boucher

Inequality has nothing to do with feeling superior or inferior to others (though, our culture absolutely does encourage those beliefs).

In a world with limited resources, huge levels of inequality necessarily means that a small group of people are consuming vastly more of the available resources than everyone else. It also tends to concentrate political power in the same small group. Many people would say there is something inherently unfair about this.

I think these things aren't as separate from your concerns as you make them out to be.

Or, one could look at the data suggesting that vaccinating someone, even after they have been infected, can dramatically decrease the risk of long covid.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/health/article/Do-vaccinations-p...

One of the largest companies in the world has recently renamed itself Meta (verse is strongly implied), so on some level it must have a decent amount of hype.

Police officers often lie about what can or will be charged for political reasons (or laziness reasons, or some other reason unrelated to what the DA supposedly will or won't do). That is why the parent said it might be propaganda.

A lot of people think carbon capture and storage has the potential to save us from climate change, but that idea ignores the scale of the situation.

The world generates ~40 billion tons of CO2 a year, meanwhile the total mass of everything transported in the entire world is only around ~12b tons.

I am in no way agreeing with the OP, but I do think you misread what they wrote:

>> discontinuation after long-term usage is associated with higher relapse rates [0,1,2]

To paraphrase, those who stop taking experience higher relapse rates than those who continue to take, which is also what you cited:

>> those with continued treatment showed much lower relapse rates

I am a huge fan of Docker the tool, and during the prime of Docker the company they were doing some really impressive stuff. Swarm was dramatically easier to use than Kubernetes. The people working on Docker both in and outside of the company were top notch and they should be proud of what they accomplished.

It's too bad they didn't make the business side of things work, though I agree that at the time there was a certain feeling of too much money chasing an uncertain future for an open source project. I hope this next iteration of the company works out for them.

I recommend this episode of This American Life if you're interested in hearing more about the current debate over the SATs and schools choosing not to use them: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/734/the-campus-tour-has-bee...

Choosing to bring RMS back to the FSF is a guarantee that it becomes even more irrelevant than it already has.

Gates is a complicated fellow. It's worth pointing out that he's richer now than he has ever been.

It's probably the only thing protecting Wikipedia's existence.

The simplest answer is probably that events aren't really generated in a one-to-one relationship with API calls, so it's very non obvious at that point what behavior you would expect.

I believe the logic behind associating the current API version with the endpoint you are adding is that you are adding it now so you should use the current API. Perhaps they should let you choose an older version, but there's always some desire to get people to upgrade to the latest version of things.

I think the pundits in 2007 were obviously wrong to anyone who followed Apple. I mean, perhaps you wouldn't have predicted the level of success, but it was clear that the iPod was all the experience they needed to pull off the iPhone, and it was also clear to anyone who used phones that if they could get the internet to work well there was a big market.

In contrast, I would say there's very little evidence Apple can pull off a majorly successful server play. It's not impossible, and I think the trends are potentially in their favor, but it definitely doesn't play to their strengths. Apple's biggest strengths are very consumer oriented, and the trade-offs they typically make are not great for an enterprise crowd (expensive hardware, willingness to abandon legacy compatibility, etc.).

There's probably a smallish market for very specialized servers that Apple could fill well, and maybe they will. Long term maybe that could translate to a wider market if they really make an effort. But I think it's at the very least a significantly longer time horizon than the iPhone.

To be clear, just so people don't vote mistakenly: these companies want to "operate under Prop 22"; Uber & Lyft are the primary supporters of Prop 22.

They do not want to operate under AB5, the current law, which Prop 22 seeks to invalidate.

If you want to compel Uber and others to follow the current law (which requires them to give employee benefits to drivers), you should vote NO on Prop 22.

I think you're overstating the success of chemical treatment. I'm not extremely well versed in the subject, but I've read a number of books and articles that seriously call into question that idea.

It would seem that "talking about it" is actually more effective than medication in many circumstances (e.g. the research on cognitive behavioral therapy versus medication).

The consensus at this point seems to be that we do not have any real causal theory for most mental illnesses, including depression.

I hope the right to repair movement catches on.

Seems someone has written some of it up here: https://github.com/acdlite/react-fiber-architecture

Pretty interesting. Hope someone also writes a summary of how it works. Are they computing the tree in a worker, or have they just modified the rendering api itself to somehow be interrupt-able?

But they are completely different.

On the most basic level, governments are responsible to their citizens and their only purpose is to serve those citizens.

Companies are responsible only to their shareholders, who may or may not be their customers. Their only goal is to earn money for those shareholders.

Companies get to pick their customers, governments do not.

The examples you give are instructive. Intuit spends a tremendous amount of money lobbying against improvements to the American tax system that would benefit everyone, because that would mean fewer profits for them. Fedex competes in some ways with the USPS, but USPS provides a government mandated service to every remote region of the country, which a private company would not do, because as a country we decided that service was an important function of government. Plus, Fedex actually uses USPS for a significant percentage of their deliveries.

There is a wealth of literature on the subject, no pun intended. Thomas Piketty's "Capital in the 21st Century" (or, more practically, summaries of it) offers one interesting perspective. A different take can be seen in books like "Winners Take All" by Anand Giridharadas.

On the most basic level, you should question your own premises. The reality of extreme wealth inequality is that rich people do have a substantially outsized say in running the government and exercising other forms of power, and they are often able to evade laws as well as engage in activity that is harmful to the poor.

No, lying would not be covered.

Grand juries are secret by law. Nobody involved is allowed to talk about what happens in the grand jury, or even to acknowledge the subject of the investigation.

People who testify to grand juries are automatically granted immunity with respect to that testimony, unless it is explicitly waived. That automatic immunity negates their right to invoke the 5th amendment under the law.

I find it hard to believe that even rms would compare Free Software to human slavery, but would be interested if you have a source.

This is a fairly amusing read. Favorite quote:

    This devil would be a human being disguised to teach a moral lesson with a theatrical metaphor, so let's not take the metaphor too far. I think we would do well not to say that users are “selling their souls” if they install nonfree software—rather, part of their own freedom is what they forfeit. We don't need to exaggerate to teach the point...

I'm sympathetic to the FSF's goals, but I think they're desire for ideological purity prevents them from achieving meaningful wins. Increasing the availability and desirability of Free software shouldn't have to mean total exclusion of all non-Free software.

As an industry, I think we should be more troubled by devices that aren't even allowed to run code without special permission from some third party. The App Store is a sad state of affairs in my opinion.

You are simply wrong. It's trivially easy to disprove your several comments about SF tipping culture with a few google searches.

Don't confuse the fact that nobody has confronted you for the idea that waiters don't expect you to tip them.

But, CSRF is inherently a browser vulnerability.

When home solar installations send excess power to the grid, they also do it in the middle of the day, when wholesale electricity prices are at their highest.

A pretty unfortunate title; containerd, like Docker itself, has always been open source. Now it's being spun out as a separate project, and donated to a "neutral foundation."

Though, I think the timing of this announcement is rather odd. None of this is happening until Q2 next year.

If you're holding all of your assets in a single stock solely because you don't want to take a tax hit, then yeah that's a really bad strategy.