Seenso

> That’s a good example. I don’t know much about it, what benefits does the union in this case provide that isn’t achievable without one?

This seems like an important benefit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residual_(entertainment_indust...:

> Residuals are royalties that are paid to the actors, film or television directors, and others involved in making TV shows and movies in cases of reruns, syndication, DVD release, or online streaming release. Residuals are calculated and administered by industry trade unions like SAG-AFTRA, the Directors Guild of America, and the Writers Guild of America.

Per the wiki page, these rights were won and have been maintained by striking and union-lead contract negotiations.

> While I agree if the 10x is making 120 and it moves to 150 that is good for everyone. But what if there is a 10x who actually makes 200. Would you ask them to take a pay cut so everyone is on that same 150?

I think that one key aspect of your comment is that you're taking about a 10x. Which can be generalized into a question: should a solution be rejected if it leaves a well-off minority less well-off than they are now, regardless of how much good it may do otherwise?

I, personally, think the answer to that general question is no. That answer may be hard to swallow if you're part of that well-off minority, but I don't think that changes the truth of the matter.

However, that doesn't mean that a union would or should force that guy to take a pay cut.

> I feel people will always want more money for performing better, or get incentivised to perform at the exact right level of that compensation and not more. I am curious what other people think on this.

I feel that people will always want more money regardless. I also feel that compensation is actually a poor motivator for performance. I think the real motivators for performance are internal factors (such as a desire to improve oneself, to avoid annoyance with badly made things, or to be challenged rather than bored).

Personally, I think once you make enough money, the extra compensation is more a form of recognition than anything else. Recognition doesn't have to be in the form of money, it's just that a souless corporation only cares about money, so money is the only way you can extract recognition from it.

> I don't mean to say that people shouldn't do a good job at work or that they shouldn't try to continuously improve. But I think that an environment and a mentality of continuous competition between individuals is not necessarily beneficial. For one it can cause tensions, frustration, anger, alienation at an individual level, but I think in the long run it can actually harm the company itself.

IIRC, the authors of Peopleware [1] (fantastic book, btw) agree with you. They identified some pay for performance ideas for knowledge workers as "teamkillers" (e.g. tempting management ideas that end up destroying the social fabric that makes an effective team stronger than the sum of its parts).

https://www.amazon.com/Peopleware-Productive-Projects-Teams-...

> I went to a paint supply store and they had a good number of N95's in stock.

What store was that? I just called my local Sherman Williams, and they're sold out. Was it a store that's little known to consumers?

Personally, I managed to buy about 40 3M respirators about two weeks ago (shipped most to relatives in China). I've been keeping an eye on the stock at Home Depot ever since during my normal shipping, and they're totally picked clean at this point.

> Just in terms of salary isn’t an union somewhat contradictory to the engineering ethos of meritocracy? I mean we’d like to think that the good ideas win and impact and outcome matters. We hold up the 10x engineers and those that make an outsized contribution to the industry / company / product right?

Not necessarily. I'd imagine that a union could negotiate its pay-scales any way it likes, which could take into account "meritocracy" in many different ways. That could include ideas that are totally foreign to existing for-profit company practices, such as a peer-controlled meritocratic bonus implemented via the union itself.

> Shouldn’t they get higher compensation compared to the rest of the work force? How do we square that with collective bargaining that has set salaries and annual increases?

Here's a hypothetical: In a non-union shop, regular engineers get paid $100k, while 10x engineers get paid 120k. In a union shop all engineers get paid $150k. Should the engineers reject a union so the 10x engineers can get paid more than regular engineers, even though that means everyone makes less?

Also: Are the 10x engineers the people management chooses to pay more? Is management good at recognizing merit? When they recognize it, do they choose to compensate it accordingly? Or do they make the good business decision, and pay the meritorious employees the minimum amount of money they'll be happy with. For some 10x engineers, that could be 2x salary. For other 10x engineers, that could be 1.05x salary. For some 10x engineers, that could be 0.75x salary.

> If you do not punish incompetence when lives are on the line, then you should expect more deaths due to incompetence. We send people to prison for far less than this.

The difference here (vs drunk driving) is the situation that led to this particular kind of incompetence is unlikely to be repeated. The situation also involved significant unknowns and gaps in basic understanding of the danger.

IMHO, it would be wrong to put anyone in jail for the handling of the cruise ship quarantine. That would be unnecessarily punitive. Might as well just kill a literal scapegoat. This seems like more a situation for a fault-free retrospective aimed at improving procedures and training for future epidemics.

> masks if it isn't already too late for that, etc.

I don't know about surgical masks, but N95 respirators have been nearly totally sold out at retailers for a couple weeks.

I know there are questions abut the use of N95 respirators to prevent infection when used by nonprofessionals, but they seem more widely available to consumers (at hardware stores) compared to surgical masks, due to their use in construction.

> Sounds great to me! We need more competition in the browser market.

I'm almost certain that a Facebook browser would end up being Chromium with tight Facebook integration and extra-invasive data collection.

If Microsoft made the decision that it was too much work to maintain an independent browser engine and they already had one, I find it highly unlikely that Facebook would come to a different decision, given they're starting even farther behind.

>> There should be only one regulation for fb, display following warning on all pages/screens: Statutory Warning: This product is specifically designed to cause behavioral addiction so you are guided down a slippery slope of over consumption & that is how this company makes money. Overuse of this product is known to cause - anxiety, depression, low self esteem, constant craving for attention, short attention spans, inability to concentrate on tasks, inhibited social development in the real world & possibly general "unhappiness", especially among the young & impressionable.

> Instead of regulation, maybe have browsers give you a warning on how the site your about to visit treats your personal data?

That wouldn't work. Facebook may see browser warnings like that as an existential threat. In response, they could create their own browser and heavily push it on users, a la Google & Chrome.

>> No one has an unrestricted right to go out and literally speak...

> Yes, you do have every right to go out on public property and literally speak.

No, you don't. Most states have laws that prevent you from doing that at a polling place on election day:

For example:

https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/surveys/2020-01/sta...

> During the hours the polls are open, a person who is in the polling place or within 200 feet of any entrance to the polling place may not attempt to persuade a person to vote for or against a candidate, proposition, or question.

> The first amendment doesn't say anything about ensuring any sort of level playing field for speech from different parties. It says that the government can't make any laws "abridging the freedom of speech."

The First Amendment isn't the sum total of American law. I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I'm pretty sure there are constitutional powers meant to provide effective democratic elections.

The tension here is between those two interests. I think it's worth considering the idea that a too-absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment (in regards to spending) may interfere with the nation's ability to provide effective democratic elections. Both are important priorities.

Also, it's not like the Constitution is perfect, timeless document. If it doesn't do enough to ensure effective democratic elections in light of its other provisions, then changes should be considered to fix that oversight.

> breaking and entering are not speech.

That's kinda my point. You're not allowed to trespass in order to exercise free speech rights, because private property rights are balanced against free speech rights.

The to quote the First Amendment:

> Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech...

> Interfering with someone voting [is] not speech.

That's true, but you could still harangue voters waiting in line at the polls without interfering with any aspect of the voting procedures. Yet that exercise of free speech still isn't permitted, because its balanced against needs for running elections.

>> Removing campaign finance would not impair the content of free political speech, but merely its magnitude to the extent it is amplified by money.

> Reducing the ability of someone to broadcast their speech is an impairment.

Not necessarily; it all depends on perspective. Campaign finance restrictions would (relatively) enhance the ability of a not-so-wealthy person to broadcast their speech, because their message wouldn't be so drowned out by the broadcasts of the wealthy.

> If you lock down political speech, you no longer have a democracy (yes, I know we are a republic). Because then the government gets to control what is or is not allowed.

Political speech is already locked down in many ways by the government. For instance: neither you nor I can go to a polling station and harangue the people waiting to vote. We're also not permitted to force our way into schools or private homes to do the same. If we violate those rules, some people in blue uniforms will come and haul us away.

No one has an unrestricted right to go out and literally speak, as that right to do that is balanced against other rights and considerations. What's so different about the right to spend? Why can't that right be balanced against other rights and considerations, too?

> The long term implications have been that American companies are richer than ever before.

That's medium term. Long term is Comac and Huawei drive down Boeing and Apple's market share until they're bit players in their industries (or go out of business altogether).

> It's crazy to me that with all of Signal's emphasis on security (being designed by one of the top security researchers in the world, no less), they chose to make tying your account to a phone number a requirement.

It isn't crazy. There's a tradeoff between convenience and security. Signal appears to trying to create the most secure system that's still usable by most people, and are advancing the state of the art in many areas to make that happen.

It's important to keep in mind that the best security in the world is of no use if you don't bother to use it.

In any case, Signal gives you optional actions you can take to solve some of the problems your concerned with.

> I’m not sure why Amazon didn’t just block non-verified-purchaser reviews, increasing spammer costs significantly.

I don't think it'd do much good. There are already large groups that subsidize verified purchases to get 5 star reviews. I read an article about it, confirmed some investigation on Facebook of on my own.

Basically someone runs a Facebook group where sellers advertise free product, promising Paypal reimbursement of the purchase price in exchange for reviews. There are at least (or were, I haven't checked recently) hundreds of Facebook groups across many languages with thousands of members each doing these activities. The reviewers are randos who like free stuff, and I don't think anyone could detect them if they only casually participate in the review scams.

> to hell with doing the good to the people, let's get rich first!

The real sad thing is that some people don't seem to know the difference. They've convinced themselves that whatever they do to make money means they must be doing good, otherwise the "market" wouldn't reward it.

> Having signal be tethered to a real phone number does give you a point to root your account around, and allow recovery.

It also makes it dead simple for most users, even nontechnical ones, to use and understand. They don't even have to do anything special, their Signal contact list is already bootstrapped when they install the app.

> Signal would have to be much better with features everyone (not just the tech-savvy) can appreciate to be able to outweigh Whatsapp's network effect.

Network effects work both ways, and they're only an insurmountable barrier if you preemtively surrender to them. They're also predominantly built of local components, which allows the change to start small by influencing those smaller groups.

For instance, if the tech-savvy switch to Signal and boycott WhatsApp, you'd have the nucleus of a network effect starting to work in Signal's favor. Some political constituencies would probably find Signal's non-profit organization specially appealing, and could also help form that nucleus.

Social behavior can also start help reenforce and accelerate a more general change. If WhatsApp is treated as unfashionable and dated, while Signal is treated as fashionable and new, some people will be more motivated to switch.

Everyone already uses multiple messaging apps (unless they stick to plain SMS). I doubt we will ever converge on one. However, success for Signal would be encouraging enough people to have it installed that it doesn't have any special friction associated with it.

> I stopped using Signal when it was clear i was not able to back up my message history (or transfer it to a new phone).

You can do that on Android.

> You got to be kidding me. You rely on FB "exclusively" for news? That's like trusting a Nigerian scammer with your money!

Context is important. In this case, he actually has some pretty defensible reasons for using Facebook this way: active suppression of local independent journalists and low activity by independent Western journalists. My guess is his alternative to Facebook is probably some pro-Assad propaganda rag. As bad as Facebook is, that's worse.

Your reaction would be more appropriate for someone chose to rely on FB for news about the US or Western Europe.

>> We need to stop untethering the text from the historical and cultural milieu of its origination

> The reason we still read these people at all (Thucydides, Machievelli, Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, etc) is because their work transcends "the historical and cultural milieu of its origination".

Yes and no. IIRC, Sun Tzu strongly advises against attacking walled cities. The edition of Sun Tzu that I read made the point that reason for that was because, at his time, siege engine technology was not up to the task. In Sun Pin, written a few hundred years later, the advice changed.

There's a core there that does transcend "the historical and cultural milieu of its origination," but you kinda need to tether the text to its milieu to find it.

Watching the video a little further, it describes a time in the early 90s when the Caucasian sheepdogs were nearly extinct, "poorly bred," and "food for wolves." It looks like there was a breeding project to make them fit for purpose again.

It also looks like the dogs have to stick to the right tactics and have limitations. The dogs stay put in defensive positions and defend the flock as a pack. They'll kill a wolf that gets too close, but they usually just chase them away. They can't chase too far or go out individually or they risk being killed by wolves. They're also more effective when the weather is such that they can use their sense of smell.

Edit: I posted this upthread, but apparently guardian dog is the term for dogs defend against predators (but they do not control its movement), herding dogs control the movement of a herd (but do not typically defend it well).

Edit this is interesting: https://www.facebook.com/notes/cinco-deseos-ranch-livestock-...

What about this?

https://youtu.be/x4eImh13-ow?t=1072

It appears to be a Georgian documentary, and they describe a Caucasian sheepdog as being larger and stronger than the local wolves.

When I try to Google this topic, I'm mainly getting junk about some speech from American Sniper.

> So much for anyone trying to raise sheep or cattle. They did this parts of England, and if you follow sheep farmers on Twitter, the gore was tremendous.

What if the flock was protected by a pack of large herding dogs, like German Shepards?

Edit: Apparently guardian dogs defend from wolves. Herding is a different job. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock_guardian_dog.

> I'd say not wholly unmaintained. It hasn't seen any commits since 2017.

Has it needed any since then? That's the real question.

>>> Then again, we're talking about DoJ indictments of foreign soldiers for allegedly accessing data that was open to all...

I just noticed that you made a pretty mind-boggling claim there. Is it really your position that Equifax's data was "data that was open to all"?

> There was an unsubstantiated claim that something had happened in one nation, therefore we can assume it happened in some other nation!

No, we can make informed speculation in a discussion. That's quite different than "assuming it [actually] happened."

The main issue here is that you appear to read something, misunderstand or exaggerate it into hyperbole, then respond to your own hyperbole. That's not a good way to have a discussion with anyone.

> TFA and my first comment ITT are about China. Your reply to that comment was about Russia, so everything from that on down was probably a waste of time.

Can you even follow the thread? The TFA is an American indictment against some Chinese government hackers. There are some unanswered questions about it, which were partially answered by speculation informed by parallels to a similar indictment against Russian government hackers [1] and related reporting [2].

[1] See https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/grand-jury-indicts-12-russian...: "In 2016, officials in Unit 26165 began spearphishing volunteers and employees of the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton, including the campaign’s chairman. Through that process, officials in this unit were able to steal the usernames and passwords for numerous individuals and use those credentials to steal email content and hack into other computers. They also were able to hack into the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC)..."

[2] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/01/dutch...: "The information gathered during the surveillance, Modderkolk’s sources suggested, was key to the US intelligence agencies’ attribution of the DNC breach to Russia."

> It's a little ironic as well, especially since the US is so keen on blocking Huawei over espionage concerns.

It's not ironic to play a game to win. Saying this is ironic is like saying it was ironic for the US to try to keep the North Koreans/Chinese from winning the Korean War because the US had just won WWII.