cheesecracker

I thought the 8 hour work week was introduced by Ford, because he figured out it would maximize productivity. Not by Unions. Pretty sure Tim Bray has turned full socialism, to be honest.

If an "efficiency rate" leads to too many injuries, it is not the best "efficiency rate". I don't think you need Unions to figure that out, it is in the capitalist interest to then reduce the efficiency rate.

I find the whole idea of discussing "how much should we work" very telling. It comes from a position of high privilege and ignorance - the idea that we live in abundance, and stuff only needs to be distributed somehow.

If you are naked in the jungle, the question is not "how many hours should I work", the question is "what do I have to do to survive". If it takes 80 hours to build shelter, make a fire and hunt some food, then you'll work 80 hours.

If you manage to build stuff that reduces your work load, good for you. Like in the jungle, build a net that automatically catches fish, so you don't have to spent so many hours hunting. Not you have spare time. Good for you. But don't ask some imaginary entity (god? capitalism? the government?) to provide you with your spare tie and assign your jobs.

I'd like to add that to me the story of the 8 hour work week is also a warning before corporate employment. Because if 8 hours maximize your productivity, it means you are wasted after 8 hours. All you can still hope to do is eat and watch some TV. But that's not a reason to me to blame corporations . If you don't like it, negotiate with the corporations to work only part time, or seek to improve your skills so that you can ask for more money and afford more spare time. Nobody owes anybody a job.

So it is about job loss?

You know who else can recognize faces? Humans! I guess we should cancel humans because of ethical concerns.

OK sorry I meant there is no indication of such denial of entry BEFORE the activists take over. Once they manage to install their quota rules, it is of course not a fair playing field anymore.

We were discussing good vs evil, though, not "strong light makes things white". Sure, there are probably some basic properties that make white a likely choice for purity - after all, you see dirt stains on white clothing much better than on dark clothing.

I don't know what you mean by "judging people by appearances", how is that relevant? I haven't read the bible, I personally ma not a Christian. I just grew up in Christian culture. And infosec presumably also predominantly developed in that culture, as it was dominating the Western world for wuite a while.

I don't think the bible says brides should be dressed in white, nevertheless it seems to be a common Christian tradition.

So no, it was not "picked out of nowhere", after all Christian religion was what has defined good and evil for hundreds of years now, in the world in which infosec developed.

I think as long as no government funding is involved, people sho0uld be free to worship whoever they want and read whatever they want and flock around posters of whatever topic they want.

If government money is being distributed, things become more interesting. But I don't think everybody is entitled to a career funded by tax payer money. So it should probably remain "cut throat" to get a good job based on government money. Whether governments have the best criteria for handing out money is another question (number of papers published might not be the best metric).

There is no indication that people are being denied entry to certain fields.

WTF? No, it just seems that they use white as symbol for purity and god - angels clad in white, brides in white dresses...

My sincere apologies for growing up in a Christian culture, making me an evil colonialist by birth. How can I make amends?

Boogeyman - we are talking about the colors black and white here. Get off your high horse!

Christianity perhaps?

"might" - so it won't, again.

But the logic of the article seems to be the Easter Island inhabitants stopped building platforms, so their civilization must have collapsed. I criticize exactly the faulty logic you describe.

It's a direct reply to a comment on the sub-thread.

I am not entirely convinced. By that definition, all Western civilizations have collapsed because we don't build platforms anymore.

How do they define collapse? The criterion in the article seems to be "building platforms occasionally" vs "not building platforms anymore"?

You may enjoy reading "The World Until Yesterday" by Jared Diamond.

What a nonsensical belief.

"While dollar stores sometimes fill a need in cash-strapped communities, growing evidence suggests these stores are not merely a byproduct of economic distress,” the brief reported. “They’re a cause of it.”"

Then kindly provide some of that "growing evidence", rather than a bunch of anecdotes.

Thanks!

How long will that be, is that known?

I think that's what they did traditionally. If you want pieces of the phone to be replaceable, you'll get a thicker, heavier phone that uses more materials to build.

Then the comparison to watches doesn't really make sense, either, because both can be repaired?

Pretty sure they save materials, time to assemble and "space" by gluing instead of using replacable parts.

I guess your theory is that it is all malice by the manufacturers?

Components are glued or soldered together because that makes the device smaller and probably also more efficient to build, wasting less resources, too.

Sorry, but isn't a wristwatch like a bazillionth of complexity of a modern smartphone? How many transistors do you need for a wristwatch?

The whole idea of servicing modern electronics is romantic nonsense. The hourly rate of an expert will make it too expensive quickly, because industrialized mass production is too effective.

(Edit: according to this link on Quora, several billion transistors are not unrealistic in a smartphone https://www.quora.com/How-many-transistors-are-there-in-the-... )

What is the hourly rate of a watchmaker?

Whatever. Why should companies help out their rivals? To this day, nobody is forced to use Facebook.

I am not against helping rivals, synergies, whatever. But to claim it is unfair not to help rivals seems silly.

Invariably, if somebody is successful, some people will emerge claiming it was all unfair gains.

Not that I liked Facebook's approach, especially in the early days they were harvesting address books. It's not really an uncommon practice, though. The key point is, again, that nobody is forced to use them.

It may be a bit more difficult to avoid their tracking on web sites, but then it is on those web sites not to use the Facebook scripts. And if you really care, you can install an AdBlocker.

In the kindle app on iPad, it is not possible to buy kindle books. Apple only allows shopping via it's own payment schemes, presumably so that they can take the cut.

In that light, it seems rather funny that they do that on Android. Maybe it is their way of saying "see, you should be more restrictive".

Well personally, I don't want to depend on a car. So 50 miles would be very far.

Same here. I was actually hoping to see lots of outdated dreams, like "look what they thought would be cool, but turned out to be completely impractical".

Also, all such posts miss location. What good is a cool house, if the next supermarket is 50 miles away?

Ok, so it's fun and games, but how much money exactly is being thrown at that game?

Germany mandates by law that social networks like Facebook or Twitter censor people on government request. I have yet to see the global outrage over it.