71–80 of 131 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if (shooter == muslim) return "terrorist"; else return "mental problem";
multiple return statements should be avoided. It makes the code harder to read. One entry, one exit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would suggest you take a hiatus from watching the news. Go outside and you will find that everything isn't as bad as you think.
Outside of me (NYC) there's homelessness and pollution. I guess that's not so bad? Also, it's not that I think things are bad, it's that I think the increasing concentration of wealth is resulting in increased potential for some event. What event? I don't know, but I doubt it'll be good.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same result. People will get pissed off when they get categorized in a way they don't like, resulting in less money.
What YouTube needs are editors. Editors get to tell people that their content is garbage or great. The problem with social media is that they don't have people telling the public that their ideas are crap, so everyone thinks they're important.
Editors don't scale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's no "gun control" question, she was already in the most restrictive anti gun state.
the fact that she can get a gun from any other state makes it a question. gun control laws work when you can't just super easily go to another state to get a gun, the proof being in the much lower number if gun crimes in every other industrialized country where the gun laws are tight in the whole country. That's pretty much every single other industrialized country.
Were the premise of your comment true, those other states should be the ones with outlandish murder rates. We have guns, we don't abuse guns; what's up with the high-gun-control areas being so prone to such violence that when guns are available they're so readily abused?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would suggest you take a hiatus from watching the news. Go outside and you will find that everything isn't as bad as you think.
Outside of me (NYC) there's homelessness and pollution. I guess that's not so bad? Also, it's not that I think things are bad, it's that I think the increasing concentration of wealth is resulting in increased potential for some event. What event? I don't know, but I doubt it'll be good.
That said, you live in NYC, and so for you the homeless rate has gone WAY up over the last year, to around 4000 people from just 2800 or so last year.
Yet another licensed and legal weapon.
In the spectrum from full rights to all weapons, to absolute gun control, allowing access to these handguns (where most wounds are survivable, there is less range, and lower magazine capacity) but restricting assault rifles (high muzzle velocities create injuries that are nearly impossible to survive, high magazine count, sometimes higher discharge rate) seems like a reasonable point to draw the line, and also complies with existing case law around the second amendment.
This would have been much, much worse with an AR15 type weapon, with likely far more deaths.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of it. It's where nearly all their revenue comes from. There's no remaining business without the ad sales.
First of all, YouTube doesn't make money. Secondly, there are two sides to this equation. The advertisers aren't paying for ads as charity to Google. They want the billions of views that YouTube gets every day. While I don't know the exact statistics, YouTube definitely seems to be growing in influence where people who are popular on the platform are legitimate celebrities. Advertisers would be foolish to not try to…
Okay, there was no second-of-all...
Yet another licensed and legal weapon.
99.9% of people obtaining a weapon legally don't use it to commit atrocities, but for entertainment. Why should the majority suffer the consequences from the tiny minority of unstable individuals?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All of it. It's where nearly all their revenue comes from. There's no remaining business without the ad sales.
First of all, YouTube doesn't make money. Secondly, there are two sides to this equation. The advertisers aren't paying for ads as charity to Google. They want the billions of views that YouTube gets every day. While I don't know the exact statistics, YouTube definitely seems to be growing in influence where people who are popular on the platform are legitimate celebrities. Advertisers would be foolish to not try to…
In fact, in each of the filings for 2016 & 2017 the revenue they report is an amalgamation of products that consist of search, ads, commerce, maps, youtube, google cloud, android, chrome, and google play[1][2].
[1] => https://abc.xyz/investor/pdf/20170331_alphabet_10Q.pdf pg 30
[2] => https://abc.xyz/investor/pdf/20160331_alphabet_10Q.pdf pg 28
Beyond the censorship issues & lawsuits, Google regularly gets a pass when their crummy policies negatively impact people. While it is horrible that some were hurt in the process, I wonder if this will make Google start approaching their huge amounts of power with some civility.
Secondly, how negatively effected? They stopped paying her for her content. So what. If you buy a Google phone, does google have a right to expect you will buy the next model, and if you don’t you are ‘negatively affecting’ them?
The amount of first world entitlement in this and many other comments here is appalling.