That’s my hope. Still from where I live I can only hope my specie contributions are used to affect that.
That’s my hope. Still from where I live I can only hope my specie contributions are used to affect that.
This poll tracking is showing Harris barely ahead on national polls. This millennium, Republicans have won the presidency in 2000, 2004, and 2016.
In 2000 and 2016, the Democratic candidate won the popular vote.
Winning the popular vote doesn’t mean shit. The electoral college is what matters.
That same NYT poll link lists 9 tossup states: Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Georgia, Minnesota, North Carolina, Nevada, and Virginia.
You’ll notice all but the first three are in alphabetical order. That’s because all but the first three don’t have enough polling to make a prediction. Of those first three: a statistical tie in Wisconsin and Michigan with a Trump lead in Pennsylvania.
If you include Kennedy, Harris is ahead by 1% in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania but still tied in Michigan.
National polling trends are going in the direction I want, but they really don’t matter.
I write this from a state whose electoral college votes have never gone for a Democrat in my lifetime and won’t ever before my death. I’ll be voting for Harris, but that vote is one of those national votes that won’t actually help my preferred candidate.
The only way I can help is via monetary donation.
And if you’re a Harris voter in a solidly blue state, your vote means as much fuck all as mine does. Yes, it actually makes it to the electoral college, but, like mine, that’s a forgone conclusion. You should be donating money too and hoping it’s used wisely to affect those swing states.
Under the CMB method, it sounds like the calculation gives the same expansion rate everywhere. Under the Cepheid method, they get a different expansion rate, but it’s the same in every direction. Apparently, this isn’t the first time it’s been seen. What’s new here is that they did the calculation for 1000 Cepheid variable stars. So, they’ve confirmed an already known discrepancy isn’t down to something weird on the few they’ve looked at in the past.
So, the conflict here is likely down to our understanding of ether the CMB or Cepheid variables.
Except it’s not that they are finding the expansion rate is different in some directions. Instead they have two completely different ways of calculating the rate of expansion. One uses the cosmic microwave background radiation left over from the Big Bang. The other uses Cepheid stars.
The problem is that the Cepheid calculation is much higher than the CMB one. Both show the universe is expanding, but both give radically different number for that rate of expansion.
So, it’s not that the expansion’s not spherical. It’s that we fundamentally don’t understand something to be able to nail down what that expansion rate is.
And the article content posted is just an excerpt. The rest of the article focuses on how AI can improve the efficiency of workers, not replace them.
Ideally, you’ve got a learned individual using AI to process data more efficiently, but one that is smart enough to ignore or toss out the crap and knows to carefully review that output with a critical eye. I suspect the reality is that most of those individuals using AI will just pass it along uncritically.
I’m less worried about employees scared of AI and more worried about employees and employers embracing AI without any skepticism.
Thanks. Very interesting. I’m not sure I see such a stark contrast pre/post 9-11. However, the idea that the US public’s approach to the post-9-11 conflict would have an influence makes sense and isn’t something I’d ever have considered on my own.
deleted by creator
Me too, but I’d put Usenet in there before Slashdot.
Because most people aren’t technical enough to understand there are alternatives, particularly if those alternatives involve removing a scary label telling you not to.
Kids these days with their containers and their pipelines and their devops. Back in my day…
Don’t get me started about the internal devs at work. You’ve already got me triggered.
And, I can just imagine the posts they’re making about how the internal IT slows them down and causes issues with the development cycle.
Yep. I’ve hosted my own mail server since the early oughts. One additional hurdle I’d add to you list is rDNS. If you can’t get that set up, you’ll have a hard time reaching many mail servers. Besides port blocking, that’s one of the many reason it’s a non-starter on consumer ISP.
I actually started on a static ISDN line when rDNS wasn’t an issue for running a mail server. Moved to business class dsl, and Ameritech actually delegated rDNS to me for my /29. When I moved to Comcast business, they wouldn’t delegate the rDNS for the IPv4. They did create rDNS entries for me, and they did delegate the rDNS for the IPv6 block. Though the way they deal with the /56 IPv6 block means only the first /64 is useable for rDNS.
But, everything you list has been things I’ve needed to deal with over the years.
Thanks. Based on some of the other answers, particularly in https://sh.itjust.works/comment/12511, I know understand better.
I appreciate everyone helping to explain some pretty basic questions in such detail.
The person isn’t talking about automating being difficult for a hosted website. They’re talking about a third party system that doesn’t give you an easy way to automate, just a web gui for uploading a cert. For example, our WAP interface or our on-premise ERP don’t offer a way to automate. Sure, we could probably create code to automate it and run the risk it breaks after a vendor update. It’s easier to pay for a 12 month cert and do it manually.