No it’s because of the globists and there secret vault made in the 60s hiding all the cheese with cheese the lines look parallel because of the ventroxmine in the cheese and the efps
I’d say roughly 1,000 to 100,000, depending on format.
Edit: Raw ASCII (7-bit) could give you up to ~one million.
Edit 2: According to Randall Munroe (to lazy to find the source), you could theoretically store one word letter per bit. That would give us up to ten two million books.
UTF-8 and ASCII are normally already 1 character per byte. With great file compression, you could probably reach 2 characters per byte, or one every 4 bits. One character every bit is probably impossible. Maybe with some sort of AI file compression, using an AI’s knowledge of the English language to predict the message.
Edit 2: According to Randall Munroe (to lazy to find the source), you could theoretically store one word letter per bit. That would give us up to ten two million books.
I don’t see how that is possible, I think it is be one letter per byte.
Bit only represents one state 1 or 0, or true or false. It is too little information to store a letter.
That’s bit, a letter or character is a byte (8 bits), this is about right for pure text files that have no overhead, any extra info (like font, size, type, anything except which chatacter…) Is extra bytes, of course.
If we’re only talking 26 letters no caps, we can cut that down to 5 bits. Then use a decent compression algorithm. Someone more bored than I am can do the math.
five bits would only leaves us with six punctuation marks (including spaces, and we don’t get any numerals either) though, do you think that’s enough? i certainly don’t; i have not even used a full stop and I have already exceeded it!
Based on the rates of correct guesses—and rigorous mathematical analysis—Shannon determined that the information content of typical written English was around 1.0 to 1.2 bits per letter.
That’s based on common entropy limits of written information. It’s also why I always Bachelor domestic extended doubtful as concerns at. Morning prudent removal an letters by. On could my in order never it. Or excited certain sixteen it to parties colonel. Depending conveying direction has led immediate. Law gate her well bed life feet seen rent. On nature or no except it sussex.
Of on affixed civilly moments promise explain fertile in. Assurance advantage belonging happiness departure so of. Now improving and one sincerity intention allowance commanded not. Oh an am frankness be necessary earnestly advantage estimable extensive. Five he wife gone ye. Mrs suffering sportsmen earnestly any. In am do giving to afford parish settle easily garret.
yeah i read mostly sci fi books so around like 300-400 pages all text and i’d say the average e-book for them is like 150-200kb’s so if it were books like that you’d be looking at stuffing like 300,000 books on there.
Have a couple old pirated e-textbooks as .pdf files on my PC from uni, several hundred pages with color images, and they are mostly under 50MB, averaging about 30MB. 1GB is a little over a thousand MB (1024) so 1 would maybe hold a bit under 50 or so each? So times 64 that, a hell of a lot. Several thousand total, at least, as size varies.
No actually I agree with you, plus PDF is a privacy and security nightmare allowing for arbitrary JavaScript execution by default if you don’t limit its permissions. but unfortunately it was all that I could find of that ISBN so it was either shut up and use them or pay full price for my textbooks, so, y’know, I sort of grit my teeth and went with it.
The credit scores aren't even government scores, just private companies that decided to collect everyone's information and the government won't do anything about it 'because of the economy'.
You would think if something was owned by a private individual or a private organization, we could point to one person or entity that owns and controls it. But, if you look at the ownership of any major American credit card corporation, you will see that the ownership is held by a collective of entities. You might say that ownership is far more held in common than privately:
American Express Company: “Largest shareholders include Berkshire Hathaway Inc, Vanguard Group Inc, BlackRock Inc., State Street Corp, Wellington Management Group Llp, Jpmorgan Chase & Co, VTSMX - Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund Investor Shares, VFINX - Vanguard 500 Index Fund Investor Shares, Morgan Stanley, and Bank Of America Corp…”
Bank of America: “Bank Of America Corp’s top holdings are Microsoft Corporation (US:MSFT) , Invesco Capital Management LLC - Invesco QQQ Trust Series 1 (US:QQQ) , Apple Inc (US:AAPL) , SSgA Active Trust - SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (US:SPY) , and SSgA Active Trust - SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (US:SPY)…”
Capital One: “Capital One Financial Corps top holdings are BlackRock Institutional Trust Company N.A. - iShares MSCI USA Min Vol Factor ETF (US:USMV) , Goldman Sachs ETF Trust - Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta International Equity ETF (US:GSIE) , BlackRock Institutional Trust Company N.A. - iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor ETF (US:QUAL) , Vanguard Group, Inc. - Vanguard Tax-Exempt Bond ETF (US:VTEB) , and BlackRock Institutional Trust Company N.A.”
You called them private companies, and I’m disputing that.
This distinction is important, because the properties that make it non-private (being owned by a public collective) also happen to make people particularly vulnerable to spyware and data collection. That which is owned by a public corporation is owned by its shareholders collectively. Major shareholders can therefor lobby corporations to divulge data that is technically legally theirs. When you consider how many corporations Black Rock and Vanguard are invested in, there isn’t much that you can touch without generating some meta-data level evidence of what you’re doing, where, and when that they won’t have access to.
If things were truly privately controlled, nobody would be able to lobby a bank to divulge information about its clients.
You’re disputing something other than what they said, bro. “It sounded like you said this” is different from “you said this”. Now talk about what they did say. Are they part of the government? No? Then you don’t disagree and there’s nothing to dispute. Could they have phrased it better? Of course.
just private companies that decided to collect everyone’s information
This is what he said. He called them private. No, it didn’t sound like he called them private, he did call them private. It’s a distinction I consider important, so I outlined why. You’re just wrong in your characterization of what happened, straight up.
Don’t pretend he didn’t call them private. And don’t pretend it isn’t super common to think of corporations as private entities. They’re not, and this mischaracterization affects how people think. It’s not good to base your worldview on lies.
You’re the one muddying the waters, intent is not the only thing that matters. He directly said private, and that has implications that make his comment come off as frankly detached from reality.
His comment directly suggests that the government is not involved with these credit scores, which is incorrect since the white house did an executive order enforcing DEI in the federal workforce.
His comment suggests that these companies are free from the influence of the state, which is wrong because the government has full authority to and actively incentivizes ESG credit scores.
His comment suggests that independent private industry is strong-arming the government, when the reality is these very same scores they blame on private business are actively snuffing out non-corporate business, which will only make the problem worse
The only point I’m trying to make is that asserting these entities are private is false and leads to false conclusions. This is true.
The reason I didn’t address the government issue first is because the relationship between government and corporate is a lot more complicated than that, and the conversation almost always gets cut short by the assumption that corporations are private.
I also just finished explaining how the government does influence credit scores. If you’re so focused on this point, why did you ignore that?
I think you’re overlooking that they are publicly traded companies.
The opposite of private ownership is not publicly traded companies, it’s state owned companies, or government organisations.
It’s a bit of a stretch to say that because they’re publicly traded that means things are a-ok with them assigning scores to people. The most vulnerable of which never would even own stock in any of those companies, and even if they did, not enough to ever be able to influence their practices.
Hi, Lemmy is giving me the infinite spinning wheel when I try to reply, so I’m gonna try to send it in two. Hope you don’t mind that I have a lot to say in response to your comment haha
I think you’re overlooking that they are publicly traded companies.
That has not been overlooked at all. It’s because they are publicly traded that they are publicly owned. It would be strange to conclude publicly traded -> privately owned without expanding on it at all. I will elaborate on this.
It’s a bit of a stretch to say that because they’re publicly traded that means things are a-ok with them assigning scores to people.
At no point did I say this was okay. My comment was entirely descriptive and made no prescription for scoring citizens. I actually later said that the corporate structure was vulnerable to these scores, which would imply that I think it’s a problem.
In conclusion, these companies need to be regulated since they basically control people’s destinies through a non-democratically controlled system.
To which I would say they already are regulated and this is the result.
I’ll explain everything in more detail…
Private Ownership:
the fact of being owned by a private individual or organization, rather than by the state or a public body. (I googled “define private ownership”)
A public company is a company that has sold a portion of itself to the public via an initial public offering (IPO), meaning shareholders have a claim to part of the company’s assets and profits. (Same source)
ownership by the government of an asset, corporation, or industry. (I googled “define public ownership”)
So, private ownership is opposed to both the state and public bodies, implying that a public body isn’t necessarily a state (according to google). This complicates things once you get into the nature of corporations and their relationship with the government (I’ll expand on this), so a better operating definition is probably the second one, which means: it is private if the general public can’t by shares.
Countless definitions refer to public ownership both as government ownership, or publicly traded. Choosing one definition does not contradict the other. Let me repeat : saying public ownership refers to government ownership does not contradict that it also refers to publicly traded ownership. This is why it’s wrong to conclude that these corporations are private. They are public traded, and are therefor public. This shouldn’t be surprising, it’s in the word. That which is public is not private, and that which is private is not public.
People get caught up on the fact that private citizens can own shares. It’s often used to conclude that the corporation they hold shares in a therefor privately owned. This is flawed logic, because private units can be a part of a public collective. When referencing a public corporation’s ownership, we are not referencing any single individual, but a collective, in the exact same way that “the public” refers to a collective of private citizens of a state. It’s also directly contradicted in the definition: “… owned by a private individual or organization.” A. Singular.
Also from Britannica: “As contrasted with the other two major forms of business ownership, the sole proprietorship and the partnership, the corporation is distinguished by a number of characteristics that make it a more-flexible instrument for large-scale economic activity, particularly for the purpose of raising large sums of capital for investment. Chief among these features are: (1) limited liability, meaning that capital suppliers are not subject to losses greater than the amount of their investment; (2) transferability of shares, whereby voting and other rights in the enterprise may be transferred readily from one investor to another without reconstituting the organization under law; (3) juridical personality, meaning that the corporation itself as a fictive “person” has legal standing and may thus sue and be sued, may make contracts, and may hold property in a common name; and (4) indefinite duration, whereby the life of the corporation may extend beyond the participation of any of its incorporators. The owners of the corporation in a legal sense are the shareholders, who purchase with their investment of capital a share in the proceeds of the enterprise and who are nominally entitled to a measure of control over the financial management of the corporation.”
The definitions themselves begin to show why the relationship between corporations and the government is a lot more complicated than private companies. Corporations have to be recognized by law, and law is enforced by the state, therefor corporations only exists at the whim of the state. What’s more, is the means of trade for these stocks is also controlled by the state.
The first stock exchange to exist in the world was the Dutch East India Company. It was founded by the States General of the Netherlands, which consisted of the Dutch senate and the House of Representatives. The New York Stock exchange was founded in part by Alexander Hamilton, a statesman, founding father, and Secretary of the Treasury of the United States. In the United States, securities exchanges like the NYSE are primarily regulated by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is the key federal law that governs securities exchanges, including the NYSE.
I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that both of these entities enjoyed quite a bit of independence from their governments, but that independence is not complete, was granted in its establishment by the state, and has been gradually lessened with time.
That said, it would also be prudent for me to point out that corporations tend to govern themselves. NYSE is subject to its own set of rules and regulations. The exchange has its own regulatory body, the NYSE Regulation, Inc., which is responsible for overseeing compliance with the NYSE’s rules and federal securities laws. Many decisions are put to a vote by the shareholders. So, it contains a governing body and engages in internal politics? That’s a state!
Corporations are a state in and of themselves
Yes, that conclusion was properly derived just from the definitions of state, government, and corporation, however I’m not the only one to describe them as such. German sociologist Max Weber used the term “state within a state” to describe modern bureaucracy in general. One prominent thinker who discussed the concept of a corporation as a “state within a state” was R.H. Tawney, a British economic historian and social critic. In his influential work “The Acquisitive Society” (1920), Tawney critiqued the influence of large corporations and argued that they operated as powerful entities with their own interests, often independent of the interests of the broader society.
Why does this matter for credit scores?
Well, credit scores are already implemented by federal agencies:
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): HUD oversees the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), which provides mortgage insurance on loans made by FHA-approved lenders. Lenders use credit scores, among other factors, to determine eligibility for FHA loans. So, the fed can reference your credit score to deny housing loans.
Department of Defense (DoD): The DoD uses credit history as one of the factors in determining security clearances for military personnel and civilian employees. This means your fiscal credit score has influence in whether the fed considers you a security risk.
There are more but I actually don’t feel like listing them, they mostly all boil down to security clearance or financial restriction.
Here’s an important distinction: credit scores are restrictive on the individual. In other words, credit scores regulate what you’re able to do with your finances.
The American government also has a history of implementing other scores that more closely resemble a social credit score. These include but are not limited to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG). These metrics are used by the American government to impose regulations and taxation on corporations for better or for worse. You can tell it works too, because companies often increase their DEI score through their marketing, which is why you see so many corporations pushing a moral agenda rather than advertising their products.
So, the American fed uses various scoring systems to regulate both individuals and corporations.
In conclusion, these companies need to be regulated since they basically control people’s destinies through a non-democratically controlled system.
Just to quickly get this out of the way, my comment that you’re responding to already directly refuted the second half of this statement when I said “all BLK shares have voting rights, meaning that shareholders of BlackRock have a say in the company’s affairs in line with the proportion of ownership they hold in the firm.” The fact that this has not led to the results you desire doesn’t mean they aren’t democratic, they demonstrably are. It means that the democratic method was insufficient in this case.
The more important point here, is that to ask the government to regulate corporations in order to get rid of credit scores will lead to the exact opposite conclusion you want. The government already uses credit scores, and they use it to control people. Giving them the avenue to implement corporate social credit scores would be an extremely bad idea.
Also, top down regulation over a corporate body will directly result in greater control over that corporate body (regulation is control). We don’t want the government to have too much control over corporate bodies that already have control over us. We don’t want to put ourselves closer to being a nation controlled by corporations that are controlled by the state. That is called fascism.
What part is confusing? They have cockroaches capable of flight. I am still an atheist but if you made me submit a list of arguments for the existence of Satan this would be a bullet point.
This comment thread is an absolute fucking joke. You’re all dumb as absolute fuck.
Both sides of this conflict are pieces of shit. There is no side “to blame.” This conflict has been going on for about 100 years and both sides have committed human rights violation and heinous acts of violence.
If you actually want to blame someone, blame the fucking British and the Americans for manipulating both the zionists and the Palestinians to help win the world wars, and for promising them both the same land.
You’re all wasting your time trying to to blame Israel or Palestine. Don’t be so fucking lazy people. Read a god damn history book rather than basing your opinions on social media. Jesus…
This is where I’m at. I’ll admit I don’t know much of anything about the history of the situation, but what I see right now, is religious fanatics fighting religious fanatics. Fuck all of 'em
is religious fanatics fighting religious fanatics. Fuck all of 'em
I am with you.
Though it would be nice if refugees from palestia would get asylum in Europe (which they don’t), then the non-fanatics could get out of there, while the crazies do their thing.
Jordan accepted Palestinian refugees once. Then they killed their king and tried to take over the country. It’s left a lot of other countries wary of accepting them.
I usually try not to comment on these topics, but where on the israeli side do you see religious fanatics? You can say many things about their side, but religion is not their motive.
really? the coalition of “Israel is a Jewish ethnostate” and literal Jewish fascist party (Jewish power, formerly anti-arab militia terror group) doesn’t make you think that they may be some form of religious fanatics?
Ethnicity is not a religion. Being jewish has either a religious or an ethnic cultural meaning. Saying Israel is jewish as in religious is saying you solved a 75 year old internal argument. Heck this argument is the reason Israel has no constitution yet. Its a mostly secular country though. Most people are not acting upon any religious rules beyond celebrating the holidays (no different than celebrating christmas for “christians”).
Oh, and guess what? The construction of israel is completely irrelevent to whether or not right now they are fighting due to a religion or not. They were receiving terrorist attacks and wars declared against them since conception.
Whether or not you agree with their original idea or the means they used along the way does not change the fact they are fighting for non religious reasons. They were attacked and they are responding with questionable means. Religious plays no part here.
And “jewish power” received less than 5% of the votes. In the American voting system they would have been as relevant as the american neo-nazi party (which means irrelevant). They are only in the government because fanatics are easily united, and because Netanyahu is a literal criminal that would form a government with simply anyone so that he can avoid jail time.
There very much is a collection of Jewish ethnicities, to ignore this is flat out wrong, btw here is the definition of Ethnicity:
An ethnicity or ethnic group is a grouping of people who identify with each other on the basis of perceived shared attributes that distinguish them from other groups. Those attributes can include a common nation of origin, or common sets of ancestry, traditions, language, history, society, religion, or social treatment.
But besides that, your entire argument flat out ignores the positions of the Ruling Israeli party over the last 20+ years. Fact is that the National Liberals and Jewish Power parties ARE in power, they DO have these beliefs, they have espoused them openly and their policy clearly shows that they mean to follow through with these ideas.
As for the last point, Israel is not America, and the Israeli system does place relevance on all the coalition partners in government, and oh ya, the equivalent of the Nazi party IS IN POWER in Israel.
I dont see the relevence of your first paragraph. Yes there is more than just 1 type of jew. So what?
Jewish power is a far right party with religious elements. It persuaded even secular young voters with speeches about a powerful country and far right ideas. Some people are easily persuaded by ideas of power. What else is new? But calling them nazi equivalents is a huge stretch. With all the bad things i can say about them, they are not nazis. Also, whether or not they are nazis is beyond the point here. They are definitely religious, they are definitely fanatics, and they are definitely not THE government.
And you completely missed the point - the political system in israel is one that gives some power even to smaller parties, such as Jewish Power and The United Arab List. They are not “in power”, they simply have some power.
For reference, they have about as much power as the arabic-islamic party The United Arab List had in the previous government, yet i never saw people calling israel an islamic arabic country.
because Hamas hasn’t cut off water to some 2 million people? like, positions of power mean you will end up actually qualifying for things like “committing genocide” much sooner
Look up the definition. Israel is currently commiting genocide. Not denying that hamas didn’t want to, but they aren’t in a position to do so and never will be.
the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
The aim of Israel isn’t to destroy Palestine or kill all Palestinians. They definitely want to destroy Hamas, maybe they want to take over Gaza. While their tactics are inhumane and kill many Palestinians, I don’t see how you could argue their real goal is to kill Palestinian as an ethnicity. Abou 20 % of the citizens in Israel are Palestinian. And they also do not attack the Westbank.
Genocide isn’t about numbers though. A genocide means your goal is to kill everyone from a certain ethnicity. With currently 20 % of citizens in Israel being Palestinian and no attacks on the Westbank I can’t see how you would argue the goal and reason for the war is that Israel wants to kill everyone with Palestinian ethnicity?
West bank settlers are currently just shooting Palestinians while being protected by the government, and no, you actually need to be able to kill the people to call it genocide,
Gladly, thanks for asking. So I started out with my general assumption that genocide is always bad. I figured most people agree with that.
Then I looked at your reply and I was like this person is listing some reasons why the Israeli government is genocideing civilians and I noticed that you lumped Palestinian civilians and Hamas into one group “Arabs”. And I thought that was interesting because Arabs is a pretty large group that includes people who are unrelated to the current conflict. I also noticed that you left out one of the major reasons for the genocide which is racism. I’m sure you just forgot to list that as I think it is one of the larger reasons for doing the genocide.
Then I was trying to figure out what your comment was adding to the thread. Were you just unsure if we were aware that Hamas had killed Israeli civilians? No, my original post specified that they did.
So I was very confused as to why you made your post in the first place.
Then I remembered that some people online like the genocideing of Palestine civilians. Some people want it to keep going and for that to happen they need to make the genocide sound justified. They may do this by posting something very similar to what you posted.
Now, I don’t know why you made your post, so I asked. I also wanted clarification if you thought the genocide was justified because it seems like something a pro-genocide person might post.
Now that I have written out my process, can I please get you to confirm that you think the genocide of the Palestinian civilians is bad.
I was talking about Arab attempts to drive Jews “to the sea” and remove them from the area completely. You might’ve seen some of these calls and heard of some of these attempts. If not, see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab–Israeli_conflict
Now, I don’t know why you made your post, so I asked. I also wanted clarification if you thought the genocide was justified because it seems like something a pro-genocide person might post.
Now that I have written out my process, can I please get you to confirm that you think the genocide of the Palestinian civilians is bad.
I’m somewhat surprised my previous reply where I made fun of you for jumping to that very assumption didn’t already clarify how you were wrong. Then again, using sarcasm with someone who clearly misunderstands stuff might have been a bad move. lol
Clearly it should be extremely easy for you to say that the genocide of Palestinian civilians is bad as you were not trying to justify it. But you haven’t said it yet. It’s been like 2 replies. I get it, it can be hard to keep track of everything in that big brain of yours.
So here it is. I have rolled out the red carpet. I’ve taken the big L. All that is left is for you reply with “the genocide of Palestinian civilians is bad”. Heck you can even copy it from this reply and post it.
Clearly it should be extremely easy for you to say that the genocide of Palestinian civilians is bad as you were not trying to justify it
Well duh. I’m gonna even go a step further and say, get this, genocide bad, in general. Be it Palestinians or anyone else really. Quite a bold statement from me
So here it is. I have rolled out the red carpet. I’ve taken the big L.
Eh, it happens. Sometimes our mouths (or fingers) are just faster than our brains. Way faster. Just gotta learn from it.
I’m sorry. Your link about the Arab Israeli conflict was helpful and good context.
There are just a lot of pro genocidal racists on social media and they rarely self identify because they know it looks bad.
So when you didn’t answer my question directly and redirect to my thought process, I had to become a tool troll until you explicitly clarified your position on genocide.
I understand how my initial question can come off as offensive and I am sorry about that too, but you can’t assume what someone’s position on things are.
Israel has been boxing in the Palestinians for those 100 years, slowly choking them out and forcibly removing them from their homes. Now, multiple generations later, millions of Palestinians are backed into a small corner of their ancestral land as they are still forcibly removed from their homes and murdered in the streets. This is a genocide… like it has been for the last 100 years. Israelis are the invading force. Why wouldn’t the Palestinians fight back? Innocent people died, but that doesn’t give the Zionists the all clear to commit genocide and ethnic cleansing.
None of the ones who made those decisions are alive anymore. Are you going to dig up their coffins and shout at the corpses?
You make some good points though. However, we can absolutely blame actors at play today for things that are happening today. Hamas committed atrocities, now Israel is going in heavy handed and exacerbating the situation. Not sure why people find it difficult to state that. Hatred, I assume.
no no, you see, Only things done TO Israel are atrocities and bad.
Palestinians just need to accept, with quiet dignity, the human rights violations, war crimes, and genocides and never raise a single finger in anger over the human rights violations and warcrimes they are subjected to.
could you stop with this antisemitic bullshit? the people in Gaza aren’t humans, so why tarnish the good name of Israel (that represents all the Jews in the world btw) /s
yes apparently not wanting to genocide Gaza is antisemitic due to shitty American foreign policy propaganda
lemmyshitpost
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.