unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov @ unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov @lemmy.sdf.org

Posts

0

Comments

282

Joined

2 yr. ago

Everyone wants your phone number now because it's a decent approach to combating spammers. Note that I said decent, not perfect. It's relatively easy for a company to determine if a phone number is owned by a specific person vs. a voip company that enables spammers to use hundreds of new numbers, so now we're asking everyone for theirs. SMS is also used for the lowest form of multi factor authentication, so they get to claim that it's a security decision, not one for marketing, etc and because of network effects, we all have to choose to either go along or miss out.

Agree that it's super annoying and certainly not privacy-centric, but Discord is owned by Microsoft, what can we expect? Innovation?

I'm not an expert, but I have family that operates within this industry, unaffiliated with the ugly homes organization.

Tl;dr The idea is that these companies buy homes that have fallen into a state of disrepair, fix them up so that they comply with modern building safety regulations, slap on a new coat of paint, then sell the property for a profit.

Since they don't fully investigate the issues that the home has before making an offer, they make offers that are wildly lower than most valuations would indicate, which leads to the reputation of being scammy. Sometimes there are structural issues that are extremely expensive to resolve and the project is barely profitable, but in other instances there is little repair work required, and they make a big profit. Lowballing every offer ensures that they can't lose, but also means that this is rarely a good option unless you are in serious financial straits.

So if the polls show overwhelming support for Democrats and the Democratic platform, you think that those politicians would then start passing conservative policies? I'm sorry, I simply don't follow. What would be their incentive to enact policies that are out of step with their own platform?

The only reason the center gets courted is because those are the voters who can be convinced to come out and vote on issues where some middle ground exists. If the progressive base fails to vote for the best candidate, which will typically be a Democrat, then the only choice that a Democrat has to gain enough votes to get elected is to shift to the right, towards the voters who are possible to sway.

The modern Republican strategy is to activate as much of their base as possible and get them angry enough to go to the polls and vote. This has been successful in some areas and less so in others, but it was a signal to the Dems that the middle was up for grabs, which is why a lot of our politics have shifted to the right.

The only path available to combat this change is to match the furvor on the left. In a republic like the US, the best case scenario is landing somewhere in the middle. It's the theory our system of government rests upon. That theory fails when people disengage from the process.

It seems like you have strong convictions about how things should work around here. This is a great first step. We have a limited ability to express those views by voting, but keep in mind that politicians want to stay in power, so if you go to events, call their office, or send them an email about how to earn your vote, they'll pay attention. They might not do exactly what you say, but your voice will be heard and that becomes a factor in policymaking. If you disengage completely, then they have no choice but to hear the voices that remain, which are generally conservative these days.

You feel disenfranchised by Democrats so you've concluded that it would be most politically expedient to disengage from the entire process?

Don't get me wrong, I follow your reasoning, and certainly see where you're coming from, but this is precisely the kind of reasoning that politicians pay attention to when deciding whose interests to cater to. If the average progressive-leaning voter refuses to show up at the polls anytime that policymaking doesn't exactly match up with expectations or a best case scenario, but the political donor class shows up to your fundraiser every year with a big ol' check and a promise to vote, whose interests are going to receive the most discussion?

How will withholding your vote make anything better? If it won't, why do you waste your time writing about it on the internet?

This is spot on. Source: 10+ years at F500 companies.

Senior management and/or board members read one article in Forbes, or some other "business" publication, and think that they know everything they need to know about an emerging technology. Risk management is either a ☑ exercise or extremely limited in scope, usually only including threats that have already been observed and addressed in the past.

Not enough people understand the limitations of this kind of tech, and contextualize it in the same frame as outsourcing because as long as the output mostly looks correct, the decision makers can push the blame for any issues down to the middle managers and below.

Gonna be a wild time!

It Takes Two is a masterpiece for co-op gameplay and is great for casual gameplay. A Way Out was made by the same studio before It Takes Two and it's easy to see where they were able to improve on the experience, but it's also a great game for local co-op.