Losing your device and not having any passwords is like losing your fingerprints.
>Device loss scenarios
>Users are largely unsure about the implications for their passkeys if they lose or break their device, as it seems their device holds the entire capability to authenticate. To trust passkeys as a replacement for the password, users need to be prepared and know what to do in the event of losing one – or all – of their devices.
>Backing up and synchronising passkeys with a Credential Manager makes it easier to recover access to them compared to other existing second factor options. However, this relies on the user having prepared their Credential Manager account for recovery. Users need help in understanding and implementing the right steps so they can feel ready to go passwordless and use passkeys without extra worry and hassle.
Also requires the device allows backup of passkeys. The infamous post where keepass was threatened if they were to continue to allow users to backup their own keys.
Just not having the right device with you is crippling. IMO Passkeys need more work. I'd really like to see accounts support multiple passkeys. I'd prefer biometrics that are device independent. I just don't like the idea of replacing something someone can steal (a password) with something else someone can steal (a phone).
At first I read this as "Apple doesn't implement Touch ID, because they found it to be insecure", which really confused me. Was that the intent?
On second reading, I'm thinking this might mean, "since Apple only implements Face ID, biometrics on Apple devices is less secure", which makes more sense (to me).
If you put the currently best poker algorithm in a tournament with mixed-skill-level players, how likely is the algorithm to get into the money?
Recognizing different skill levels quickly and altering your play for the opponent in the beginning grows the pot very fast. I would imagine that playing against good players is completely different game compared to mixed skill levels.
Agreed. I don't know how fast it would get into the money, but an equilibrium strategy is guaranteed to not lose, in expectation. So as long as the variance doesn't make it to run out of money, over the long run it should collect most of the money in the game.
> with five copies of Pluribus playing against one professional
Although this configuration is designed to water down the difficulty in multi-player setting.
Pluribus against 2 professionals and 3 randos would better test. Two pros would take turns taking money from the 3 randos and Pluribus would be left behind and confused if it could not read the table.
As a global institution it certainly has. It has no jurisdiction over most of the world, and has net lost signatories since its birth [1]. And even where it has jurisdiction, it’s unceremoniously ignored [2].
It’s international law. Everything is, by definition, a political matter between sovereign states.
The ICC as an ideal may not be a failure, sure. As an instrument of practically effecting the world, it has failed. More than that, its impotence seems to have emboldened the notion that not only is its specific international law obsolete, but so is the concept of universal rights that states can’t deny.
But that's where this specific case is destroying the little bit of credibility that the ICC had left. Up until now at least the ICC itself respected UN treaties. But one of those rights is for the accepted governments of territories to decide whether the ICC can accept cases on their territory.
So for instance, the ICC refused to hear a case brought against China on the Uyghur issue. The ICC refuses to hear cases on the Congo/Rwanda conflict. It initially refused the case against Duterte (and may refuse it again). The ICC refuses to hear a LOT of cases because governments refuse to accept ICC jurisdiction.
But the ICC has now chosen to deny the government of Israel that right. Israel withdrew from the Rome treaty, and denied the ICC the right to accept cases on Israeli territory ... and the ICC accepted this case on Israeli territory. And this isn't even the only Rome treaty rule that case violates.
The ICC itself has now chosen to ignore the rules in the treaty that created the ICC.
The arrest warrants are as solid as humanly possible.
Before the arrest warrant by the Judge, before the ICC prosecutor even attempted to ask for arrest, they asked second opinion from a Panel of Experts in International Law that included top experts, including Theodor Meron; Hebrew University (M.J.), Harvard Law School (LL.M., J.S.D.) and Cambridge University (Diploma in Public International Law) who was once was a legal adviser of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, then Israeli Ambassador in Canada, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and so on.
> arrest warrants are as solid as humanly possible
This isn’t a debate around this international law, but international law broadly.
The ICC has no jurisdiction in America, Russia or China. Nor India, Pakistan, Indonesia and a host of other states. Most of the world’s population and most of the world’s economy isn’t subject to it. (Even those who are find convenient excuses for not enforcing its warrants.)
International law experts will agree these warrants are legal because per international law they are. The broader debate being missed is what role international law has to play in a multipolar world. Historically, and by that I mean Metternich’s peace, the law that matters in multipolar international politics is only that which the great powers agree to, and only so long as they agree to it.
> The ICC has no jurisdiction in America, Russia or China. Nor India, Pakistan ...
That is because the ICC has no jurisdiction unless the UN accepted government of the involved territory grants them jurisdiction. The only UN accepted government in Israel is the Israeli government. So according to the Rome statute, only Israel's government gets to decide if a case on Israel's territory (and Gaza is Israeli territory) is allowed to proceed, and of course, they don't want this case to proceed. There is hamas and the PA, who aren't UN accepted governments of any territory whatsoever, who both have signed the Rome statute but have also both sworn to never carry out any ICC judgement.
So now there's ONE exception: The ICC asserts jurisdiction, against the will of the local government, in ONE single location: Israel. In fact the ICC adjusted it's own rules to do this. Is the ICC allowed to change it's own rules? Well, no, of course it isn't. Yet the case is proceeding.
There's another problem, the ICC also has a rule: it does not accept cases unless the government on the ground actually upholds the Rome statute. Now here there's more exceptions. South Africa, Mongolia, Hungary, Sudan, and others have all signed the Rome treaty but have openly violated it, and the ICC has refused their cases ... sometimes. Now of course, Palestine is another example: both Hamas and the PA have signed the Rome Statute (hamas did when they went for election in 2006), have never left it and refused to carry it out when called upon. Now to be fair the ICC refused the Palestinian case, and them refusing to uphold the ICC treaty they signed was a factor in that. But South Africa was allowed to lodge a complaint, despite that they also refused to carry out the ICC treaty (2 cases: against the Sudanese president Assad and sort-of against Russian president Putin). Again the ICC changed it's rules, again, to allow the case to move forward.
Even at the ICC, starting cases after you've declared you'll never accept any judgement if you lose is not allowed. That the case is still proceeding means justice and respecting international treaties has long gone out the window.
The point here is that the government of Palestine shouldn't be allowed to start cases at the ICC, according to Rome treaty rules, because their governments aren't accepted. AND they shouldn't allowed to start cases, because they have declared they have no intention of ever carrying out ICC arrest warrants against Palestinians and have no intention of doing so (in fact both Hamas spokesmen and Abbas have shouted, repeatedly and loudly, on TV that they will never ever carry out an ICC decision against a Palestinian). Oh and Hamas is a terrorist organization that itself is outlawed by the UN.
So there is a bit of a question what a conviction of Israel would prove, now that the ICC has changed it's own rules, "illegally", TWICE to even allow a case to be brought, and will have to do so a third time to convict (that's what the whole intent issue is about). Currently the court has tried "to be fair" by issuing arrest warrants on both sides, but of course nobody, least of all Palestinians, discuss the little detail that Palestine is facing the exact same accusation as Israel (and technically the court has declared that hamas did commit genocide on October 7 2023, with full intent, even if they stopped short of convicting them there and then). Of course changing the law to convict a Jew because of politics is nothing new.
There's also the question of what any outcome of this case would accomplish, since Israel has withdrawn from the Rome treaty long before the case was brought, and so won't carry out any court decision (and that's legal according to UN law), and while Palestine has signed the Rome treaty, they have sworn and openly declared many times they won't carry out any court decision (illegally, as in the signed treaties saying they would carry them out, then just don't do it) (and the question "If Palestine signs treaties then doesn't carry them out, what's the point of any treaties with them?" isn't allowed to be discussed). Neither the court, nor the UN, have any power to carry out a decision themselves. So what is the point of the case, exactly?
Frankly, clearly for Palestinians this case isn't being fought on merit but on politics. And if it's fought on politics, then what is the problem with what Trump and Israel are doing?
> There is hamas and the PA, who aren't UN accepted governments of any territory whatsoever, who both have signed the Rome statute
This is half-right - officially only the State of Palestine (really Abbas, the PA president) has signed, Hamas hasn't. Presumably the ICC wouldn't recognize Hamas as a member even if they tried to sign, since they operate under the fiction that the PA is the de jure government of Gaza (despite never having controlled it).
> What security council resolution recognizes the state of Palestine?
Not SC, which isn’t relevant to the ICC, but UNGAR 67/19 accepted Palestine “as a non-member observer state” [1]. This was, in part, the basis by which Palestine was confirmed as being under ICC jurisdiction in 2021 [2].
> That countries recognize a non-existent state called Palestine doesn't mean it exists
The most practical definition of a country is that other countries recognise it.
> needs to have ratified the Rome convention
The Wikipedia article’s jurisdiction section seems to suggest it has [3].
So here's the actual sequence of events. Israel has occupied these territories from Egypt and Jordan in 1967. Following the peace agreement with Egypt and later Jordan Israel has agreed to work towards giving the Palestinians autonomy in those regions. That culminated in the Oslo peace process where Israel allowed Palestinian leadership from abroad to return to these territories, the PA was established, the territory was divided into different zones (A, B and C) with different responsibility for security, civil management, etc.
Up to this point there was no general recognition of the the State of Palestine by anyone and the consensus was that the future status of the territory was to be determined by negotiation.
The Palestinians (Hamas) decided that the correct response to the peace process was suicide bombers killing hundreds of Israeli civilians, wounding thousands, blowing up restaurants, busses, malls on a daily basis. This was at a time where the majority of the Israeli public supported a two state solution and Israel was negotiating at good faith.
As a result of that Israel elected a right wing government and public opinion went towards the idea that having a Hamas country side by side with Israel was an existential threat and should never be allowed to happen.
The Palestinian authority, having been weakened by Israel, and with Israel's refusal to continue the process, has opted to, with the support of patrons in the Arab world and broader (like Russia), to pursue a path of diplomatic warfare alongside the physical warfare they kept engaging in. They would work through the various institutions like the UN and the ICC to force Israel to yield. With broad support of mostly the non-democratic/non-free world they have been able to increasingly make progress in this area.
Fast forward to today.
This is all political warfare. Just because money and pressure causes country X to say there is a non-existent state doesn't bring said state into existence. The Palestinians can't have a state without a negotiated solution with Israel. They have no territory they control and they won't have unless they can reach an agreement with Israel. The only state they've had was Hamas-land in Gaza and Israel is not going to allow that again. If you need some motivation to understand this please again consider why didn't the world establish a Palestinian state prior to 1967 in the area said world thinks this Palestinian State exists when that land was not under Israel's control. Then this state would have really existed. But the world doesn't care about Palestinians or a Palestinian State. And neither do the Palestinians, they don't want a two state solution either. For them all of this is part of the effort to erase Jewish presence from the middle east. They say it themselves. (not everyone, but most).
EDIT: We should also consider Israel's withdrawal from Gaza as a major event on this timeline.
Either way, there is zero precedence for the ICC claiming jurisdiction over a state that is "created" out of thin air in an area that's actively controlled by another country. This should obviously be unacceptable. The only variable here is that this is Israel. We don't see Tibet or Kurdistan or the Indian state of the Sikhs or Balochistan or Chechnia being recognized with the ICC asserting authority there, that's because either they don't have strong enough patrons or the countries involved have more influence. So there's nothing legal or moral going on here. There are plenty of people on this planet who think they should have their only country but they are not at the intersection of world superpower and cultural conflicts like Israel is.
>What are the recognized borders of the state of Palestine?
>If it's a state why isn't it a member of the UN?
Because the US keeps vetoing their membership despite overwhelming support?
Refer to the linked articles. The fact you're asking these questions means you've refused to read them.
>That countries recognize a non-existent state called Palestine doesn't mean it exists
Nonsense. 80% of UN members recognize it. A state that exists. More than enough for any reasonable person. The only thing stopping their membership is the US.
Your insistence it does not exist and 80% of UN members are hallucinating is bizarre. Your denial of reality does not mean it ceases to exist.
If it somehow doesn't exist then how come most of the UN recognizes it?
>It is not sufficient that Gaza is not considered part of Israel because for the ICC to have jurisdiction it needs to be a member of the ICC and needs to have ratified the Rome convention.
Great. It is both a member of the ICC and has ratified the Rome convention.
>Gaza should be either Egyptian or Israeli
No at all.
>because after 1948 it was a part of Egypt and was occupied from Egypt by Israel during the 1967 six day war.
Nonsensical reasoning. Occupying some land doesn't make it permanently or retroactively yours with no possibility of change.
Palestine existed prior to Israel. It seems your understanding is that Palestine suddenly started to exist after Israel's founding. Please refresh your understanding of the history and facts.
>By this precedent the ICC can have jurisdiction anywhere including inside the US, as long as some other countries decide the US isn't really the US.
Sure if in this hypothetical scenario this state existed prior to the founding of the US and most of the world recognized it as such.
Palestine has not existed prior to Israel. The area was Ottoman and then we had the Mandate of Palestine (British control). There was never a state called Palestine in that region - ever. That is the factual reality.
You seem to be stuck on because 80% of UN members say something that's true. If 80% of UN members said the earth is flat it wouldn't be flat. If 80% of UN members said the moon is made of Swiss cheese it would not be Swiss cheese. Different UN members have different political reasons for saying things.
I have actually read the articles you mention in the past, multiple times, since I make it a habit to be informed about this topic. They just repeat this circular logic where somehow a state exists because it's recognized even though it doesn't actually exist. I'd also like to remind you that the existence of the Palestinian Authority is a result of the Oslo Accords and there is no mention of statehood in those accords.
EDIT: The funny thing to ponder on is why didn't Jordan and Egypt recognize the Palestinian State over the territories of the West Bank and Gaza (and East Jersualem) when they had control of those from 1948 to 1967 and why did none of the countries who now recognize this non-existent state care about that state during that time period? Answer that question and you'll start to understand what's actually going on here.
>I have actually read the articles you mention in the past, multiple times, since I make it a habit to be informed about this topic.
No you haven't and no you don't. Asking why they're not a member of the UN (US vetoing) proves this.
>If 80% of UN members said the earth is flat it wouldn't be flat.
Correct. Good thing no UN member said the earth is flat despite the earth not being flat. The UN doesn't dictate what celestial body is or isn't flat. Your analogy is nonsensical.
>Different UN members have different political reasons for saying things.
Irrelevant.
>They just repeat this circular logic where somehow a state exists because it's recognized even
Yes that's how it works.
>though it doesn't actually exist.
Well, they do actually exist, most of the world says they exist.
What is your criteria of statehood if not international recognition? It seems having a currency, a government and borders is enough for you which means you surely believe Sealand is a state? Or numerous other microstates
Who are the past presidents/prime ministers of the Palestine that existed before Israel?
What was the capital of that state?
What was the currency?
What were the laws and/or constitution?
Who was the chief of police? Minister of defense? Minister of the Interior? Name one.
The standard criteria for statehood is: a defined territory, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
But if your starting point is that a state isn't an actual physical entity, and it can come into existence by sheer will power, retroactively, then sure, the state of Palestine has also existed 10,000 years ago in South America. Also there is no other example in human history of this other than "Palestine".
I would love to go into more depth here but it doesn't feel like you're interested. Your counter point that I'm not aware of the US veto powers and therefore my arguments are wrong or I'm uninformed isn't serious. I'm well aware of that.
You haven't answered my question of why Jordan and Egypt didn't recognize West Bank and Gaza as the Palestinian state up to 1967.
EDIT: I'll also add that if your position is that the established international processes for recognizing statehood apply then the US veto preventing that statehood also applies. If the security council has not recognized Palestine as a state then the recognition of those 80% is meaningless. You can't have this both ways, if the international conventions/process don't apply then they also don't apply towards your goal. If they do apply, then Palestine is not a State.
Countries like Canada have explicitly said that their recognition is really about the future two state solution. It is a way of applying political pressure on Israel towards what they believe is the solution to the conflict. They are pretty clear about that state not magically coming into existence because of their "recognition" and their recognition is also conditional on many things which the Palestinians have so far failed to meet (various reforms, de-militarization etc.)
>a defined territory, a permanent population, a government, and the capacity to enter into relations with other states.
All of these are fulfilled.
>I'm well aware of that.
You would not have asked if you were "well aware".
By your own reasoning if the US said the earth isn't round then you'd agree with them. After all Palestine wholly fulfills your criteria of a state.
>You haven't answered my question of why Jordan and Egypt didn't recognize West Bank and Gaza as the Palestinian state up to 1967.
I don't need to as it doesn't matter.
>But if your starting point is that a state isn't an actual physical entity, and it can come into existence by sheer will power, retroactively,
>if
It isn't.
>but it doesn't feel like you're interested.
I would be interested but you keep making straw man arguments, being inconsistent and resorting to "some people don't believe it exists so it doesn't exist"
I am very consistent. What's inconsistent about my argument?
Can you give me three other examples of states where their existence is similar to the existence of "Palestine"? How is Palestine not a snowflake here? And if it is, why? What in your mind does the "existence of a state" mean exactly? What is your reference?
Please answer my question about the State of Palestine pre 1967. Did that state exist before 1967? Did it exist e.g. in the 1970's or the 80's? Did it meet the same criteria? What has changed?
Please expand on why you think a State of Palestine existed before 1948 and Israel.
What was the timeline for recognition of the State of Palestine by those 80% countries you're so happy to enlist in your support. What's different about the conditions before and after that timeline? What is the international law basis for the existence of the Palestinian Authority?
>I am very consistent. What's inconsistent about my argument?
You really are not. I've already explained. Namely the statehood criteria. Palestine fulfills all the requirements but it is apparent your actual criteria has a "except if it's called Palestine" suffix.
Your argument is self-defeating and, if anything, is simply a concession to my argument.
>Can you give me three other examples of states where their existence is similar to the existence of "Palestine"? How is Palestine not a snowflake here? And if it is, why? What in your mind does the "existence of a state" mean exactly? What is your reference?
What does "snowflake" mean in this context exactly?
Palestine fulfills all requirements for statehood.
>Please answer my question about the State of Palestine pre 1967. Did that state exist before 1967? Did it exist e.g. in the 1970's or the 80's? Did it meet the same criteria? What has changed?
>Please expand on why you think a State of Palestine existed before 1948 and Israel.
>What was the timeline for recognition of the State of Palestine by those 80% countries you're so happy to enlist in your support. What's different about the conditions before and after that timeline? What is the international law basis for the existence of the Palestinian Authority?
Use google. The answer to these questions are still irrelevant given Palestine fulfills the criteria previously stated, as far as I can tell you conceded given your refusal to address the fact Palestine fulfills the requirements and you choose to instead deflect to numerous other questions whose answers don't disqualify from statehood.
"timeline for recognition of the State of Palestine by those 80% countries you're so happy to enlist in your support."
I guess you also have total snarling contempt for 80% of the world too. It is a shame your biases cloud your reasoning so much.
The simple fact is Palestine fulfills all requirements.
Repeating "Countries are only saying this due to money and pressure" is a nonsensical rebuttal based on no evidence and just reads as a cope to justify pretending something doesn't exist when it clearly does.
Under its own rules and its own interpretation of Gaza governance. That doesn't make it some sort of legal or practical reality - I can make up a set of rules under which I'm the world leader, but it would have no effect.
> It definitely does exist.
This is a bit of a semantic question, but it doesn't really meet the criteria set out in the Montevideo Convention.
> Yes, it joined the ICC in 2015.
Not Hamas, which is the actual government of the territory in question (Gaza). The idea that an entity which never governed a territory, and has never been popular there, can grant a foreign court jurisdiction there is a bit absurd.
What "AI" means for most people is the software product they see, but only a part of it is the underlying machine learning model. Each foundation model receives additional training from thousands of humans, often very lowly paid, and then many prompts are used to fine-tune it all. It's 90% product development, not ML research.
If you look at AI research papers, most of them are by people trying to earn a PhD so they can get a high-paying job. They demonstrate an ability to understand the current generation of AI and tweak it, they create content for their CVs.
There is actual research going on, but it's tiny share of everything, does not look impressive because it's not a product, or a demo, but an experiment.
They pay is conditional. It will fully vest only if Tesla reaches market cap milestones up to $8.5 trillion and operational targets, including delivery of 20 million vehicles, 1 million humanoid robots, 1 million robotaxis, 10 million active Full Self-Driving (FSD) subscriptions. and $400bn in adjusted core earnings.
So witch way it is?
A) Tesla will easily reach all those robot milestones. Musk's pay package is unearned.
B) That robot dream is delusional and if Musk pulls a rabbit from a hat, he deserves his $1 trillion.
Tranche size is $500 billion. The first tranche milestone is $2 trillion, and the last tranche milestone is $8.5 trillion (total 12 tranches) Each tranche, other than the last two, requires an additional $500 billion increase in market capitalization. Each of the last two tranches requires an additional $1 trillion increase in market capitalization.
To hit the first market cap milestone he must increase Tesla market cap 34% matched to revenue-based operational milestone or Adjusted EBITDA-based operational milestone.
I see: The first tranche requires him to achieve a P/E ratio of about 400 if the other graphs stay flat, or maybe 500 with some decline. I've heard of higher P/E ratios in growing companies, but that's a real challenge for a stable or even declining company… it ought to keep him busy.
I'm sure spies also operate on platforms like OnlyFans and can extract secrets even without physical interaction.
The number of lonely male tech workers who engage in parasocial relationships online is not insignificant. Twenty years ago, I never would have believed that people would pay money just for some written or verbal acknowledgment from someone on the internet. Attractive female whom men "support" for an illusory relationship can milk thousands from some people.
Getting security clearances after background check shows payments of this type is probably difficult.
What's worse or maybe even more sad, is that these accounts hire people, sometimes men and women, to pretend and interact with "fans". The one paying the money is not even talking to the actual person, and I think this is happening to both men and women, there's a lot of lonely people on both sides out there
>Getting security clearances after background check shows payments of this type is probably difficult.
I don't think so. Ordinary background checks do not get into details of your spending, unless your spending indicates a clear dysfunction or financially compromised state. If they had to block any man who ever gave too much money to a woman he shouldn't have, it would probably rule out half of the men out there. In the best case you could find out from the guy's family or friends that he is a sucker and makes terrible decisions, but I doubt these guys consistently tell anybody what they are doing.
What is it on the Internet with calling women 'females'? I'd understand if you had written 'males' and 'females' OR 'men' and 'women'. This indicates an attempt at objectification to me.
Many people speaking in English are not native speakers, even when they communicate fluently - such as yours truly.
I use "Males" or "Men", and "Females" or "Women" interchangeably. This is the first time I see anyone indicating there is a connotation for objectification there.
> This is the first time I see anyone indicating there is a connotation for objectification there.
Happens to all of us, we are all inside our small information bubbles. The curious engage in broader conversation, such as us on HN.
Let me drop some links to illustrate that this is not just my personal (mis-) understanding:
- "Female, woman: Revised guidance noting that some people object to the use of female as a descriptor for women because it can be seen as emphasizing biology and reproductive capacity over gender identity. It can also sometimes carry misogynistic tones that may vary in severity by race, class and other factors." AP Stylebook recommends female as adjective, women as noun (https://help.apstylebook.com/support/solutions/articles/6600...)
- "Overall, participants rated the words females/males as more biological and technical, and women/men as higher on all other dimensions (e.g., appropriate, polite, warm)" (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36348255/)
I don't ascribe to everything written here, but I think it makes clear that wider discourse on the topic exists. Especially when using female(s) as a noun.
> Female, woman: Revised guidance noting that some people object to the use of female as a descriptor for women because it can be seen as emphasizing biology and reproductive capacity over gender identity.
This reads as using "male" and "female" is more precise? Communication many times is about being precise no?
Gender identity is typically irrelevant and in many ways too personal.
> What is it on the Internet with calling women 'females'? I'd understand if you had written 'males' and 'females' OR 'men' and 'women'. This indicates an attempt at objectification to me.
It's probably the new concept of treating "gender" as distinct from sex, and the attempt to claim terms like "man" and "woman" and make them ambiguous with regards to sex. So some people who want to be specific increasingly use sex terms like "male" and "female" instead.
Male and female are preferred terms because they are objective and emotionally neutral while avoiding the sexism of misusing the word "man" to mean male human.
I'm not here to spark a debate or anything. just wanted to share a quick note on etymology since you mentioned "sexism", and I'll bow out after this. You do you!
Historically, "man" comes from Old English "mann," which originally meant "human being" or "person" in a gender-neutral way, without specifying male or female. Back then, the word for a male human was actually "wer" (like in "werewolf"), and for female, it was "wif" (as in "wife"). Over time, "man" shifted to primarily mean "male," but terms like "mankind" hung onto that older, inclusive sense.
So, using "man" in the "mankind" context isn't really a misuse or inherently sexist: it's tapping into the word's original roots. That said, I get why folks prefer "male" and "female" for clarity today. Peace!
I personally like 'man' as it had a poetic ring to me. I also think it makes sense to pay attention to the differing perception of language, as I want to be able to communicate effectively with all kinds of people.
>‘Tesla Dilemma’: Elon Musk is destroying Tesla’s profitable car business, but at the current valuation, his lies about self-driving and robots is what is keeping the stock alive.
It's crazy and nuts but it makes sense. The choice is between keeping hype alive and delaying doom or doom now.
Tesla
P/E: 254
PEG: 116
For a car company with $1.46T market cap and modest revenue growth in last 12 quarters (3 years) those numbers are ridiculous.
Populism: the idea of the "common people" in opposition to a perceived elite. Frequently associated with anti-establishment and anti-political sentiment.
Yes. The funny thing to me is that Plato, who did much early and deep thinking in this area captured in his Republic, contrasted the democratically elected populist demagogue with the Philosopher-King.
They describe a scenario that can include greater wealth and plenty by our wealthiest despite a smaller relative percentage of a much larger and more dynamic economy.
Don't bring elites into every discussion. Inequality causes problems, it's not directly relevant to every thing, like this discussion. Populism is the insanity of the masses.
An increase in populism is a direct result of higher inequality. When people experiences a fair system, populism is rejected. When people lives in an unjust society populist will offer easy but false solutions to problems.
> Populism is the insanity of the masses.
Populism is taking advantage of unhappy masses. Masses are unhappy for real economic reasons.
> An increase in populism is a direct result of higher inequality.
Generally considered false by most social scientists, definitely oversimplification. Inequality is a contributing factor to the rise of populism, but it is not a direct or sole cause.
For example, Trump voters are better off economically compared with most Americans.
Some recent research:
Mutz, D. (2018). Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1718155115
They are utterly critical to the discussion of political and economic power, and who shapes public discourse.
We aren't talking about spherical cows, here. Ignoring their existence and influence is like ignoring that people need to eat, or that 95% of the mass media you consumed is owned by a monoculture.
As many of the owners are billionaires or close to it, it's no surprise that it's mostly empty. Most of them don't live in NYC; they just don't want to live in a five star hotel while visiting.
Chinese, Russian, and Gulf billionaires buy them to serve as emergency assets. Losing some value doesn't matter to them as long as they have a few hundred million dollars stashed away in NYC, London, Geneva as physical property.
It’s also an example of the "spatial fix," where global capital parks itself in real estate as a safe asset rather than in the local economy. Basically turning urban housing into a storage vehicle for surplus wealth instead of a place for people to live.
We already have this in the Netherlands. In order to deter squatters you can hire a student to live in your property.
You can kick them out on short notice.
And you should not. Hyping real estate prices or just putting massive real estate to disuse and often pricing the locals out is a big problem but so is losing a property to squatting. Such things don’t always involve millionaires and billionaires.
Devils advocate: is it really such a problem? Perhaps it should be banned simply on moralistic grounds.
But I fail to see how a hundred or so buildings sold to millionaires and billionaires numbering in the thousands has any affect at all in a city with 20 million people.
Again, surely it’s not the best nor most democratic thing that these buildings exist at all.
But I don’t see how it can impact the bread and butter real estate and rental market. Surely this is caused by the city’s numerous bad housing policies like rent control, zoning, public transportation, education.
I disagree. We should encourage this. It's the best form of export: you sell a good, but the good stays in place. It also collects taxes, taxes that are used for the benefit of the local population, without those who pays those taxes consuming a lot of local government services. On the rare occasions that these billionaires visit their luxury residence, they inject plenty of cash in the local economy. Why would you want to eliminate this?
Paying an entity for building a useless empty building, so that they can build another useless empty building... All as a kind of wealth insurance scheme for a rich person who has reason to think their assets might not be safe in their home country (because they were obtained in corrupt or illegal ways?).
> Why would you want to eliminate this?
Because I believe we can do better than living off the scraps of the obscenely wealthy.
Regardless, given the scarcity of housing space in NYC, I’d expect that if more of it is used as a store of wealth, housing prices will generally increase.
Are you suggesting that, in practice, the currently levied taxes prevent this?
There is no scarcity of housing space in NYC. NYC is a very large city. About 80% of it is low rises. If you want to increase the housing supply, you an do just that: you approve more building permits. 10 or 20 or even 50 sky scrappers will not change the availability of land in NYC.
Yes, and the current zoning / city council / NIMBYism death triangle means most development is poorly located.
In expensive parts of Northwest Brooklyn & Queens, the waterfront which is a 15 minute walk to the subway was zoned to put up a ton of 40+ story residential towers. It's far enough away that many of them run private shuttle busses to the subway.
Meanwhile the subway station (Bedford Ave particularly) that you walk to from said waterfront is surrounded by 3-4 story buildings.. as is most of the walk there.
The difference is there were already people in those 3-4 story buildings to show up to city council meetings & whine about any zoning changes, unlike the previously industrial water front.
>Device loss scenarios
>Users are largely unsure about the implications for their passkeys if they lose or break their device, as it seems their device holds the entire capability to authenticate. To trust passkeys as a replacement for the password, users need to be prepared and know what to do in the event of losing one – or all – of their devices.
>Backing up and synchronising passkeys with a Credential Manager makes it easier to recover access to them compared to other existing second factor options. However, this relies on the user having prepared their Credential Manager account for recovery. Users need help in understanding and implementing the right steps so they can feel ready to go passwordless and use passkeys without extra worry and hassle.
reply