donkeyd

I'm a man and I like colors. I have a red car, red shoes and colorful jackets. None of them are especially remarkable, they just have colors on them. I get remarks from colleagues about my shoes, I get remarks from random people on the street about my jacket. These people don't tend to be very positive about it, yet they feel the need to say something about my appearance, because I wear colorful stuff.

I feel like part of the movement towards grayscale is that people are afraid to stand out. I can always easily find my car in a parking lot, because it stands out. People can find me in a group, because I stand out. I'm glad I don't care too much about the opinions of other people, so I just wear what I want to and don't try to blend in. I also feel bad for people who don't wear what they'd like to because they're afraid to stand out, because you only get one lifetime.

I personally also hate that the already dreadful winter is made even more dreadful by everyone wearing dark clothing. Please all buy something colorful to wear next winter... It's safer too!

A couple of years ago, I was going through a short stint of burn-out. I needed some time away, so I put a mattress in the back of my car and went to Germany for a few days. I loved the idea of not having to go anywhere and not having to discuss the next location with anyone. If I saw a place with a nice view around dinner time, I'd just stop there, warm up some food and eat, enjoying the view. Those couple of days were zen. I need to do this again some time, but for some reason when not burnt out, people are less accepting of this kind of thing.

I understand, but Uber used these practices everywhere. And, like I mentioned, they used it on their company machines, not the servers where their customer data would probably be stored. So the hypothesis of doing this to protect customers is doubtful at best.

I understand where these questions are coming from, but many Western countries have decent legal systems where data unrelated to a case cannot be used by law enforcement and this will be tested by both prosecutors and judges.

I'm currently working in LE and I would not be allowed to look at customer data if that was seized during a search related to an investigation of Uber. I would not be able to just grab the ride data of a subject of another investigation because that would be illegal. If I did do that, that evidence would be thrown out and I would be reprimanded.

I understand there are countries where this isn't true though, or where people are worried about the state of legal proceedings in their countries. But that doesn't mean Uber or any other company can just destroy evidence on the premise of securing customer data.

Also, I highly doubt that Uber hosts their customer data on workstations in their offices. At least I hope they don't.

Sure, that doesn't help. Most scientists don't do it for the money though, so that doesn't have to be an issue per se. The barrier to entry for becoming a scientist, however, is extremely high and not filled with equal opportunity.

One example is a female friend of mine with two Master's degrees who's currently not getting paid a lot in a government job. She would love to do a PHD and start doing research in the areas she's been educated in and worked in, but she hardly gets invited to interviews and when she does, she never seems to get the job, because she lacks research experience. The longer she works outside of research, the less of a chance she gets to actually get hired for a research position.

I understand that there have to be high barriers to entry, because quality needs to be high, but I feel like the balance currently might not be right.

Maybe it's changed, but in the Netherlands PHEVS were mostly bought because of lower taxation when driving them as a company car. Because the companies paid gas, people used them as regular cars and ended up polluting more due to the weight of the batteries.

We've had some changes in the taxation scheme though, so this may no longer be relevant.

Anonymity is a broad term though. I would be incredibly surprised (and fascinated) if anyone on HN can find my true identity from my account, even with an e-mail address in my profile. I also know that Google (and therefore powerful bad actors or law enforcement) can easily figure it out, since I've logged in to this e-mail address from the same devices as my private e-mail address.

If I'd need full privacy, I'd have to add many more levels of security in my daily life that I don't find necessary. I just don't want people (or a SWAT team) to show up at my door because I triggered someone on the internet. That's why I post from multiple different accounts on different platforms. Though, I'm sure, in the future some form of AI will be able to link them all based on writing style and similarity of content of my posts. Guess I'll have to find another way to remain somewhat anonymous then.

> Is there a middle ground?

Yes. Raise awareness with targeted, limited, protests and try to keep the awareness by remaining visible. You can remain visible with banners, brochures, interviews and in lots of ways. Increasing violence is not a good way to get people interested in your cause. The increase in violence also often doesn't seem to be caused by the people who feel strongly about a cause, but by other who hijack it for their enjoyment.

Also, the farmers aren't raising awareness for some coherent goal like ending racism. They are protesting drastic measures that are necessary to protect nature in the country and are supported by a majority of the people. These drastic measures include billions in payments to the affected farmers, it's not like the cost will be on them. So it will be really hard for the farmers to convince the public that their demands are reasonable. (We don't even really know their demands except "not this".)

Because we have too many in the Netherlands, it's that simple. We are a tiny country where nearly every area that isn't used for housing or industry is used for farming. Go to any other European country, you have large forested areas, mountains, etc. That hardly exists in the Netherlands because we're all farm.

The farmers' reaction is mostly due to the first part:

> not all farmers will continue in business

The farming differently mostly has to do with scale. We're already really good at producing efficiently, but we're building massive (relatively, nothing compared to the US) farms for meat and dairy and we're doing this right next to nature preserves. Our country is so tiny, that pretty much everything is right next to each other.

Over the past decades, through farming and related lobbies, we've seen a huge increase in the size of the farms over here. The economies of scale have benefited the share holders of food companies and banks, but not the farmers, because every penny they save gets cut from their income by these food companies. This causes farmers to aim for even larger farms with more automation, which requires investment, which benefits the banks.

Now, the government is telling the farmers we need to reduce the number of farms and the size of the remaining ones. After being fucked over mostly by large companies for decades, they feel like the government is now targeting them unfairly. They see all their investments might be useless in the future and they're angry because of it.

All of this is exacerbated by leftover Covid anger and conspiracy groups adding to the fire and joining the protests, which are becoming more violent and their demands are becoming less coherent.

Correct, but in the Netherlands the problem is that they're killing our existing flora and fauna. Especially in areas where nature reserves and farming are close together, this causes issues. The Netherlands is the 2nd biggest food exporter in the world, after the US. But we're only the 134th largest by land mass and 69th largest by population.

The amount of farming we do in our tiny country is pushing the limit of what you can do to nature and it's causing issues on a local scale. The unfortunate thing is that we're about the most efficient producer in the world too, so on a global scale, cutting down production here would probably be a bad thing.

> Many of them are truly good people.

If prison hasn't fucked them up. I really hope these people will find their way in society if there's ever a pardon, because it might be really had to adapt to normal life, even if you ended up in jail for something as stupidly innocuous as smoking weed.

Well, it's not about that. It's that one of the reasons the Netherlands never legalized is that the rest of Europe didn't. So we were afraid that we'd become a place where international criminals come to produce massive amounts of weed legally to then export it illegally. When countries surrounding us start legalizing, we have no reason not to.

Since growing weed is purely done by criminals right now, we're also afraid to legalize because legal weed farms might get issues with criminal involvement or threat because the criminals lose a huge income source. If we don't legalize however when Germany does, we'll then get a bunch of trafficking from Germany to the Netherlands.

We're in a bit of a pickle and it'll be interesting to see what our Christian/Liberal/Progressive government will come up with. I expect them to just ignore it and continue by doing pretty much nothing until it's a real problem.

No problem. I read another comment that said it would not be legalized. But now that I read the responses to that comment I feel like I probably shouldn't have taken that comment as the truth.

DSQ seems pretty interesting. I don't have a use for it right now, but I'm sure it's something that'll be useful in the future!

Same. This ended causing me to quit my start-up. I was the tech lead and kept getting asked to estimate features that were completely new to us. I had a completely junior team due to budget constraints. After playing this game time and time again I threw in the towel.

The funny thing to me is that the BTC promoters keep talking about the blockchain being used to pay for stuff, like the occasional Tesla, or bananas in third world countries. However, last time I checked, about 90% of transactions involving BTC happened off the blockchain. It happened in marketplaces where no actual crypto is transacted and it's all in the databases of these marketplaces. The value of BTC has nothing to do with the actual use of the Bitcoin Blockchain.

If anything, the ETH blockchain might have more value in the real world, since it's used to transact stupid monkey pictures and stuff like that.

Larger drops have had clear news about Tether to blame for the drop. From what I can tell, this one is more natural and caused by turmoil in crypto markets themselves. That's what makes this interesting to me.

Edit: Apparently there's some news: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31723878

They are if you drink the megacorp coolaid. There's so much opinion making going on by companies that have a lot to lose from this stuff. Remember when Facebook said that GDPR would mostly hurt small businesses that use Facebook for targeted ads? That one didn't really stick, but those types of stories are getting people to defend corporate interests even though they have no real reason to.

Older ones too. If anything, newer cars are getting more secure in this, because if laws like GDPR. Many cars don't even really wipe data when you do a 'factory reset'. They just don't show it anymore, but if you get to the source data, you can still see it. Think about that next time you sell your car.

Interesting. The receding ground water level in the Netherlands could possibly impact our electrical infrastructure on a local level then, right?

TVs are massive, so they don't have to be this small and you can already buy TVs with built in cameras, since it can be used for video conferencing. Also, this type of tech can already be used to measure ad awareness in stores [0]. It's also starting to be implemented in cars, to check whether you're paying attention to the road while using 'autonomous' systems.

So... This is not really a type of tech that will enable your fears, it already exists, there just doesn't seem a business model for applying it in TVs yet.

0: https://www.unravelresearch.com/en/blog/eye-tracking-in-adve...

> SWEs in 1st world countries no longer price-competitive, and they have to either move to 3rd world countries or change career

In the Netherlands we have a lot of outsourcing to India and a lot of Indian IT workers moving here. We still have many IT job openings and some companies have been moving development back from India, because cultural differences and language barriers some times cost more than the added salary of a local employee.

> People in 3rd world countries no longer want to pursue career as a doctor (and other similarly needed professions like law) (expensive, time consuming, etc) and just pursue SWE jobs

This assumes that people pursue career paths only for the money. Of the doctors I know, most people did not pick that job for the money, they did it because they wanted to be a doctor.

Then there's the fact that people have different interests and natural skill sets. A family member of mine, for example, is a doctor and asked me: "do you really like computers". She would not become an SWE even if it paid double.

> If corporate systems were stand-alone/isolated, we probably would not have this problem to the extent that we do.

Well.. Yeah, but also... This is what we used to have and have been moving away from. We used to have on premise and then moved to SaaS. I'm pretty sure we all realized that had some security consequences, right?

The update under the article has an explanation of where the name probably came from:

> I had no idea what it meant or was used for, thus assigned it a “descriptive name” when collating the symbols for the STIX project.

If I understand this correctly in the context, this person named the glyph based on what it looked like. So it wasn't the other way around.

> now they are extracting profit

So? They're a business, what do you expect?

The previous commenter was saying they're doing more than just hosting video, which is true. If you want to create a nonprofit for video hosting, go ahead, but don't blame YouTube for turning a profit.

> Hopefully this changes with time

Looking at Europe, nearly every gas station is starting to get a fast charger installed (along major roads, at least). A couple of years ago there were waiting lines at super chargers during the yearly migration to the Alps, but I haven't seen any similar stories this year.

> unless you have a portable charging station of some sort

Teslas come with those by default. You just plug them into a socket and you're charging. Sure, it's slow, but it works. I used it to charge overnight at my hotel during a winter sports vacation, for the trip to the slopes and back. (I even brought a power meter so I could pay for the power I used.)

The trip to the area was over 1000km and took all in all about an hour more than it did with my diesel car. Like the previous person said, the only major downside was being less flexible in stopping locations due to Superchargers.

You underestimate the amount of nuclear material that's still in the ground around there. Vaporizing that isn't a great idea.

I recently told my SO this exact thing. They were doubting whether to apply for a higher position because they might be rejected. I told them that not applying would definitely mean they wouldn't get the job, so at least applying means there's a chance.