absolutely a real interview, stunning in the racism of the farm owner, actually
I don’t care about the person you saw an interview with, you invented a fantasy about the person in the article. Stunning in your racism.
Readit Newssnowe2010 commented on Family Farm Wins Historic Case After Feds Violate Constitution and Ruin Business agweb.com/news/business/f... · Posted by u/storf45
As an American, I was fascinated to see an interview with an older Italian farm owner. She employed Sikhs in eastern Italy for farm labor. In the Italian language interview she explained like she was talking to a close friend, how actually the Sikhs eat their children back home, due to starvation... as if she was sharing a secret! (hint- this is wildly false and outrageous to say it)
In other words, I do not believe for one second that this farming operation was anything other than a sweatshop, with dangerous conditions and stolen pay. The look on the face of the farmer in the article adds no confidence that this is not the case. For those reading that do not believe that people work in these conditions, in the USA in 2025, then I suggest you do some homework.
You literally invented an entire fantasy to justify your racism. Absolutely none of what you said is even slightly provable, nor mentioned even vaguely in the article.
The info is useful, but those do not seem to be all that small. There were smaller engines available for the ICE version of the Clio, for example.
A 1.5 liter is incredibly small. You’ll struggle to accelerate up slight inclines with that. If you’re in the mountains it will be even worse.
An an EV owner, I can testify that the tyre wear more than makes up for the reduction in brake dust. I’ve had to change tyres every 10K miles.
That’s not normal. You’re either doing something incredibly wrong or you’re changing your tires when you don’t need to.
snowe2010 commented on O3 beats a master-level GeoGuessr player, even with fake EXIF data sampatt.com/blog/2025-04-... · Posted by u/bko
> Blindly trusting these models without any verification will put innocent people in prison.
I don't think anybody is suggesting this. But if the models can gleam information/insights that humans can't, that's still valuable, even if it's wrong some percentage of the time.
This is what happened with dna testing at the beginning. Prosecutors claimed it was x percentage accurate when in fact it was hilariously inaccurate. People thought the data was valuable when it wasn’t.
snowe2010 commented on What if we made advertising illegal? simone.org/advertising/... · Posted by u/smnrg
I don't think anyone is against receiving marketing information they request, like a catalog. It is far different than advertising that people are essentially forced to view even if they don't want to see it. You request a catalog, just like you might request to view an online store's website. But advertising you don't request is a completely different ballgame. Imagine if every time you turned on or sat down at your computer it forced an open specific newspaper's site, or reddit, or twitter, and there was no way to stop it from happening. If every time you drove down a specific road all your electronic devices opened up some random website you didn't request or want. That is what people have a problem with.
Phone books (at least in the US) were sent out for free. You didn’t subscribe to them or request them. They were advertising.
snowe2010 commented on What if we made advertising illegal? simone.org/advertising/... · Posted by u/smnrg
This is all very simple to dostinguish: did you pay or have any other kind of contract with the person talking about you/your product? Then it's an ad, and could be made illegal. Are you just talking to people and hoping you'll convince them to talk to others in turn? Free speech, perfectly fine.
I mean… that means you can’t hire people to get signatures for petitions for the very thing you’re trying to get passed. I think their point is pretty fair.
> No, it makes his mom the account owner.
Which makes the phone numbers under her account hers.
> Just because I pay the bill for mine and my wife’s phones doesn’t mean her number is actually my number.
It absolutely does mean that her number is actually your number. That you choose to share it with her doesn't change that; you can revoke that sharing at any time, or even cancel the line entirely.
(And of course, if both of you jointly own the account, then the numbers therein would simultaneously belong to both of you.)
> Imagine operating a company and the CEO isn’t the one paying the phone bill, it’s the accountant, and you claimed that it’s not the CEO’s phone number, it’s actually the accountant’s, but it’s shared with the CEO.
Is the phone bill under the accountant's name and paid from the accountant's personal bank account in this hypothetical? Or is it under her employer's name, and paid from her employer's bank account? The answer to that question determines the owner of the CEO's phone number, and in neither case is the CEO himself personally the owner of that number.
> The number is assigned to a person on the account which has nothing to do with who pays the bill.
And if that assigned person was the son then it would've been the son's name that Google pulled instead of his mother's, and Google's ignorance of its own advice would've gone unnoticed.
You don’t know how phone numbers work… and you’re making really bad assumptions through your entire post. Just like shipping addresses are different than billing addresses, account owners are different than account payers are different than account assignees. Google is tying to account payers, not assignees. This is clearly incorrect to everyone else in this comment section.
> Our example user isn't sharing a phone number with his mom. He's having his phone bill paid by his mom.
Having his phone bill paid by his mom makes it his mom's phone number by default; it's then shared with him, making it a non-unique identifier. That's why it falls into Falsehood #4 (and likely into Falsehood #3, assuming that his mom has a separate phone number that she doesn't share with anyone else).
> Having his phone bill paid by his mom makes it his mom's phone number by default;
No, it makes his mom the account owner. Just because I pay the bill for mine and my wife’s phones doesn’t mean her number is actually my number. Imagine operating a company and the CEO isn’t the one paying the phone bill, it’s the accountant, and you claimed that it’s not the CEO’s phone number, it’s actually the accountant’s, but it’s shared with the CEO. It’s nonsensical. The number is assigned to a person on the account which has nothing to do with who pays the bill.