I don't know about Strava, but my Apple Watch will detect when I'm going on a walk or a bike ride and ask if I want to track it. I just instinctively say yes. Strava might do the same and so it could just be habit for the sailor and a dumb mistake.
You don't need to confirm anything. You just configure it once to upload your runs that you record on a Garmin watch or whatever, and forget. It's not impossible to use Garmin watch without any online accounts and uploading your data anywhere, but as it is with all wearables today, they intentionally make your life harder for it. Not to mention that most people who run regularly use Strava or something equivalent to track your workouts anyway, so one really wouldn't think much about it, unless explicitly forced by officers to disconnect everything. And, honestly, given how easy it is to find an aircraft carrier (for god's sake, even a civilian can do that!), I doubt that it even worth it. Le Monde is just making cheap scandal out of nothing. As always.
WFH and the almost 100% shutdown off airline travel at the beginning of the pandemic resulted in nearly 0 change in CO2 emission and levels in the atmosphere.
It's a bit off topic but that didn't sound right to me.
According to the following it was a reduction but yes near zero in the context of total emissions. A few hundred million tonnes reduction ain't nothin none the less.
"plummeted from more than 1 000 Mt CO2 in 2019 to less than 600 Mt CO2 in 2020, in the context of the pandemic.
In 2023, aviation accounted for 2.5% of global energy-related CO2 emissions, "
Of course we shouldn't expect a couple of years of shutdown to significantly reverse 200 years of man-made atmospheric CO2 accumulation, but surely it would help stop the problem to get worse if the widespread WFH effort were sustained after the pandemic.
What I don't see mentioned here is the number of resumes and cover letters written by AI. I've also interviewed people where it was obvious they were using some sort of AI tool to assist in answering questions. So the criticism goes both ways.
This is why I only schedule in person interviews now. Then neither party can use AI and there's something about meeting people in real life to get to know them.
My kids play Roblox and get often get gift cards from friends for birthday presents etc. I've always hated that a gift card for $20 can't be redeemed for the equivalent Robux. Instead you get options to purchase Robux and the most you can redeem is about ~$16, so then you have left over cash and have to get another gift card. Dark pattern.
Not really. The lower tiers are only less efficient on platforms that require purchase through an app store or other payment processor that takes a large cut. Buying through a gift card or through the Roblox website or non-Microsoft Store PC app gives more Robux for the same price <https://www.roblox.com/upgrades/robux>. These increased rates are also balanced to prevent the lower tiers from being less efficient: the package for 800 goes to 1000, whereas 10 000 goes to 11 000.
There's an option buried somewhere in there to convert left-over real dollars into robux. They don't make it too prominent else no-one would be sitting there looking at the expensive robux options that offer (mostly, but NOT always!) a better exchange rate.
I mean, League of Legends does that as well. For example you can buy X RP, but a champion or skin or whatever costs either less or more, never the exact amount. I have seen this in hell of a lot of places as well.
You are correct because it's happening already (massive wildfires burning down cities, 100 year floods every year, mass migration out of hot, dry climates) and the news will state something like "scientists are 85% certain this fire was accelerated by climate change" and then will move onto the next story. Climate change is all around us, but we refuse to see it.
>That's a false dichotomy, you could reduce headcount via attrition which is better in some ways.
I disagree. Slow bleeding just means everyone in the company walks around thinking they are next, never knowing when the next set of cuts are going to happen or when they are finished. Cutting 40% is a quick blow, and everyone that is left knows they are safe.
Attrition by definition implies no cuts: just people leaving for the usual reasons people leave, and not replacing them. Attrition can be accelerated by providing incentives like exit bonuses.
Yeah basically, but weaponised globally through the dollar system. Basically, if you interact with sanctioned entities you get cut off from banks with dollar assets (basically all of them).
So going back to the original question, "Is Iran supposed supposed to be banned on Binance?" still doesn't have a clear answer?
It might be that Binance are OK with being cut off from banks or what not, and since there is no thing like "global sanctions", and Binance doesn't seem related to the US either legally or by the individuals running the company, they probably don't need to have Iran banned?
> So going back to the original question, "Is Iran supposed supposed to be banned on Binance?" still doesn't have a clear answer?
I mean, theoretically not, but practically yes. Basically every bank has dollar reserves and as such get caught up in the sanctions screening process. Again, sanctions are most problematic for entities when used by the US, but the EU and other governments also do this, and if you want to transact in a governments currency, then you need to follow the sanctions laws (severe violations can lead to license revokation which basically kills your business).
Unless you have no connection to the fiat ecosystem, then you are gonna end up subject to these laws. And if you have no connection to the fiat ecosystem, you won't be a particularly useful service to most people or businesses.
Ok, but isn't that then up to Binance to decide themselves, if to allow that to happen or not? Lots of people here seem to assume because US embargoes say this or that, means Binance should obviously make one particular choice, but shouldn't that be up to Binance and/or whatever jurisdiction they're in, in actuality?
It's totally up to binance, but being absolutely unable to transact in dollars is a pretty harsh penalty. Normally prison sentences are involved for whoever the head of the US entity is.
When I think about it, I know people that have been involved in all of those areas (always on the wrong non-criminal end). However, I'm not sure I know a single person that has made a regular transaction in some cryptocoin.
I did once. Even after setting up a wallet and buying BTC (this was back in the mid-2010s), it still took 15 minutes to pay for two glasses of wine at a cafe. I could have just tossed down €5 and been done with it in 20 seconds.
The irony is that Trump won on a message of "drain the swamp" which was supposed to address this issue. Instead it seems like it's more of just "replace the swamp" with his own guys.
For me, when someone promises to "drain the swamp", they reveal their ignorance and selfishness with their shallow anti-swamp ideology.
Swamps are rich ecosystems with incredible natural beauty and diversity. Draining a swamp is extraordinarily bad in general, even if good for wealthy property developers.
Ironically, it seems that "drain the swamp" turns out to be an apt metaphor for what Trump and that gang have been doing, as promised.
It’s not even ironic. Trump never genuinely intended to do so, and anybody with a brain never trusted them to do so either. Just another case of “every accusation an admission” in the case of the leaders, and “it’s only bad when it’s not our guy doing it” in the case of the followers.
reply