I question your assertion that more commits and releases per week is more productivity. There could be unexpected effects from your commits that create more work for you or for others and that could be hard to quantify.
Doing bad things faster might feel more productive to you, but it doesn’t mean that you are delivering more value. You might be, but the metrics you have shared to not prove that.
When deployed to Deno Deploy, KV is a wrapper around FoundationDB, selected for its use in the distributed/edge environments that Deno operates in. When used locally, it's a wrapper around SQLite.
I think the parent poster is pointing out that there are more ways of discriminating traffic than just a domain name. Such as geographic location, device IDs, etc. All of which are commonly used.
It's not proof of what is being claimed, but they are variables that would need to be controlled before being confident that Douyin is or is not adjusting content to foreign or domestic users.
I did consider that. Traffic discrimination certainly occurs. However, I don't believe it's presence supports the claim in this case.
The original claim is that Douyin promotes "wholesome" educational content, whereas TikTok is manipulating the west with pornography and other depravities.
Anecdotal observations gathered through the web UI of each app, as an anonymous user, were that Douyin presented "pornographic" content, whereas TikTok did not.
The original claim only stands if we accept that ByteDance is:
* Allowing a vast quantity of sexually explicit content to be posted to Douyin.
* Not showing that content to their users in China but only to western users of Douyin, despite being presented entirely in Chinese.
While also:
* Targeting western users of TikTok with pornography and explicit videos.
* Not showing any of that content in their web UI, despite it quickly becoming the entirety of the Douyin one.
I find it hard to believe that this would be the case. A sanitised Douyin and depraved TikTok, or both being depraved, would have supported the idea. The behaviour that was observed runs entirely counter to the claim.
Frankly, the opinion does not appear to be grounded in reality but comes instead from a place of insecurity regarding our social values. Consider whether any western platform promotes science and engineering over pornography, Twitter and Instagram allow much more explicit content than TikTok, and then ask why TikTok seems to have been singled out.
Think about it a bit more clearly. Douyin in china might be entirely different than the douyin you see when you check it out with a western ip.
By checking douyin.com from my device, my ip and my advertising fingerprint, I cannot have any clue how douyin behaves if I download it from a chinese phone, in china.
I clearly state that possibility in my comment and explain why I think it's unlikely.
The base claim was that ByteDance was pushing sexualised content on TikTok while policing it on Douyin. This makes zero sense given that TikTok's web content was sanitised. Douyin being awash with sexualised content implies an audience for that content in China, further weakening the argument that this is some sort of targeted attack.
The alternative is that Douyin thirst traps are some sort of co-ordinated attack on the west. Despite not being available in the western app or translated in any way.
From the perspective of users of solar energy on Earth, wouldn't an increase over billions of years appear constant? My intuition tells me that evolution is much faster than that, and any fluctuations due to solar cycle dynamics would already be mitigated as expected by the same process, if it is indeed so regular.
What I was getting as is that you can't start with a false claim to make a convincing argument. I didn't see what the expected reduction is from the MIT research, but if it falls within known effects of the solar cycle, Milankovitch cycles, and recorded volcanic activity it's less risky than stating that it's a change that the earth has never seen.
Not my area of expertise, can you please share reasoning as to why reflecting sunlight is disastrous. also please share evidence that attempting multiple strategies is guaranteed to lead to failure or is even probabilistically worse than only relying on current trends of attempting to decrease co2 emissions
Simple: reflecting sunlight does nothing to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, or to reduce the amount going into the atmosphere. The CO2 is the problem, not the temperature. The temperature is a measure of the CO2 problem. Force the temperature, and it ceases to become an accurate measure.
As CO2 continues to build up, ocean pH decreases, reflecting increasing acidification. As pH decreases, the base of the ocean food chain begins to collapse. When the ocean food chain collapses, the main protein source for much of humanity vanishes. Global war follows, and civilization collapse. Slightly lower temperature is unnoticed.
So all the experts who talk about the 2 degree celsius goal did set the goal on the wrong measure? Please be more convincing than just restating your previous hypothesis.
As far as I understand the situation, the increased average temperature is the problem. Not because every day would be exactly n degrees warmer/hotter, but because it leads to way more variance in the atmosphere, i.e. storms, hot and cold extreme wheather etc. The CO2 itself might also induce problems. But they do not dominate the situation.
Failing to control CO2 leads inexorably to global collapse of civilization, regardless of temperature.
Civilization would also collapse as a consequence of extreme temperature.
Temperature increase is easier to limit, but redirecting resources to limiting temperature accelerates CO2 increase, thus collapse from that.
Directing resources to reducing CO2 also limits temperature rise.
Each dollar directed to intervention A is a dollar not directed to intervention B.
Extreme fever can kill the patient. Plunging the patient in ice water cuts fever, but fails to save the patient. Antibiotics may take longer to reduce fever, but offers the possibility of saving the patient.
But betting everything on one horse, company, or intervention is rarely a good strategy. I think Nicolas Nassim Taleb makes compelling arguments in his books, starting from the Black Swan.
I think this is a great summary, and also highlights much of what Joe Armstrong talked about when comparing Erlang to other OO languages, and his earlier decisions to design Erlang to work in the same way whether in a single-node or multi-node environment.
No; the real life equivalent would be the the kid in class sitting between you and your friend opening the note and telling class what you said.
You asked the kid in class to pass the note. He did so freely. You assumed he wouldn't open the note, but guess what... he totally opened that note. And now he wants to profit off the information.
Doing bad things faster might feel more productive to you, but it doesn’t mean that you are delivering more value. You might be, but the metrics you have shared to not prove that.