Some would say this is an analogy on how Israel looks at Palestine, even though they already have the better side with the help of top-notch (ACME) weapons from outside (a sling, maybe because of the implications of the David and Goliath story?). Others say he's horny and wants to fling himself directly onto the other. I'm with the horny camp 100%.
test113
joined 1 year ago
Thanks. Yes, you're right. I think this is the missing part: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-says-no-way-solve-israel-security-gaza-war-without-palestinian-state-2024-01-18/
These are the quotes this article is based on according to another news outlet, and it is unsure if the translation (especially the wording for the proclaimed statement in the title) is up for debate since there are multiple translations.
(“from the river to the sea,” according to an English translation on the Israeli news channel i24NEWS.
According to other translations, Netanyahu said that Israel “must have security control over the entire territory west of the Jordan River,”)
"Every area that we evacuate we receive terrible terror against us. It happened in South Lebanon, in Gaza, and also in Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] which we did it.”
“And therefore I clarify that in any other arrangement, in the future, the state of Israel has to control the entire area from the river to the sea.”
"This truth I say to our American friends,” Netanyahu said Thursday. “And I also stopped the attempt to impose on us a reality that will jeopardize us. A prime minister in Israel has to be able to say no, even to the best of friends. To say no when you need to and to say yes when you can.”
Does anybody know what "proposal" the USA made that he's referencing?
I agree — some gamers do not understand that the gaming industry is grown up now, or at least old enough to play in the big boy money league. And the big boys are not in the business to make games; they are in gaming to make business. Inherently different decision-making process.
Also, before someone buys something, someone has to sell out. So why do we always have a problem with the buyers, aka investors, whose intentions are clear but not the sellers?
Yeah, I know that, XD but why?
What makes it so that you think you should be able to get creators and their content, server capacity, and storage for free? Who should be paying for it in your mind? Who should eat the cost? The creators, the platform, or the user? or all of them to a degree? And who should be able to profit?
I think it's pretty clear that the end-user will carry most of the cost in the end.
YouTube cannot do that. YouTube's content legal system does not allow this.
That said, I use SponsorBlock and love it to the degree of finding it necessary depending on what type of content I am watching.
Why do people hate YouTube Premium anyway? I don't quite get it. I have had it since it was available in my country, and I love it.
Also, I have to say I use the YouTube Vanced app with SponsorBlock and custom layout (no shorts, no uploads, no etc.) and YouTube Premium subscription. I don't like the default YouTube app.
So, I don't know if I like YouTube or just the model and content/creators behind it.
I'm not so sure – YouTube is much larger than you might think. It's not the video platform you grew up with anymore. No one in this world can match the backlog and content density/diversity of YouTube, not even all streaming services combined. People complaining that YouTube is dying because a few YouTubers "retire" from their main gig or that it's not the same anymore don't understand how YouTube works. They might not comprehend that the time of their "bubble" has come to an end. When this happens, there are already five new bubbles/niches that are even bigger, and you might not have heard of them, but they are more successful than their "predecessor." The old bubble is still there to consume in the backlog. Someday in the future, AI will have a field day with the data accumulated via YouTube.
It is transforming, for sure, but I don't think it will destroy itself completely. In a sense, you can say it will destroy whatever view you had of YouTube as a platform because it is not what it once was.
To my knowledge, YouTube will hit the billion-user milestone this year (Netflix currently at ~250 million paid users). If we look at other data trends from streaming services, it suggests that YouTube will grow more over the coming years. I don't know how anyone can match YouTube as a whole. In certain niches, sure, but as a whole, it would be like fighting windmills. There's a reason no one tries to tackle YouTube as a platform and only goes for certain niches.
Stupid question: What's the point behind this? Is this actually financially viable for a company in the long run? Was this an attempt to get Reddit to crack down on those subs?
Isn't this always a fight against windmills? i.e., you can't fight a symptom without addressing the market as a whole?
I mean, if I were an investor looking at this, I would also get excited about making this change - much less risk, less cost, less customer support, etc., all for basically the same output in revenue. In other words, if I cut the small business (6% of value but over 100k accounts to handle) out of the model, I can make more money because the cost reduction is higher than the loss of revenue. And in the long run, when "big game customers" jump ship, I just downsize some more. I also don't need to invest but can be sure it will generate a certain amount of revenue, as long as I do not squeeze the relevant customer groups too hard. This strategy is very feasible and relatively risk-free. I am not a fan of it, but I think a lot of software companies will go this way after they establish themselves in a market.
Haha, same - yes, I think you are right - I think we come from the perspective that a calorie is what the definition says it is, which is an energy unit. And this makes the saying "a calorie is not a calorie" sound wrong. Yeah, seems like it's an emotional trigger for some, which is understandable.
I don't get why this is such a problem to point out that maybe they themselves use the word calorie in a different context than it was actually intended to be used. And this does not help the confusion surrounding the topic.
The problem, I think, is that a calorie is used to describe the energy content of something and not for anything else. It is useful for food since the inherent value of energy that we need to transform every day to survive can also be expressed in calories (and so can be almost anything), which makes it easy to eyeball how much energy we can "absorb/transform" from a given product. But this does not describe how healthy or nutritious or anything else the product is or how your body is going to deal with it; it just describes the energy content of the thing.
A calorie is a measurement of energy and nothing else.
And I am sure you are right; at the end of the day, you can boil it down to one number that's either negative, 0, or positive, i.e., your calorie deficit. If it's negative, you used more energy than you took in, so you will need to take that energy from somewhere, which will result in some form of burning of fat or other tissues to transform the stored energy into something we can use actively, which then means you will lose weight over time. Energy can't be created, at least not to my limited knowledge, only transformed. Of course, given that your body works within the normal human norms.
Anyway, thanks for the nice interaction. 😄
I wish you all the best this year! Have a great life!
Oh, I get your point, and it makes sense. Thank you for elaborating, sir!
I do not question the study or its content or you; I question the statement the gentleman made before that a "calorie is not a calorie, and that's what people don't get".
My point/my opinion was that saying "a calorie is not a calorie and that's what people don't understand" is wrong.
In my opinion, a calorie is always a calorie. A food does not change its calorie value based on when you eat it. What people don't understand is how their body "uses" these calories. But this does not change the calorie content of the food; it just changes how you absorb them. It's not that people don't understand calories; it's that they don't understand the reaction that happens when the "calories" are ingested.
A pancake will always have x amount of calories, no matter if you eat it now, throw it away, or eat it at midnight or as breakfast; it will be x amount of calories. But depending on your body and in which state it is, it will absorb not all or it will absorb differently. The pancake and its calorie contents exist outside of your body and how you absorb/use them; it's not the "changing part" of the equation.
Here is how I define a calorie, which is a fixed value:
-
A unit of energy equivalent to the heat energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 gram of water by 1 °C (now often defined as equal to 4.1868 joules).
-
A unit of energy, often used to express the nutritional value of foods, equivalent to the heat energy needed to raise the temperature of 1 kilogram of water by 1 °C, and equal to one thousand small calories; a kilocalorie.
If you want to claim that a calorie is not a calorie, I say word it differently since this is not true. A calorie is just a fixed value. You mean people don't understand what happens after ingesting.
My point was never that calorie counting is all you need; my point was dismissing it outright is wrong, since it still tells a story, not the whole story, but certainly a part of it.
Does this make sense?
TLDR: I agree with the sentiment that a calorie is not just a calorie and understand what is meant by that. However, my issue is that it is a bit misspoken since calories are determined before you ingest/digest/absorb/pass them through. It is an expression of the energy content of a food/object, not of what you effectively get out of it when you eat it. My whole point is not to disagree with the sentiment but how it is communicated. Maybe people just don't generally know what a calorie actually means or how it relates to our metabolism.
If I'm interpreting the CEOs Post post correctly, the severance package is only applicable if your contract gets canceled prematurely or if you are being laid off. If your contract ends and is not renewed, all obligations are fulfilled, so there is no severance package since the contract simply ends. (Timel/Project based contract). I could be wrong though. It would make sense to have project or time-based contracts - these layoffs mainly affect the "permanent employees."