in the wake of the early response to the Gaza War. US politicians were furious that the youth weren't buying the Bipartisan Approved Position(TM) on Israel.
Considering that major world organisations, even holocaust remembrance ones, are now calling Israel's actions genocide, that fury has aged like the finest bottle of raw milk.
Hence:
> and the implication that their intent surely must be to issue pro-Israel propaganda
That is indeed the implication made, for the reasons above, I don't think it is unwarranted.
That’s fair, I can’t say I know their inner thoughts either. Personally I’m concerned about the political unity and lack of respect for other people’s freedom of speech. We’re healthier with a robust public debate.
I sympathize with the sensitivity of the topic and what dog-whistling can look like. However, we're discussing media that people consume and the control that people have over that media. One of the most critical topics being controlled by media right now is the genocide in Gaza. And we're looking at a large section of media, including TikTok, being controlled by someone who not only denies that a genocide is happening, but is also complicit in it with their military contracts with Israel.
I think this is all relevant to the topic at hand.
I'm sympathetic to your argument, because you set explicit boundaries on the issue of concern, and you mention military contracts with concretely align Oracle with Israeli interests. It takes very selective reading between the lines to interpret the OP this charitably, when a direct interpretation reads more like "Jews who sympathize with Israel shouldn't own media platforms, because they will use them for propaganda." Which is maybe four words distanced from last-century anti-semitism.
I will add that TikTok is already being measurably manipulated, which everyone seems to be glossing over, perhaps because the bias runs in the "right" direction.
The level of tolerance for phone use in the classroom in the last decade blows my mind. It would be like letting kids pull out a GameBoy back in the 2000s, which where I was would have it promptly confiscated.
I was thinking about that recently. I don’t anyone ever pulling out a Game Boy in elementary or middle school in the 90s, even though many of us had them at home.
It’s not that we all got a lecture about no video games in school. It just very self-evidently wasn’t a place you would play video games. It would be like getting a pizza delivered to you at the doctor’s office. Just absurd.
I remember a kid with a Game Gear on the elementary school bus and even that being, well, unusual enough I remember it. Kind of similar to how kids will always remember seeing someone’s family pet run on the bus, because it blows their minds that it can even happen.
by the time i was in elementary school, it was common enough for geeky kids to have game boys at school. this was the height of the pokemon craze, after all.
not in class, of course, but at lunch and on the bus, it was fair game.
It's not without precedent, but the fact that initial job numbers have been consistently inflated over the last 3 years and that the magnitude of the downwards revisions is on par with 2008-2009 for two years in a row (and growing) is concerning.
The monthly employment numbers the BLS publishes are basically nonsense and I'm sure they wouldn't publish them if Congress didn't force them to. At the middle of every month, they run a survey asking ~120,000 businesses how many employees they had as of the 12th of the month. It takes 8 weeks for all the responses to the survey to come in, but the initial monthly numbers are based off of the first 2 weeks of responses. This initial data is always more representative of larger companies. The BLS then generally issues two corrections to each month's data, one when all the responses to the surveys come in and the other when they get the actual unemployment numbers from quarterly unemployment insurance tax filings.
We see large corrections in employment numbers when there's rapid changes in the job market that mess with the models, or when the changes are focused towards small companies. Right-wingers have somehow decided that all of this is instead due to the BLS somehow being out to get Trump, despite there being no significant changes to how the jobs report is made since the mid-90s.
I’m not sure how the politics play out but a stat that is always off in the same direction, always over and never under, is what some statisticians call “biased.”
You can have non-biased indicators that have error with mean 0.
Maybe a better question, when judging current operations, is how precise the biased estimates are becoming overtime. Is the size of the error increasing or decreasing.
If it's like in my country, it's probably because you have more and more people "self-employed", and the average "small business" went down from 3.8 employees to 2.2 over the last 6 years (made up numbers, but i've read it almost halved which caused a lot of issues).
I think we created a new status for Uber/Deliveroo and other workers to put them out of the category three years ago and it fixed a lot of our employment data issues.
You seem to be under the impression that these figures are exclusively sourced from employers, but they are not. They are sourced in part from a survey of 60,000 households every month, where each household in the the survey for several consecutive months. Here is some information about non-response rate: https://www.bls.gov/cps/methods/response_rates.htm
> You seem to be under the impression that these figures are exclusively sourced from employers, but they are not. They are sourced in part from a survey of 60,000 households every month, where each household in the the survey for several consecutive months
These are two separate metrics, they measure different things, and the figures often differ (unsurprisingly).
The BLS "establishment" survey (aka Current Employment Statistics, CES) surveys 120k+ businesses and government agencies, it measures jobs (not people), counting the number of payroll positions. This is "non-farm payroll employment", excluding the self-employed, farm workers, and private household workers.
The BLS "household" survey (aka Current Population Survey, CPS) surveys ~60k households, measuring individuals, whether they are employed, unemployed, or not in the labour force. These data are used to calculate the unemployment rate and labour force participation. This includes farm workers, the self-employed, and domestic workers.
> you fix incentives and hire competent data gatherers
You assume the data gatherers were at fault... <chuckle>
These data gatherers work for their government. How do you ensure they're happy to gather and publish data which is essentially critical of that very government?
I agree, if you can't publish a number that's pretty accurate then you shouldn't publish anything. That's why i wasn't broken hearted when Trump fired that BLS person. If you can't even get close then someone needs to be found that can or at least has the balls to say "idk what the number is, we're not publishing without good data".
On a more serious note, how would one ensure that a government department be sufficiently independent that it can publish data (implicitly) critical of its own political leaders without fear of retribution?
"There's still ongoing chatter about the huge revision to U.S. job growth seen yesterday and what it might signify for the economy and markets. 818,000 jobs were wiped out in the 12 months through March 2024 (or 68,000 per month), resulting in the biggest downward adjustment since the global financial crisis."
DOGE broke it even more. The error bars have always been non-zero. Now the error bars will be even larger than before (unless Trump just outlaws error bars).
Twitter regularly banned political figures globally following government pressure. X is more consistent in applying bans regionally rather than banning accounts from the platform entirely. Post-acquisition they've expressed that they choose to do that because they deem it to be preferable to having the entire network banned in certain countries. It probably has more to do with the financial incentives than with a value judgement, but either way there's no reasonable alternative, so I find it disingenuous to frame it as evidence of Musk's dishonesty, regardless of the fact that there are other instances where moderation policies were changed arbitrarily that actually do constitute evidence of that. I understand that some people flag any comment that isn't sufficiently critical of Musk and his companies regardless of their validity, which makes it tempting to parenthesize any "softball" comment to express loyalty to the tribe, but with regards to their compliance with government censorship it's unwarranted.
Are you referring to the one where a Waymo, and several other cars, were stopped at a traffic light, when another car (incidentally, a Tesla) barreled into the traffic stack at 90 MPH, killing several people?
Because I am not aware of any other fatal accidents where a Waymo was even slightly involved. I think it's, at best, misleading to refer to that in the same sentence as FSD-involved fatalities where FSD was the direct cause.
They key difference is that the Teslas killed their passengers, the Waymo hit someone outside the car (and it wasn't the Waymo's fault, it was hit by another car).
Yes. [1] That incident got considerable publicity in the San Francisco media. But not because of the Waymo.[2][3]
Someone was driving a Tesla on I-280 into SF. They'd previously been involved in a hit-and-run accident on the freeway. They exited I-280 at the 6th St. off ramp, which is
a long straightaway. They entered surface streets at 98 MPH in a 25 MPH zone, ran through a red light, and reached the next intersection, where traffic was stopped at a red light. The Tesla Model Y plowed into a lane of stopped cars, killing one person and one dog, injuring seven others, and demolishing at least six vehicles. One of the vehicles waiting was a Waymo, which had no one on board at the time.
The driver of the Tesla claims their brakes failed. "Police on Monday booked Zheng on one count of felony vehicular manslaughter, reckless driving causing injury, felony vandalism and speeding."[2]
The question should be less who was at fault and more would a human driver have reacted better in that situation and avoided the fatality. I'm not sure why you think that whether the fatality occurred inside or outside of the car changes the calculus, but in that case only one of the two documented Tesla FSD-related fatalities killed the driver. Judging by the incident statistics of Tesla's Autopilot going back over half a decade, I'm pretty sure it's significantly safer than the average human driver and continues to improve, and the point of comparison in the original post was with human driving rather than Waymo. I have no doubt that Waymo, with its constrained operating areas and parameters, is safer in aggregate than Tesla's general-purpose FSD system.
FSD is not Autopilot despite the names being conflated today, but even if you want to count all 28, it's not enough to compare raw numbers of fatal incidents without considering the difference in scale. That's not to justify taking your eyes off the road when enabling FSD on a Tesla, but the OP did not suggest that either anyway.
There is no world in which New York lets Teslas drive autonomously in the next decade. Had they not been grandfathered in in California, I doubt politics there would have allowed it either.
I thought about that as well. This would be true if team-hiromoot is not cooperating with the bot owners, otherwise the bots could simply be excluded given all their traffic is authenticated with a 4chan pass. Other chans have manipulated their stats to change how active they appear so it's really hard for me to rely upon that.
Yeah the only way I could really prove anything would be to fully own and operate the site, a task I would never take on. It might be interesting and educational for a day but without government immunity it would get risky fast.
There are non affiliated stat trackers like 4stats.io or any of the archive sites. It's pure nonsense/conspiracy theory to suggest everything is bot content now.
