Grim-444

I agree, but it also interestingly at the same time gives me a conflicting thought - how can we be so confident that we know what's going on in/around our planet if such a huge percentage of the population doesn't have even the most basic knowledge about the topic?

Well both of your complaints were already addressed. Android introduced the scoped storage system to remove and fix abuse of "full" disk access, and they also added the foreground notification system which forces a system notification to be displayed if any app is doing work in the background, so that you know about.

There's a difference between funding research and funding development and manufacturing. No company would develop and manufacture a drug if they wouldn't make profit of it, no matter how much related research was or wasn't done using public funding.

I'm pretty sure there's already FCC rules requiring deorbit of satellites within a certain number of years of their mission completion.

[Edit] https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-adopts-new-5-year-rule-deor...

Well I give them props for at least having a facade of a "what went wrong" section, which most RN articles leave out, although it doesn't feel like an honest analysis of the negatives of their switch.

I'd like to see some actual data about what percentage of their code is written in native vs RN. In my experience you need to maintain massive amounts of native framework code on both sides to support the RN code, and to implement stuff that RN can't do or does horribly. Adding RN into the mix just basically adds one more platform to be supported, making things more complicated, rather than combining code into fewer platforms. RN teams never bother to mention how much native code is needed to support them, and seemingly never include native work that was done when giving metrics about how long it took to "write" a feature in RN, usually because a separate "native" team does that work, not them, so it's conveniently not mentioned.

Also curious about other metrics such as how many developers they lost that weren't interested in becoming JS developers. Or have they stuck around because there's still so much native work that they need native developers for, to support RN.

The title claims "behind every self-made millionaire", then the article subtitle claims "behind most self-made millionaires", then the article body just points at a grand total of 4 human beings that are millionaires that had rich fathers, as proof that most/every self-made millionaire had a rich father. The article is nothing but class-warfare propaganda.

Whether or not any of the post is accurate, it really just comes off as a begrudged ex-employee trying to throw dirt. As a supposedly former "senior software engineer", their entire description of the problem is that their system "went offline due to its outdated software packages and over utilized server resources aka cpu, memory and disk space.". There's zero technical detail, just an incredibly generic statement.

At even colder temps than that EV batteries start having even more problems, for example they become permanently damaged if charged at freezing temps or below, so even more energy has to be used to heat the batteries for the batteries to be able to accept a charge.

Not trying to be snarky here, but I'm curious what percentage of the people complaining in this thread also complained about the constant censorship and deplatforming by Twitter pre-Musk? Don't get me wrong, I think it's all bad, both ways, it's just the outcry now is extremely telling.

Do you not believe it was happening before? Or were you not told that it was happening before? Or did you just not care before because it was directed towards people you were told are "bad"?

I wonder how many people in this thread are actual human beings, vs. bots/shills working overdrive to force the narrative through, but that's a topic for another day ..

Well they start by listing out the advantages of stuff like Robux:

"Parental controls implemented in recent years mean out-of-control spending by children is less of a concern than it once was. By topping up virtual wallets with a little cash, parents save money and time compared with a trip to Target and don’t have to take out their wallets for every little purchase."

They proceed to list out different game currencies and what having them allow you to do, which you couldn't do with cash. Followed by providing directions and helpful tips to parents about how to do it, such as "Advocacy groups recommend that parents talk to children about the potential for disappointment when buying blind packs".

The title claims that a four-day week trail shows that working less increases productivity.

The article provides two data points for this.

1) The author's personal research, in which they say they measured a 10% increase in productivity, but about which they explicitly fully admit that in the end it doesn't make up for the loss of productivity from working 20% less. They actually write in the article that end productivity would be less.

2) They link to a study of a single Japanese company that was overworking their workers by 20-40 hours of overtime each month, which was reduced to ~20 hours of overtime after the 08 recession. They took the income the employees earned, divided it by how many hours they worked, and somehow determined that the employees were "7.6%" more productive when they had to work less overtime. This study has nothing to do with a four-day work week, it's for a single company, and for a company that was already working their employees well past a normal 40 hour work week.

That's it. That's the proof they provide, as they make the claim that four-day work weeks increase productivity. One data point that the author admits doesn't say that, and one data point that has nothing to do with a four-day work week and makes little sense.

This comment is pretty much the definition of a straw-man argument. You're presenting an extreme opinion as the opinion of hundreds of millions of human beings. Just adding to the hate in the world.

Calmly and rationally?

"It was relatively easy for most of us to condemn the allergic-to-truth rantings of former President Donald Trump. His lies were so transparent and prodigious that anyone outside the MAGA-verse could easily see through them. Many of us collectively recoiled at the reality-distortions he spun and how they were lapped up with religious-like zeal by his followers."

This is "calmly and rationally" to you? To immediately start a persuasive article by launching into a political rant? Your "rationality" is demonstrated by emotional rantings of somehow who's obviously pretty much as hard to one end of the political spectrum as one can be? Who defines their political beliefs as "the truth", and anyone who believes anything different than them as a evil moronic heathen?

How are we computing something we can't yet even define?

Weren't we already in that same situation every year/decade prior to covid when between 20,000 and 50,000 would die from the flu each year?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_influenza_statis...

Flu shots also use a vaccine mechanism that's been known/used for decades and is not a first of its kind in history mRNA treatment. I feel like this difference would lead towards one requiring more testing than the other, at least in a rational society.

[Edit] For anyone that wants to downvote this, please explain what I said that was untrue. Flu shots in the US have never been mRNA based. Covid shots in the US are mRNA based. Before covid, there was never at any point in history an mRNA based vaccine rolled out to the public.

"can charge itself 40 miles a day in optimal conditions." <- I believe this is the "basic math" that you were asked to run.

Using random numbers from Google for a Tesla 3 for an example, it has a 50kWh battery and 305 miles of range. That's 164Wh per mile. 40 miles would require 6,560Wh.

Assuming you leave the car in perfect sunlight for a full 8 hours every day, and there's no cloud, and you get 100% sunlight for the entire 8 hours, then you'd need enough panels to produce 6560Wh / 8hr or 820W.

I could probably barely fit 300W-400W worth of panels on top of my vehicle, and that's with covering the hood, trunk, roof, everything.

So even in the MOST IDEAL possible scenario, where you have your car in perfect sunlight for 8 hours a day, you're not even half way to producing 40 miles per day.

Well, since this is from CNN, how about this fun game: I'll pay $10,000 to anyone that finds me a positive headline about Trump that CNN has ever at any point run. Heck, not even a positive article, how about just a neutral article? An article that just neutrally says facts about some event that happened that involved Trump, without putting spin on it or telling you to think in a negative way about it. The fact that you would be extremely hard-pressed to collect the money says everything you need to know about the state of our "democracy".

Are you seriously making the claim that nearly 100% of motorists run stop signs, and using a less than one minute long video of one specific intersection with less than 10 vehicles in it as some sort of proof? You're making a pretty bold claim about millions/billions of people.

"I work at Google and they've told me to work 125 hours weeks". In that statement I provided just as much evidence for my claim as the article does their claim. In fact, there's more proof for my claim since it has a username tied to it, whereas the article just cites anonymous "according to internal sources".

And yet, this is an article that how many thousands of people will read, and internalize into their model of reality? How much more hate will such an article foster?

Shouldn't we at least require some SHRED of proof for articles such as these?

> But, some amount of free speech without being a pure hellscape is close to what Twitter is right now. That's not a plan for the future, that's an observation of how things are at present

I think the issue is that a lot of people disagree with your assessment and think the censorship has gone too far for far too long. You might not think so, but a significant portion of the population does.

"Maintaining cross platform compatibility has helped prevent potential bugs because each architecture and compiler set expose different sets of issues. The tools available for each platform differ enough that it is worthwhile to try and maintain cross compatibility."

I agree, I'm always surprised by this. I develop primarily on Linux, and I always enable all compiler warnings, treat warnings as errors, use static analysis; I keep my projects at a state where not a single issue at any level is pointed out. Then I'll switch over to Windows and load up the same project in Visual Studio and it'll start reporting warnings for new, valid, issues that were completely missed before.

Well, you're doing a really great job reducing polarization and helping to improve the country by adding your partisan political hate into the mix and denouncing half of your fellow countrymen. Everybody else is the problem though.

To be fair, that's only according to what he himself has admitted, which doesn't rule out more cheating than that.

Imagine how much impact we could have if we used all the effort gong to develop Rust and port everything over to Rust to instead just improve the wrinkles that exist in C++.

According to this random (obviously socially/politically motivated) twitter user, who says they heard it from someone else who was allegedly told this in private. That's pretty far from "Musk admits".

Seems like a bit of cognitive dissonance here where the same people that seemingly constantly push the idea of remote work and how it supposedly doesn't affect their productivity and they work just as well/hard as in the office, yet at the same time those same people are also saying that this "quiet quitting" is a normal state of affairs, especially since the advent of remote work, that they're not going to stop doing?

CDC estimates of flu deaths in the US per year: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2019-2020.html

For the 2019-2020 year, there was an estimated 20,000 deaths for an average of 384 per week.

For the 2018-2019 year, there was an estimated 28,000 deaths for an average of 538 per week.

For the 2017-2018 year, there was an estimated 52,000 deaths for an average of 1,000 per week.

So, yes, that is exactly how much the flu kills every week, on average. In a bad flu year, like the 2017-2018 year, the flu kills twice as many as that.

How did you arrive at 3 days? Why not 2? Why not 1? Why work at all when we can just print ourselves money until it all collapses? Do you own a business where you've allowed your employees to work different sized workweeks and were able to evaluate the changes in productivity? What data do you have to back up any of your viewpoints that's more substantive than just believing whatever people on reddit or elsewhere on the internet told you is true?

It's hilarious that I honestly can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.