These scams are effective because of a thing called Amygdala hijack which
“is an emotional response that is immediate, overwhelming, and out of measure with the actual stimulus because it has triggered a much more significant emotional threat.”
You can get any human to do dumb things if you can by-pass their logical brain and have them work off the lizard brain.
I can see a future where the Internet is completely run by bots and AI to the point where no human actually uses the Internet anymore.
It’s like an island that gets overrun with rats - there are just too many to deal with so you leave.
It sets both the technical requirements and recommended best practices for determining the validity of methods used to authenticate digital identities online. Organizations that interact with the federal government online are required to be in compliance
My argument is that if this document (and others) are requirements for companies shouldn’t there also be a more approachable document for people to use?
Sure, have the jargon filled document that those in the know can access, but without an additional not so jargon-y document you’ve just added a barrier to change. Maybe just an abstract of the rule changes on the front page without the jargon?
I don’t know, maybe it’s not a big deal to compliance officers but just seems to me (someone that isn’t a compliance officer) that obfuscating the required changes behind jargon and acronyms is going to slow adoption of the changes.
I also choose this man’s dead wife.
from the site: “Discover a world of immersive and customizable soundscapes that can enhance focus, relaxation, and sleep. Choose from noise generators, nature sounds and ambient music to create your perfect audio environment.”
This is what fucked Bernie Madoff.
If this person had gone to VC’s with a pitch for ‘AI listening model’ with the explanation that “Now musicians can up load their songs to streaming services and AI will listen to make sure their pitch and tonality is accurate and that the beat is correct.” or some bullshit like that. Then it would have been ‘legal’
True. But the people advocating for these laws don’t want to deal with nuance and compromise on what it would take to have a society where you educate people on sex in a healthy and positive way. These prohibitionists see the world as either bad or good - nothing in between. Good (how ever they decide to define it) must win no compromises, and the weapon that they use is unfounded fear of the bad and it works.
And the reason fear works is because it is easy and visceral and reality’s complexity doesn’t work for media’s need for sound bites.
At least nothing like this happens in the airline industry
but now we have a scapegoat
If I’m having a conversation with someone and they start looking at their phone while I’m talking, I just stop talking and stare at them. More than a few times I’ve been told “keep going I’m listening” I don’t, I just let them finish and only start talking again when the set the phone down.
It’s very passive aggressive but it does make the other person feel a bit uncomfortable.
Yep. I think “The Road” by Cormack McCarthy is probably the closest to what a post-apocalyptic world would look like and that shit is bleak.
The few wealthy people I’ve met, not billionaires but $100+ millionaires, seem to have a limited skill set. They have “people” to do the work. I’ve always wondered how they would fair in a post-apocalyptic world?
Personally I’d rather have those people that can MacGuyver a solution out of rubber bands and mud.
All this to say that ol’ Zuck should probably hire some good ol’ boys/girls to do his work for him or he’s screwed.
Yes. Corporate welfare is good for the country, human welfare is bad. /s
They of course use these 2% to justify vilifying the rest though.
This is the method that is used to justify cutting welfare benefits for poor people.
Negative motivation is the real way to make changes.
It’s great to have goals and positive things to look forward to when you reach those goals.
But to be consistent in doing the hard work to reach that goal it’s better to scare the shit out of your self by asking
“what happens to me if I don’t do the work?”
Yes. Your explanation used proper English and punctuation. As for whether p == np or p != np I don’t know.
… or maybe customers don’t have much of a choice ?