And DigitalOcean customer support is non-existent. I had a mail server down and they cut service instead of trying to contact me in any other way. But worse, when they do that, they immediately destroy your data without any possibility to restore. Or at least that's what they told me with their bog standard, garbage support replies. I was a customer for nearly a decade. After it happened, I realized that never would have happened on GCP, AWS, etc. Because they take billing seriously with multiple contact info, a recovery period, etc. All the things a company would be expected to do to maintain good relationships with customers during a billing issue that lasts a few weeks. That was a couple of years ago, so maybe they fixed some stuff. But the complete lack of support and unprofessional B2B practices was an eye opener.
DigitalOcean just absolutely is just not an enterprise solution. Don't trust it with your data.
Oh, and did I mention I had been paying the upcharge for backups the entire time?
None of what you said refutes the fact that genetic diversity is just as different within two people of the same ethnicity as it is between different ethnicities.
You listed a handful of traits from a handful of genes. And from that you make an argument about relative distributions of entire genomes of entire populations. Do you realize the fact that brothers are genetically similar compared to a stranger in no way implies the similarity or difference of entire populations?
Even the traits you mention are just a handful of physical traits. There are about 20,000 protein encoding genes and 180,000 non-encoding. Protein encoding genes code for the structures in our body. The other 180,000 genes code for all kind of dynamics -- the rna that turns genes to proteins, how proteins are expressed in different cells to make them different cells, how relative expression levels change in response to external stimulus, etc. So, the set of genes to consider is clearly all 200,000 genes and not just the 20,000 protein encoding genes much less the handful of protein encoding genes responsible for something like eye color.
Unfortunately for racists but fortunately for the vast majority, the world is a great big melting pot with all the different ethnicities producing all kinds of variety. So much that the blend complexity long ago surpassed any tiny set of visible trait uniformity.
I honestly don't know how so many people fall for these simplistic illogical racist arguments. But it makes me happy to know that racists are about 200,000 years to late to shove the entire human race into tiny little boxes based on physical traits.
> None of what you said refutes the fact that genetic diversity is just as different within two people of the same ethnicity as it is between different ethnicities.
Note, however, that this does not imply there are not significant genetic differences between different ethnicities. Differences that are selected for will be cloaked in a sea of non-significant differences.
Definitely. I'm not saying there aren't average differences. We literally see different physical traits. But physical traits are a minute fraction of all the complexity that is the human genome. And all of those physical traits are always mixing fluidly between and within groups.
My point is, there are clearly wide swaths of genetic traits that we have in common with any other ethnicity compared to what may be the average of a broad distribution. Humans are inherently mosaic.
Personally I believe it's why our species is so resilient. But that's a stronger statement, so just a belief.
Yes, and there are also wide swaths of genetic traits that we have in common with other species. But it would be senseless to propose we're the same as chimpanzees. The point is it doesn't take much in the way of genetic differences, as a fraction of the total genome, to make a very large difference in phenotype.
Well, if the phenotype or trait due to any random gene was the differentiation between race, species, or anything else besides that specific trait, you might have a point in support of OP. But unfortunately for racist ducks there are so many differences, and similarities, that have nothing to do with hair color or height. Any given swath is it's own mosaic of combinations, no matter what we label it.
I read what you wrote there several times and can't make heads or tails of what you're trying to say. Are you claiming genetic differences aren't why species are different? Are you claiming chimps and humans don't share most of their (protein coding) genes? Are you attacking a strawman where you think the people you are attacking are claiming specific single gene differences are why they claim races are genetically different?
I'll add that "racist ducks" is a bad sign there, since arguments about facts don't have anything to do with motivation, and bringing up motivation is an ad hominem argument. "Argue like this and you are a bad person."
I wasn't talking about anything related to your opinions. I was pointing out that Fox had to claim "entertainment" in court for their opinion commentators long before MSNBC. Because you disingenuously implied that MSNBC was somehow the opinion news that had to admit in court their coverage included opinions.
In case you forgot you replied to "It worked for fox news [claiming opinion]" with "And MSNBC in court."
Since you clearly misread or purposely misconstrued my statement, let me rephrase:
"Thank Fox for paving the way for inserting ones opinion in news. Did you not know that Fox had to do it in court first?"
> What exactly would the alternative have been in 2006?
Well, WebDAV (Document Authoring and Versioning) had been around for 8 years when AWS decided they needed a custom API. And what service provider wasn't trying to lock you into a service by providing a custom API (especially pre-GPT) when one existed already? Assuming they made the choice for a business benefit doesn't require anything close to a conspiracy theory.
And it worked as a moat until other companies and open source projects started cloning the API. See also: Microsoft.
When I was in school, we had a SkunkDAV setup that department secretaries were supposed to use to update websites... supporting that was no fun at all. I'm not sure why it was so painful (was 25 years ago) but it left a bad taste in my mouth.
WebDAV is kinda bad, and back then it was a big deal that corporate proxies wouldn't forward custom HTTP methods. You could barely trust PUT to work, let alone PROPFIND.
Nope. I'm still going to blame Google for their own actions. Nice try, though. I'm old enough to remember when Google pretended to take responsibility for not being evil. Even had it as their motto.
Because that would take a minimum amount of effort, nuance, and reasoning, and the result would probably generate less interactions compared to a cheap shot based on vibes.
This isn’t surprising at all. It reminds me of staunch Apple haters who recycle superficial talking points as opposed to Apple nerds who have long lists of very pointed critiques.
What annoys me the most bsky AI hate is the assumption that people who spend a lot of time working with LLMs don’t understand their weaknesses, as if we aren’t constructing systems and evaluations to determine precisely how much AI sucks for our given task.
> Competition is bad? Who cares - let the big players subsidize and compete between each other.
Subsidizing is the opposite of competing. It's literally the practice of underpricing your product to box out competition. If everyone was competing on a level playing field they would all price their products above cost.
All these tech oligarch asshat companies need to be regulated to hell and back.
The moat was already too large for smaller players. Let them subsidize. Take from investors and give to us buying me time to beef up my local stack to run local models.
For many things now you need to go local and in the future if you want any privacy you'll need to go local.
I don't really think he's even gotten that much crazier than his admittedly high 2016 baseline. He has gotten a lot better at execution of said craziness, especially after realizing consequences would be slow and few.
reply