Someday I’ll stop feeding the trolls, but apparently today is not that day.

Alright, first up, do a quick Google for anecdotal fallacy and consider whether you may have inadvertently fallen into that.

Second, you seem to simultaneously be arguing that the government is somehow omnipotent and impotent at the same time - which is it? Either the government is carefully manipulating the economy to hit the numbers we’re controlling for or they don’t have a clue how to calculate inflation but I can’t see how they could do both simultaneously.

Third - calculating inflation - how do you think we should be doing it? You state that the government is pretending it is lower than a true reflection of reality but don’t seem to have a perspective on why that is. At one point you’re suggesting that it’s high because fast food prices went up, then you go on to say that things would be better if we measured it like we did 35 years ago. What are you proposing, exactly, and how would your proposal leave us better off?

Let’s say for a moment that I agree with you and the “official numbers” are bullshit. How, exactly, would you like policymakers to make decisions if they have no data upon which to base their decision? Should we expect our leaders to simply rely on their gut instinct?

Not going to comment on crime stats, but I can’t stop myself from asking about, “They change the inflation numbers so inflation stays down.” what do you mean by this? Do you think that the BLS publishes an inflation figure and the entire market economy shifts to conform to that number? I simply can’t.

Regarding housing - yes, we don’t have enough of it. This is something people are running into all around the world and it isn’t unique to the US. I’m certainly not suggesting that it isn’t something worthy of being addressed, but what does it have to do with the Washington Post?

Not at all, I don’t know you, but I’m fairly certain you could understand it if you took the time to. The point I am making is that there is a disconnect between the way that policymakers view the economy (robust and steady growth) and the way that journalists have been reporting on it (doom, gloom, impending disaster).

I retrospect, my initial argument was fairly tinfoil hat. Another explanation could be that fear and anger brings eyeballs and since WaPo, in addition to many other legacy outlets that still regularly print on physical paper, is effectively underwater from a business standpoint, the editor may feel that sensational headlines are important for growth. Their new CEO has pedigree as a Murdoch crony, and this tactic is in line with the way that outlets on the far right have gotten engagement, so it isn’t difficult to imagine mandating a similar strategy.

As the OP explained in their piece, “major metrics” are showing the opposite of what you, and outlets such as WaPo, are suggesting. We have seen several “major metrics” trending in a positive direction such as real wage growth and unprecedented levels of employment. Sure, the economy isn’t perfect for everyone, but where we’ve identified gaps, in some cases thoughtful policies, such as income-driven repayment plans for student loans, have been introduced.

Yes, housing costs are too high. This is ubiquitous throughout the developed world. Yes, too much wealth has been redistributed to the ultra-wealthy, and this has detrimental effects throughout the economy. But to suggest that, “the economy is tanking”, without providing any argument to support it other than “major metrics” doesn’t resonate with me at all.

How surprised should we be, really, when a media outlet owned and operated by one of the richest people in the world is advancing the narrative that the existing status quo is detrimental to the average person during an election year?

To be clear, an individual’s anecdotal experience in the economy will not match up perfectly with the data. Yes - the prices for food and housing have increased faster than we would have liked. However, policymakers are only able to account for a small adjustment in policy recommendations based on anecdotes.

At the national level - in Congress or at the Federal Reserve - large volumes of data are necessarily collected and analyzed to create an aggregate picture of the economy. Individual policymakers are encouraged to argue about the best or most accurate measures to use, and different leaders will point to different measures as evidence to support their proposals, but ultimately these are the drivers of economic policy.

While yes, I would support prices returning to 2019 levels, I’ve studied enough history to understand that this is not the nature of a market economy. We can stand around all day bemoaning the state of things or we can accept the situation as it is provided to us and figure out the path forward.

I see the types of articles highlighted by OP as bad-faith reporting on the economy with the goal of increasing pessimism about the economy more broadly, riling up our Keynesian Animal Spirits to expect bad outcomes, rather than pointing out the good policy measures and reasons for optimism like the OP did.

Since we’re telling people to Google things, try “anecdotal fallacy” and let us know if it helps you to understand the source of the downvotes.

The OP is about survey data that directly contradicts your position. It’s fantastic that you’ve found a position where you have work/life balance that works so well for you, but it simply doesn’t match the experience of many commenting in this thread or those who were surveyed.

Be as obstinate as you like, it won’t change the lived experiences of others in the industry.

Is there any chance you’re at a kbbq or hotpot restaurant? Because then you get to cook the meal yourself, which is arguably chef-like.

Jokes aside, I see the comparison you’re making and it’s not a bad one. I’d counter by giving the example of a menu - when you get to a restaurant you’re given a menu with text descriptions of the food you can receive from the kitchen. Since this is an analogy and not an exact comparison, let’s say that a meal on the menu is like the starting point of the workflow I described.

Based on that you have an idea of what the output will be when you order - but let’s say you don’t like mushrooms and you prefer your sauce on the side. When you make your order you provide those modifications - this is like inpainting.

Certainly you’re not a ‘chef’, but if the dish you design is both bespoke and previously unimaginable, I’d argue that at the very least you contributed to the creative process and participated in creating something new that matches your internal vision.

Not exactly the same but I don’t think it’s entirely different.

Not OP but familiar enough with open source diffusion image generators to be able to chime in.

Now I’d argue that being an artist comes down to being able to envision something in your mind’s eye and then reproduce it in the real world using some medium, whether it’s a graphite pencil, oil paint, a block of marble, Wacom tablet on a pc, or even through a negotiation with an AI model. Your definition might be different, but for the sake of conversation this is how I’m thinking about it.

The work flow for an AI generated image can have a few steps before feeling like it sufficiently aligns with your vision. Prompting for specific details can be tricky, so usually step 1 is to generate the basic outline of the image you’re after. Depending on your GPU or cloud service, this could take several minutes or hours before you get a basis that you can work with. Once you have the basic image, you can then use inpainting tools to mask specific areas of the image and change specific details, colors, etc. This again can take many many generations before you land on something that sufficiently matches your vision.

This is all also after you go through the process of reviewing and selecting one of the hundreds of models that have been trained specifically for different types of output. Want to generate anime-style art? There’s a model for that, want something great at landscapes? There’s a different one for that. Surely you can use an all-purpose model for everything, but some models simply don’t have the training to align to your vision, so you either choose to live with ‘close enough’ or you start downloading new options, comparing them with your existing work flow, etc.

There’s certainly skill associated with the current state of image generation. Perhaps not the same level of practice you need to perfectly represent a transparent veil in graphite, but as with other formats I have a hard time suggesting that when someone represents their vision in the real world that it’s automatically “not art”.

It sounds like someone got ahold of a 6 year old copy of Google’s risk register. Based on my reading of the article it sounds like Google has a robust process for identifying, prioritizing, and resolving risks that are identified internally. This is not only necessary for an organization their size, but is also indicative of a risk culture that incentivizes self reporting risks.

In contrast, I’d point to an organization like Boeing, which has recently been shown to have provided incentives to the opposite effect - prioritizing throughput over safety.

If the author had found a number of issues that were identified 6+ years ago and were still shown to be persistent within the environment, that might be some cause for alarm. But, per the reporting, it seems that when a bug, misconfiguration, or other type of risk is identified internally, Google takes steps to resolve the issue, and does so at a pace commensurate with the level of risk that the issue creates for the business.

Bottom line, while I have no doubt that the author of this article was well-intentioned, their lack of experience in information security / risk management seems obvious, and ultimately this article poses a number of questions that are shown to have innocuous answers.

Thank you?

It sounds like someone got ahold of a 6 year old copy of Google’s risk register. Based on my reading of the article it sounds like Google has a robust process for identifying, prioritizing, and resolving risks that are identified internally. This is not only necessary for an organization their size, but is also indicative of a risk culture that incentivizes self reporting risks.

In contrast, I’d point to an organization like Boeing, which has recently been shown to have provided incentives to the opposite effect - prioritizing throughput over safety.

If the author had found a number of issues that were identified 6+ years ago and were still shown to be persistent within the environment, that might be some cause for alarm. But, per the reporting, it seems that when a bug, misconfiguration, or other type of risk is identified internally, Google takes steps to resolve the issue, and does so at a pace commensurate with the level of risk that the issue creates for the business.

Bottom line, while I have no doubt that the author of this article was well-intentioned, their lack of experience in information security / risk management seems obvious, and ultimately this article poses a number of questions that are shown to have innocuous answers.

Everything is transient and eventually becomes shitty, sure, but I generally trust them because they’re able to make money just from people using the service. I don’t know how profitable they are, but I am reasonably certain that as the card issuer they get a cut of every transaction. Given that they aren’t issuing physical cards and have no obvious costs other than maintaining their platform, I don’t see a reason not to trust them in the medium term.

I’ve generally had good experiences with Privacy.com. It seems like a decent solution when I want something from a semi-reputable website.

I particularly enjoy the bit where cards are vendor-locked, which has been interesting to observe in a couple of instances where a site seems to have had their credit card db breached and the attackers turn around and try to use the card on another site, where it is inevitably denied, but I still get an email that shows which site got hacked and where the attackers were trying to use the information.

This is a great explanation of how the disinformation machine works, thanks for sharing.

You’re right, it’s not an insurmountable obstacle, I think I was just feeling petulant about seeing another product with a sign next to it saying basically, “you must be this invested in the Apple ecosystem to ride”.

Let’s be real though, it’s already a better option than what Apple is offering for $3500, so I’m sure they will get some traction before being bought out.

Lastly, because you underscored the point I was making, fuck iPhones.

This requires an Apple iPhone XR or newer, as the face scan utilizes the TrueDepth sensor.

Am I wrong in my reading that this hardware product is only available for people who already own and use an iPhone XR or newer? It seemed neat until I got to that bit…

I hear ya, definitely don’t let it put you off from checking out area 15 though, the vibe in there is super cool and worth the visit even without lost spirits IMHO.

Unfortunately yes

Area 15 /Omegamart would be incredible stoned.

Lost Spirits is in the same complex and is closing soon, if you’re going to Las Vegas in the next few weeks it would be hard to recommend it more highly.

This is really just stereotypical Tesla driver behavior. They are far and above the most entitled drivers.

FTFY

I have one of these, and while the switch tech is certainly neat, I haven’t really come up with many good ways to use it.

Their implementation doesn’t seem to support changing resistance or being sensitive to multiple levels of pressure on the key, but one way I do use it is by changing the activation distance for certain keys that I tend to press by mistake when gaming, like caps lock, so that you really need to bottom out the key to activate it. This seems to help a bit but I suspect that if I wanted to get the most out of it, I would probably need to be a much more intense gamer.

For MANY Americans, the US is their whole world. 🤷‍♂️