Easy mistake to make. Also words can not describe my admiration and respect for someone who can leave a comment like this up with a humble edit.
I might double check your math if we split the cheque, but unlike 99% of the people on the internet, I already can tell that I would WANT to have a supper with you.
Special prize for blackout?
A pizza party from 12-12:30, perhaps?
This but unironically
My theory:
A lot of people are hitting mid-life from the first western generation significantly less well-off than their parents. They grew up with expectations set by their environment which they’re now realizing isn’t realistic at all. It’s not really their fault for having those expectations, it was a reality they witnessed with their own eyes.
I think this fairly nebulous anxiety over the disconnect between expectation and reality is the root cause of a lot of various flavours of anti-social behavior. It’s just a roulette spin of who they end up blaming.
Andrew Tate misogyny, MAGA fascism, Xenophobia, Anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, full-on neo nazis etc etc, I think the surprising uptake of these otherwise fringe ideas are just people subconsciously grasping for explanation of why the world (and by extension their lives) “just isn’t right”.
So yah, layer than onto regular mid-life crises, it’s a powder keg.
And I think this is where so much MAGA support comes from. They heavily lean into acknowledgement that things AREN’T good. They’re BAD. You’re NOT CRAZY for thinking they’re FUCKED, and the urgency you feel is APPROPRIATE.
In the US at least, it’s the right offering radical change. It’s fucking idiotic change guaranteed to blow up in your face before the leopards come to chew it off… but goddamnit it’s radical. It at least matches the energy level of the angst. The Dems are offering piecemeal incremental bland realistic changes that while certainly for the better, they won’t rock the boat too hard.
The article (if you’re past the paywall) does seem to point to that. Except it wouldn’t be the wife, but instead fiance.
That agrees with my preconceived biases, for sure.
Beyond that, I think it’s possible that the “sting” of negative reactions, or the perceived lack of positive reactions my possibly shape how people think.
And, you can buy that kind of engagement in bulk if you have money. You can train people to engage in different thought patterns buy buying upvotes (buying them dopamine), that would be my hypothesis.
If that’s true, I think the inherent danger from a sociological standpoint could not possibly be understated.
Causal relationship between social media and degradation of basic critical thinking skills. Not just tiktok, anything in which people are primarily communicating asynchronously and has a “reward” (likes, upvotes, etc)
So Reddit/Lemmy for sure included
This is all predicated on the assumption that people already have a familiarity with organizing their thoughts and intentions in a way that even have a prayer of being understood by a machine.
There are a lot of ways people innately organize their thoughts. Some of them translate much more easily than others to code.
For some people, even step 1 is a hurdle that there are insufficient resources to clear.
He was “too nice” to SNC? That… That is not even a remotely accurate euphemism.
Like, Trudeau isn’t Trump. Not even close. Not even directionally similar. But that’s not at all a reasonable way to describe the scandal.
I want to live in a world where people can eat beyond rice and dried beans within their budget.
It’s 2024. Eating a thin mash of bulk grains like you’re a medieval peasant isn’t a plucky story of resilience. It’s the story of a failed economic policy.
A guy in the mall polled me one time but he just asked me questions like “name something you groom yourself with”
Duh, a bride, obviously.
I realize I didn’t explicitly say that, and that in the politically charged environment it was probably assumed I was shilling R.
I love data sets, that’s all.
Hoover and Roosevelt really drag the averages around.
I didn’t realize that LoRa didn’t care about carrier frequency, that’s for sure the root of my faulty assumption! Thanks for taking the time to explain
I don’t think it’s “just” LoRa on 2.4ghz, because if it were existing lora devices wouldn’t be able to decode the signals off the shelf, as the article claims. From the perspective of the receiver, the messages must “appear” to be in a LoRa band, right?
How do you make a device who’s hardware operates in one frequency band emulate messages in a different band? I think that’s the nature of this research.
And like, we already know how to do that in the general sense. For all intents and purposes, that’s what AM radio does. Just hacking a specific peice of consumer hardware to do it entirely software side becomes the research paper.
Sounds like they basically crafted some special messages such that it’s nonsense at 2.4ghz but smoothes out to a LoRa message on a much much lower frequency band (<ghz).
Juxtaposition of pearl-clutching Puritanism w/ a 21 drinking age against beer available in a 7-11.
Pick a fucking lane
No but I’m all-in on phrenology
Assuming your financial decision making for a purchase of that magnitude isn’t at the “we need to make this decision together” threshold: do it.
He doesn’t HAVE to use it just because you bought/installed it.