amurthy1

There are some parallels here to AI coding where even if the AI can write all the code, it's still valuable to have a human who can read and understand the code to verify correctness. The same is true of AI generated math proofs that humans will want to verify are around before they feed them back into the AI and build new insights.

Setting aside this specific case, what is a business supposed to do if a union's demands are unreasonable and make it infeasible to keep the business profitable? If they try and replace the unionized workers, that is frowned upon and in some cases illegal. If they shut down the business due to no longer being viable, that seems to also be legally murky.

If a group of employees wants to band together and collectively bargain, that feels like it should be allowed, but if the company wants to completely sever ties with that group or if an employee wants to be hired and not associated with the group that should also be fine.

I agree that the balance of power is tilted in favor of capital over labor and that imbalance has been continually growing over the past several decades, but it feels like there should be a better solution than legally protected unions. For example:

- Increased relocation assistance for people who need to move for a job

- Improved safety regulations, which is a common reason employees decide to unionize in the first place

- Increased public sector employment to provide more alternatives to those in exploitative private sector jobs

All of these seem like better ways the govt can help workers than legally protected unions.

It happens to a degree in the US with federal research grants, but maybe not to the extent of other countries.

Reminds me of my last job when an unexpected 1% drop in our team's primary goal metric would trigger VPs and directors to have us launch a full investigation into potential causes. But a similar unexpected increase, no one would bat an eye.

Similarly in the stock market, when things are going poorly, people are eager to understand what happened, so a "correction" is a comforting explanation that the underlying asset is still solid and it's just market dynamics at play. But when the stock markets go up unexpectedly, people are generally happy to accept their good fortune without thinking too much about it.

Among other drawbacks, that would interfere with satelites

Increased ridership on roads does increase revenues via gas taxes.

My understanding was Google's rebranding was mainly targeted at investors so that when financials were reported, it would be split out between Google vs. other divisions. It would make sense that most everyday people wouldn't know about this.

FB's rebrand seems targeted to everyday consumers, so I would bet their brand strategy would change to cater to that, in a way that Google/Alphabet never cared to.

The Saudis support US oil interest by for example selling their oil only in dollars and buying US weapons which props up our military industrial complex. This is why the US govt likes them and much of what Americans learn about the middle east is heavily influenced by what the govt puts out.

The world overall might have too high a birth rate but almost all Western countries have a birth rate below the replacement level of 2.1 (e.g. US, UK, AUS all at 1.7 [0] and falling [1]).

Unless you make up this difference with immigration, you have a declining population, which creates all sorts of short term issues.

Given that western countries have become increasingly hostile to immigration, especially from developing countries, trying to increase birth rate in western countries is a reasonable thing to explore imo.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d...

[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?location...

I think this is a good take, most news doesn't directly affect you but is necessary context to make sense of the news that is relevant to your life

e2e encryption was only added after being acquired. Not sure why FB leadership would undermine the effort that they helped support in the first place

You have a link?

The court of public opinion, even if sometimes unfair, still exists and impacts your business's ability to operate.

By using the carrot instead of the stick, you protect yourself somewhat from these disgruntled employees tanking your public image.

> They also change your behavior in somewhat indirect ways with the goal that you continue to engage with their platform more and more

How is this different than any other kind of media like TV, magazines, newspapers, etc.? All of them are trying to make their product engaging so that you consume more of their media and more of their ads. Just because those services also charge a subscription fee, doesn't change the dynamics of what they're trying to do. Social media has maybe just been more successful in doing so, partially because

> The fact that we bring our phone everywhere, that there are push notifications

So the dynamics have always existed in previous platforms, it's just been ratcheted up to a higher level with social media.

The product they're working on might be super specialized, but oftentimes the skills needed to do the work might not be.

> one of the top up-sells is insurance

That's because most storage facilities require insurance and no one is trying to buy it on their own, so they accept whatever the facility offers them.

I mostly agree with you, but I wish we could come up with a better word than "greed" to describe the almost universal and constant desire for humans to improve their own lives, which has a connotation that the only way for me to benefit is by taking from others. I think most in this community would agree life isn't a zero sum game and there are actions I can take that improve my life that are also net neutral-positive to the world around me.

I think we should encourage this type of activity while condemning the negative externalities of people's actions, as opposed to blanket condemning "human greed" as a whole.

If you followed his MS days closely, like many in this community, I doubt you'd change your mind about him. But I imagine large part of the public knows about him mostly from his philanthropy. Heck I bet some people only know of him from whatever that 5G conspiracy was.

> The employees and the manufacturer can all withdraw the money at any time

This isn't quite correct. If all parties go to withdraw their money at the same time, the bank will not be able to give it, because they only actually have $1M in reserve.

In practice, if there are more withdrawals than than the bank has in reserve, it is usually able to get short term loans from the central bank which than ACTUALLY creates the money and loans it to the bank.

However, over the long-term if too many of the bank's loans default, they won't have enough assets to cover the deposits, which is how banks usually fail.

Sure but the title of the article is saying one is worse than the other, so it's fair to refute that. No one is arguing the US situation is perfect and we shouldn't also seek to make that better.

Anecdotally, I've heard companies that tried this (something like 3 months unpaid after 5 years tenure) found that most of the employees who take this end up leaving soon after coming back.

I think the bigger issue is the ambiguity of what constitutes a violation. As written in the article, this guy was under the impression that what he was doing was acceptable.

If it's perfectly clear what it covers, then the employee can decide whether it's acceptable, try to negotiate it, or decline the terms, just like any other provision in a contract.

Whether or not humans are biologically inclined to it, it's still a valid question to ask "Are you considering this potential mistake when telling our story and taking precautions to avoid it?"

The risk is a bad actor could hack into this network and control the cars

Author here: I couldn't find any sources that show the number of cases over time broken down by US state / county, so I decided to build one myself.

Github source: https://github.com/amurthy1/coviz

Let me know down below if you have any questions/comments.

Reading news is useful if it helps inform you about issues that you can take action to help address whether via voting or other political action.

This is most pertinent at the local level where your vote has more impact and it's more feasible to take action on specific issues when you learn about them.

Reading about presidential scandals every day when you likely already know who you're voting for just drags you down and benefits no one besides the media companies profiting off your attention.

There's a difference between "Corporations have too much power to influence government policy" and "The government will hand over its sensitive personal data records to corporations".

I would say the former is a much more widely held belief, although we have no way to know if the latter is actually happening.

Just because something is obvious once shown to you doesn't mean it was immediately present in your mind beforehand, so being made aware of it can still be valuable.

But agree that there's diminishing returns from these insights and focusing more on the specific details of your life is usually more impactful.