Given how small the Venezuelan military is, I’d wager the Americans would see it as too easy.
What Guyana needs is to invite the British and American military in for a joint “training” exercise. The uk has a nice new aircraft carrier that could do with a shake down.
Those previous recessions were marked by high unemployment, right? But currently we have record low unemployment. Is the high unemployment on its way, or is this something new?
I guess it depends on how you define unemployment.
Over half of of employed people nowadays don't make enough to pay their fundamental bills and/or live paycheck to paycheck and have to take up huge debt to make it every month.
so while they technically have a "job"...is it really if it doesnt cover their bills?
classifying something as a job is extremely bullshitable.
I do pay rent because I work (10% of my salary) as well as I obviously pay my taxes. This is why I feel like it is insane that people wouldn't want this to be more prevalent.. would you rather have me sucking up tax payer money and leaving prison in worse shape than when I came in? or completely changing my life and paying for my housing and paying my taxes and leaving with a career and a guarantee that I never come back? seems obvious
I think you shouldn't be in jail in the first place!
Drugs being illegal is batshit insane and literally keeps the cartels in business which destabilizes entire countries and kills way more people than having legal drugs.
Anyway thats a whole different conversation.
That being said theres this weird liberal trend to feel sympathy for murderers. And in my book if a person is a murderer or rapist or something, they need to be in a dungeon not a comfy prison with internet.
But for the bullshit you got in for Im glad you were able to find a good spot and make the best of the situation.
Hope you can get some sort if early release situation.
The big difference of course being that you’re surrounded by low-IQ, violent men (often mentally ill) who are prone to doing dumb things. Not the kinds of people you want to spend your days with.
That would be wholesome. Though if word goes out you're earning SW dev wages then you're making yourself a target for extorsion/racketeering from gangs and wardens meaning you'll probably have to pay half your wage so something bad doesn't happen to you.
people talk, and word will get out. you can only bribe your way out of so much.
if it's just going to a bank account somewhere though, whatever. keep your mouth shut, tell em you're getting $3.24/hr, and then go on a bender when you get out with all that saved up cash.
This article makes it sound like the entire country is about to be infested by these ticks and they will kill all of the livestock and give everyone tickborn diseases.
However these tics have been around since 2017 so I'm assuming there's some limitation that isn't mentioned in the article that has stopped them from taking over.
You are probably mistaking ticks with viruses. Ticks are not viruses. Ticks have to travel from places to places and then spend a long time in one place to multiply and establish a colony. Ticks themselves do not fly, they need to be carried by the host animal. It takes time for them to travel long distances especially when the host is a farm animal that can't roam freely long distances. And even once they travel somewhere, it would probably take couple of seasons to spread locally and establish large numbers.
So I see no logical contradiction by saying "these ticks have been around since 2017" and "entire country is about to be infested".
The old math question asks, "Duckweed is spreading on a lake. It takes 1 year to double the area of duckweed. From start to end, it took 15 years to cover entire lake. Which year the duckweed covers half of the lake?"
Exponential growth has this feature that for a long time it seems fine and then suddenly it is over as it overload's the physical capacity to handle it.
And I would say 7 years to get to the current state is extremely fast rate and definitely cause for alarm in my opinion.
My understanding of exponential growth is that if a tick produces a thousand offspring every year over 7 years you would have around 1e+21 ticks.
The milky way is only 1e+18km wide.
This would suggest at present our solar system should be a massive sphere of infinitely expanding ticks dwarfing out all light, life and matter and further expanding into the cosmos and in another few years of tick exponential growth will overwhelm the milky way with tick mass, and then eventually not long after the entire universe will just become a large sphere of infinitely expanding ticks.
And apprently ticks can reproduce more than 1000 offspring and also can live more than one year so this is a conservative estimate.
Unless the big bang was tick based....something's not adding up here.
Or possibly you and the journalist dont fully appreciate how big exponential growth really is.
One factor might be that reproduction rate ≠ survival rate, i.e., not all of the ticks born will reproduce. For example, it usually takes several growth stages for ticks to reach fertility, where each of these phases require a blood meal. So if they don’t find a suitable host in time, they starve to death. Or they are eaten themselves by another predator, etc.
The article says that one Asian longhorned tick “can lay up to 2,000 eggs without needing to mate” (emphasis mine). This doesn’t imply that this tick breed generally has an effective reproduction rate of 2000, let alone that this rate was annual.
As fun as "a massive sphere of infinitely expanding ticks dwarfing out all light" sounds, we unfortunately cannot have more ticks than the biomass needed to support them, including their own. Also, this kind of assumes an infinite supply of cows/people/other juicy critters, which brings its own problemas.
Ticks don’t care about the Tragedy of the Commons (livestock grazing one area with multiple owners not responsible for the land means they eat everything).
Tick population will level off once the resource (blood) is maxed out.
So according to my original comment observation, there are limitations on this tick growth which the article leaves out in favor of fear based journalism.
Because they leave out important info it makes it hard to judge appropriate response which makes it clear clickbait to be ignored.
So yes, there are limitations on this tick growth. The article does not leave it -- they mention ticks essentially draining cows from their blood. This is the limit of how many ticks a cow can support, biologically.
If they've been here only 7 years and are now found in states from Ohio to Connecticut (mentioned specifically in the article), I'd say the taking over is going pretty well for them.
That doesn't mean they won't hit some natural limitation on their range at some point but it's not obvious to me they're there yet.
> Though Asian longhorned ticks can carry diseases that infect humans, they are not yet considered a threat to human health in the U.S., per the statement.
No it’s not. These ticks are not going to drain herds of cows.
Tick-borne disease is the primary risk. It only takes one bite to get a pretty severe disease. If these don’t carry the tick-borne diseases, they’re a nuisance but not a huge risk.
Modern media like Twitter and Reddit and HN and (dare I say) 4chan is where news breaks first.
By the time I see it on the NYT Ive already read about it on numerous other platforms and usually with better information because its written by people firsthand on the scene or people directly in the know.
Information moves at lightspeed.
Literally dont read the NYT or WaPo anymore. I like that they exist for the abstract idea that quality journalism exists but practically never use them.
So yes Twitter is absolutely a competitor, due to its immediacy and its massive userbase.
NYT readers are interested in full articles and vetted analysis, not a bunch of scattered information from unknown sources, even if they're more immediate.
All you're saying is you don't like NYT/WaPo because you don't read quality journalism.
This is precisely my point. NYT competes with WaPo. Not with Twitter. If Twitter stopped existing, you still wouldn't go to the NYT. Because it's a totally different product category.
If people go to Twitter for their acute information needs instead of newyorktimes.com, then they most definitely are competitors.
What you're doing is containing NYT in a niche category of "information for people who believe journalists product high quality information". In this niche, your point would stand true; someone who believes legacy journalism produces accurate and unbiased information is unlikely to even consider twitter.
For the larger mass, its simply not true, and the above niche market is a constantly shrinking one.
I know you're trying to imply that Twitter is more advanced than the NYT, but that's simply not true. They're different products for different audiences.
Revenue at the NYT has grown between 8% and 16% yearly each year over the past 3 years. That's simply not what happens to a business that is in decline or being replaced.
But go ahead, believe in your personal narrative all you want that somehow Twitter is replacing the NYT, despite all economic evidence and usage data to the contrary.
it is more advanced in the simple sense that you get much more varied information, perspectives and viewpoints.
i.e. its more difficult to advance a specific narrative or agenda by the private equity owners on millions of people versus a handful of reporters who have to obey their editors
Social media personalities aren't replacements for actual journalism. Tons of Twittermill journalism just ends up being dead wrong, misinformed, or missing a ton of key context.
You could say any of these things about the NYT with a much higher degree of confidence. On Twitter, people are probably lying to me. NYT hacks are definitely lying to me.
It's not really lying. everyone views a subject differently.
so in order to get closer to the actual truth what you want is a massive variety of perspectives and opinions so one can actually synthesize this to get closer to the truth or at least a well-educated perspective on the subject.
which is what modern media gives to you.
versus the old guard who present things in a very specific way.
even the old news outlets try to out-compete each other for speed to press.
I personally think smart people are able to filter through a lot of information and synthesize the relevant.
it's also arguable that you get closer to the truth with the diversity of opinions about a subject on modern media and once again this is better for smart people to make up thier minds about something.
Most people are more interested in accuracy, context, analysis, and trustworthiness.
Sure, papers very occasionally advertise that they were the first to break a story, but this is a minuscule proportion of everything they publish, and it's not the kind of thing that people switch subscriptions over.
If you're a day trader of stocks then speed is king. But for nearly everyone else, it's not the main metric.
> First, the for-profit subsidiary is fully controlled by the OpenAI Nonprofit. We enacted this by having the Nonprofit wholly own and control a manager entity (OpenAI GP LLC) that has the power to control and govern the for-profit subsidiary.
Im not criticizing. Big fan of avoiding being taxed to fund wars....but its just funny to me it seems like theyre sort of having their cake and eating it too with this kind of structure.
Good time to buy defense contractor stock because one way to get out of serious depressions/recession is a war.
And the presidential election is next year...