I'm black and have the same observation, I currently live in Portland and everyone here seems to use Venmo, but when I was home during the fourth of July weekend back in Brooklyn everyone used Cash.
On the one hand I'm not entirely sure why you're getting downvoted. On the other hand I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to make. If it's just casual racial stereotyping then I guess that accounts for the downvotes. But I thought you may have a broader point about the meaning of trust in ethnic/racial communities in there somewhere, it's unclear.
Why is it racial stereotyping that different communities would use different apps? As an external observer, it sometimes seems to me that one can't mention race in the US without inviting the allusion of racism.
It was meant to seed the latter discussion you mention. I am not privy to square or venmo marketing practices, but clearly that or some oddity about specific terms each app has results in such a measurable divide.
EDIT: for example this divide doesn't exist afaik for uber/lyft
You're talking about a step waaay further along in the process. I'm not currently looking for a job, and my linkedin profile says as much. Despite this, I still get so many recruiters asking to add themselves to my network that I ended up blocking those notifications from linkedin entirely, which probably has resulted in me missing non-spam requests from people I actually would want to connect with. I'm not going to waste my time responding to spam.
China's problem has always been how to maintain control through the ebb and flows of history. When centralized governments fail in China, they fail HARD. (This in no way is a moral defense of what they do.)
With mounting economic pressure from internal growth slowing down and n-times-burned global trading partners, the current regime is up against the wall. The one BIG difference this time is that AI has such effective policing effectiveness. Previously marshaling paramilitaries and corralling local warlords were the (hard to scale) tools available. They were not the best tools, because when the central govt fails, the empowered local forces have enough strength to wreak havoc.
AI is so powerful in China because AI is mostly bound by dataset size (at our current stage of research). And if there's one thing that's cheap for the CCP to get, it's training data.
If there's a time for dynasty building, it is now. The CCP may be the most resilient thanks to AI.
> To approach a dog politely, instead of walking straight towards the dog in our very human direct way, you could walk in a slight curve. On approach, turning your shoulder away ever so slightly can put a dog at ease and is polite.
This is an interesting suggestion given that in my experience, dogs do not exhibit curving towards humans. Dogs that make eye contact with me, usually make a beeline towards me regardless of their leash condition. It seems like dogs have learned that humans do not curve and approach directly.
This is probably similar tho how dogs can read human facial expressions even better than they can read dog expressions.
I would not be surprised if most dogs are socialized to humans (vs they need to be socialized with other dogs)
my dog does that too, beelines toward people, even those on bikes and scooters (sigh). she's conditioned to think she'll get pets and maybe a treat from people.
on the flipside, people who dislike or fear dogs tend to try to (nervously) walk around her (she's all of 16 lbs, but friendly and vivacious). she finds that behavior either curious or suspicious, and in both cases, she'll go directly toward you to investigate.
for people who dislike/fear dogs, the best thing to do when facing a dog out-and-about is to ignore them completely, as if they weren't even there (especially no eye contact), but human instincts defy us there too.
Humans being bipedal and "vertical" might have something to do with it too, if the idea is to signal oneself as not being "head-on" it might not be so intuitive with a human, whose "front" (including the face) is always looking at the dog from above, and whose side is not that distinctive.
I've also seen this, but in addition—and also contrary to what the article says about curving being polite—from anecdotal examples in a lot of dogs, I'd equate curving with recognition/familiarity.
If I meet a dog I know well on the street after a long absence, the dog will beeline (not immediately recognising me, but just liking to engage with humans in general), and then after being stopped in their tracks upon recognising me, immediately begin curving.
Unfortunately the review doesn't address this but there are multiple factors that can explain this while keeping the mutation rate of language the same.
It may be hard to separate the 3 factors that come to mind:
1. higher volume of communication. (more people than ever write/read more than ever)
2. lower bar for observable/written down communication. (anybody can write publicly/permanently)
3. faster transmission of previously local slang. (more groups that previously would have kept their slang to themselves are interacting than ever, e.g. your non black friends ruining the word "ratchet" before 2014 ended)
and by slang here, I mean both verbal and grammatical
Earlier histories of communication changes, particularly JoAnne Yates, but also James Beniger and Elizabeth Eisenstein, note (along with societal impacts) the stylistic shifts in writing precipitated by technological changes.
Telegraphy promoted telegraphic style, typography promoted cliche and stereotype, the press itself both vernacular and literacy, along with notions of authorship as opposed to (classical) authority.
All the factors you mention are true of course, but I'm not sure any of them really explain it. In my mind the Internet is something like a skate park for language, where you have this global infrastructure for developing, rewarding, and disseminating new tricks.
Just increasing the volume of people writing books and letters doesn't get you K5 or 4chan.
New tricks? I feel like in the past, everyone had language tricks. Speaking in fun ways, clever one liners and turns of phrase of the type Mark Twain or Churchill would employ were commonplace. People didn’t have videogames, facebook and other stuff to amuse themselves, or express themselves through. They found ways to do it through language.
Just pick up any book that captures how people spoke in the 19th and first part of the 20th century. Language was sport.
The written word is only part of it.for example, the self imposed constraints of the twitter can increase the need to pack more into one message coupled with the ability to add an image creates weird selective pressures on language.
> Our study was not designed to identify the cause of the
observed differences in energy intake.
Would be great to see a factor breakdown (obviously hard). I can see several reasons why processed food leads to this result: chemically better tasting (optimal flavor blast + salt/falt), mentally better tasting (i.e. comfort food), or some deeper gut reasons?
because this then sets the agenda for how we fix this problem.
i would have liked this for pokemon go. i started scripting the week it came out and then was banned in the 2nd or 3rd ban wave. but i would have liked to continue playing against other scripters
A significant part of Niantic's servers were overloaded with bot requests at that time, which caused massive lag for everyone. Banning was their only option.
the energy system, it is almost impossible not to periodically end energy and have to grind at inns to continue playing as everything needs energy in the game.
In comparison in PoGO if you finish one category of scarce items you still have many part of the game you can play in (e.g. with no pokéball you can still fight in gym and raids)
1. without more context about who the professor is targeting his tirade at and which company C levels he's actually talking, it's hard to evaluate this
2. will there be shrinking in the middle band of SAP/Infosys companies where work has already been proven to be fungible (by their h1b shenanigans) in the near future? probably. does this sort of pressure exist in the middle band of any profession? yes (even if the AMA is fighting tooth and nail to artificially limit supply in the case with MDs)
3. is AI mostly a hype-add to boost valuation? yes. but does a lot of it work and generate real revenue? yes. almost by definition the more valued something is, the more likely it is overvalued. I fear this professor hasn't seen most of the unsexy AI work. where 90% of the value may come from the actual AI work, but 90% of the work is on the infra around it.
This article holds up to my observation that black people use cash app and white people use venmo.