Cameras provide alibi to those who may be suspects, saving time and money.

And so on.

You are only seeing the negative side of cameras, but there are positives as well.

> Their landlord forces them. A tight labor market forces them. Time pressure forces them. Bills force them. Hunger forces them. Our entire system forces them.

Nope, they are free to walk away, rent without cameras, etc, etc.

I would say that cameras are protecting the honest worker as much as they help the homeowner.

> The answer to this is if you don’t trust your domestic worker to not steal from you, either hire one you do or go do your own damn domestic work

Why only these two choices? The worker is free to not take the work at a place with cameras. No one forces them.

I am not sure we are there yet.

In my experience even the SoTA models are faaaaar away from replacing humans, maybe making them a bit faster.

Without any guarantees of functional correctness.

Cybersecurity is not about stopping issues but about compliance and liability. Attend RSA once, and you will see it yourself.

You may be correct. However, if the methodology of IQ scoring didn’t change, the change in score itself is worth of investigation.

Sounds unlikely.

Unless RAM use would impact financial metrics, it would be hard to justify the work on memory footprint if customer doesn’t complain a lot.

So, he was right?

Not by the subprime mortgages given to anyone with a pulse?

Here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/us/politics/iran-israel-m...

What is your evidence that given all we know about Iran, and the fact that they have 60%-enriched uranium, they are not building a bomb? Why do they need 60%-enriched uranium?

> Is that your claim?

No. My claim is that from a geopolitical point of view containment of China is the goal, and the war in Iran is just one step. Politics never about telling the truth -- it's about achieving goals.

You may not like the reality of it, but it is what it is.

> You know there are Shia Arabs, right? Do you think all Shia are Persian?

What does it have to do with anything? Can you form a coherent argument?

> I mean, really? Let's just rattle off a few that anyone with basic information literacy over the last few years would be able to come up with: <...>

> Little to no evidence of recent civic institutions or culture of responsible governance.

Iran has no civic institutions and no culture of responsible governance?

> Sizable minorities who even if aligned against the common dictator, will inevitably disagree with each other on the direction of the state.

The sectarian dynamics in Iraq, Syria and Lybia do not exist in Iran.

Yeah, "reports" about CIA are real. Sure.

> Great track record of intervention here.

There is no intervention though.

> Where did you pull Greece from? The Iranians can barely hit anything next door.

Have you seen the map? Open it, and then see where Cyprus is located.

Barely hit next door. Yeah.

> you don't think it's a gamble?

Of course it is. Like any other decision. You make the calculus and decide if the reward is worth the risk.

I am not sure any answer of mine you will find satisfiable. In your view, only 100% result justifies the risk. The reality is that you will never have 100% guarantee. For you inaction regardless of the consequences is the answer, for me it's better to act with uncertainty.

Finally, you assume (without evidence) that Iranian Regime is a rational actor. Once you change this assumption, the calculus will change.

Iran founded Hizbalah in Lebanon. You can read what Hizb had done to Lebanon on the internet. Iran exported its ideology all over the Middle East right now: Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, etc. It is a mistake to thing about Islamic Revolution as something not interested in spreading itself.