benjaminjosephw

Building a data processing system that mitigates the WFH risks might be more expensive than exploiting workers but it is absolutely doable.

The tasks performed in these contexts are mostly just different types of data transformations. Allowing operators to execute a transformation without exposing the actual state of the data itself should be possible with a well designed system but the details would very much depend on the specific context. Splitting data processing steps between operators would also minimize risk (even if it is a little more cumbersome). Automating sensitive processes like authentication and payment processes may also be an option in some cases.

Hacking employment contracts may be a cheaper solution for the companies involved but the cost to human dignity and liberty is far too high and it is being borne by the people least able to do anything about it. This simply isn't the type of business practice that we should tolerate anywhere in our supply chains even if it could mean slightly more customer "friction".

You can't imagine other ways to protect data beyond such a dehumanizing denial of liberty?

These workers seem forced to accept these conditions by the fear of losing their jobs. This isn't a free choice but an imposed one.

Advocating for any form of forced surveillance of a persons home and family for the sake of consumer quality/safety is disgusting. Why is the threat of consumer data loss more important than the threat to their personal freedom? Do they not have inalienable rights too?

> the FTC supports efforts to shed light on opaque business practices, especially around surveillance-based advertising

A glimmer of hope seems on the horizon for the open web and end-user freedoms in the face of corporate encroachment on civil liberties. 'bout time!

Boardroom greed might follow a logical rational but this behaviour isn't reasonable in the long run. Disregard of fairness and civil conduct won't be worth the eventual cost of a society that becomes increasingly opposed to the system itself.

Break the law once, shame on you - pay a fine. Break it twice, well, we might rewrite the law so the fine is enough to actually deter you. Break it three times and shame on us for letting you trade at all.

But, of course, the fine isn't a price point for unlawful behaviour but a penalty levied in judgement of the fact that the company violated the social contract. Seeing fines simply as a business cost would be a serious distortion of the way society should function. Could people in boardrooms actually entertain that kind of reasoning in good conscience? I really hope not.

It would be really interesting to know how many of these products have squeezed competitors out of the market before being axed. More than a few I bet.

People in technology have a far greater understanding of the depth, breadth and potential consequences of selling data and attention to advertising platforms than the average user. Even then, we still don't necessarily know exactly how normative technology can be. That's like taking payment in the form of a blank cheque and calling it "free".

The business model might be clear enough, but the cost and consequences are not.

Wow, I thought you were about to object to the generalization of an end-usr denigrating HN perspective!

Okay, even if it is "entitled" to expect something for nothing, it's dishonest not to be clear and upfront about the costs. In fact, if you think the entitlement is misplaced then it's really a failure of the service providers in educating the users rather than a failure of the users themselves.

If you don't agree, it would suggest that you think the average user should be able to read the world the way you do and understand the subtext of "free" services without having to spell it out. Would you be suggesting then that it's okay to take advantage of people who don't understand this the way you do?

Absolutely, but dogma and "best-practices" anchor design discussions around today's norms. People get very defensive about tools they've invested in and that kind of dogma stunts imagination for different and better solutions.

Discovery is very rarely an accidental process so we can't take for granted that it will be inevitable.

I think it's important to recognize that most people are not interested in discovery at all. Practitioners are often not explorers, and that's okay. They may find incremental improvements through their practice, but paradigm shifting innovation comes from those willing to swim against the stream of popular opinion.

Discovery has to be an intentional pursuit of those brave enough to imagine a future beyond Multics/Kubernetes/etc despite the torrent of opinionated naysayers telling them they are foolish for even trying.

Do volunteer programmers (open source) depress other programmers wages? Arguably, high quality open source projects actually raises the bar for everyone.

Good quality teaching isn't a scarce resource to be managed like a commodity. Paying teachers more does make teaching a viable option for more people (yes, most can't afford to do it for free) but it's not a simple supply and demand equation that follows a simplistic market model.

This is a plea for innovation if ever I heard one. Email has some great design properties but also some serious flaws. If a lot of people start sharing the same pain points that aren't being met by current tools, this means there's room for better designs.

I don't think chat could ever be a better email - it's a different medium which doesn't quite fit all the use cases that email serves (even if it creates some new use cases of its own). That begs the question: "What could an open protocol look like that does a better job of asynchronous communication between individuals and groups?"

The latest technical report (is that different to the draft discussed here?) seems to hold to a more common sense approach: https://www.unicode.org/reports/tr51/tr51-20.html#Gender

I swing between "I'm just a software engineer, let's aim for logical consistency and let anyone define the world the way they want to" and "I am a software engineer and I play a meaningful and serious role in shaping the way people interpret reality".

I really hope the standards folk were leaning more towards the former view of their role here rather than the latter.

That sounds like another way of saying "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".

Ignoring so many people asking them to examine their bias and human fallibility is definitely a form of stupidity. That is unless they believe the people are more flawed than they are and that they are better placed to judge what the people need. In that case, it becomes more malice than stupidity.

For an academic in a Divinity school, an uncaring but professional environment is a dead canary. It means something much worse than the lack of sympathy in that moment.

But, if that doesn't make sense to you, how about being systematically passed over for a promotion because of your political views?

It's hard not to see this as being a crappy place to work if you put yourself in his shoes.

Maybe its also because good content is more frustrating to actually get to. Compared to a decade ago there's a lot more friction on a first visit to a site. All the marketing pop-ups, paywalls and surveillance consent boxes are a hassle and page load times seemed to have gotten worse. Maybe we've been gradually conditioned to avoid those frustrations unless its really worth it.

Imagining a change in the tech landscape isn't that absurd. If there's a vacuum in the market, do you not think there are capable technology startups in the UK that could fill it?

The UK has a relatively strong chance of creating decent competitive challengers to Apple if the UK market opens up with their exit. Even if a few consumers are frustrated in the short term this could lead to a fantastic outcome for a competitive consumer marketplace over the long-term.

Limit your use of it. Using it aimlessly or without intentional purpose is the biggest of all pitfalls.

Giants are more visible, I won't dispute that but I'm not sure I agree with a strategy of surrendering to them because of that fact.

I don't think we need a real hero here, we need end-user solidarity perhaps in the form of public policy and market regulation. Humans would have more freedom on the internet if corporate giants didn't.

Relying on giants to defend the interests of the rest of us mere humans sounds dangerous.

This is such a beautifully designed language. I came across Ink a few months ago and I was delighted with how small and concise it is. I can see this being a very interesting teaching language but it's also good to see that it has real life deployments too. Any thoughts about growing this beyond a personal project?

> A lot of people think Amazon saw buying and operating Whole Foods as a way to learn about the world of groceries and then to use that knowledge to launch a larger, more mainstream grocery chain. Now the company may be taking its first steps toward doing just that...

Learn the domain then leverage that knowledge. Sounds like this is about to be a canonical case study in business schools a decade from now.

> There’s too much to do and nobody knows what works yet.

As long as you still believe this is true for the problem space you are working with then this means startups are still going to be the better bet.

If you're interested in learning how to build/use disruptive technologies or businesses models then there's no better place. Startups don't have the overhead associated with maintaining a sustainable pace so the speed of learning is incredible. High risk, high reward.

If you're convinced that technology or business models in your problem space has plateaued around some local optimum then you can probably learn more from distilled wisdom in textbooks and tutorials than from hands-on in-the-field experience. Established industry jobs nearly always pay more and there's much less associated risk.

> it's also the only way their code is going to see widespread engagement

Wow, what a claim! I can see how this may have some anecdotal evidence behind it since programming has had such a strong English bias but it's conjecture to say that this is the only path. Not only does that claim lack evidence, it also lacks imagination. The future doesn't have to follow the same patterns of the past.

The technical constraints of ASCII have long been irrelevant and its only the cultural imposition that remains. While this has been the case the size and importance of computing has exploded everywhere (e.g. 4 billion people worldwide use the internet).

Can you really say with confidence that global "widespread engagement" is (and will always be) a desirable property for code projects? Is software produced in this way and at this global scale really likely to be better quality for everyone?

> fracturing the software world into multiple competing linguo-spheres would destroy economies of scale

There is a very visible pattern in most Open Source projects where a small group of core maintainers will do most of the work even if there is a much wider body of causal contributors (see Nadia Eghbal's _Working In Public_). So, what are the economies of scale? Are you perhaps referring to problems experienced in the by-gone age of the early internet?

Economists largely agree that healthy competition is beneficial for improving quality, spurring innovation and reducing costs. I don't see the problem with multiple language/culture specific software projects that all solve the same problem. This could even look like different programmers working on different projects for different audiences.

The only downside I can see for the everyday programmers is the FOMO generated from inaccessible software in a foreign language. Isn't that ironic?

The availability of alternative commercial keyboards is possibly not the best metric to use to judge actual need/desire. There are a large number of non-ASCII layouts that can be mapped on top of a standard QWERTY[0] which show that ASCII is not a valid assumption for a modern general purpose programming language.

The idea that we should all be grateful for the unification that using one language brings is a sentiment that reinforces the idea that this is cultural imperialism. There are definitely benefits to conformity, no doubt, but imposing it unnecessarily is a design decision that should be questioned. Why take away options from people who might value that freedom?

[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keyboard_layout#Keyboard_layou...

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_imperialism

But "everyone" doesn't have the same keyboard nor does everyone speak the same language. ASCII is not a universal character set and treating it as such is nothing short of cultural imperialism: "If it's good enough for us, it's good enough for everyone".

Artificial limits on language and characters sets might sound simple to you but it introduces a lot of complexity for others. Unicode code solves that problem with not too much overhead.

Also, just to point out, this assumption is exactly why diversity in tech matters so much.

Does social engineering count? Facebook hacking the human condition has to be the biggest data exposure event in history.

Possibly beneficial and useful features can still be dark patterns. Whether or not there is any potential user-value is irrelevant to the ethics of design decisions like these.

If you're dealing with user data you should never compromise a basic respect for that user's intent. Designing for implied consent where consent should be explicit (e.g. sharing personal data) is unambiguously a dark pattern.