k-mcgrady

Thousands of matches isn’t a good thing. If you ever have the opportunity ask a female friend to show you the kind of messages they get on dating apps. They’re pretty appalling. It genuinely worries me that there are so many creeps out there. The men you know may not be getting many matches but at least the ones they get are more than likely from relatively normal people. If I had to sort through the garbage women do on dating apps I wouldn’t be on them.

I’ve seen quite a lot of people complaining about this on Twitter. Is there some negative to this I’m not aware of other than companies losing customers? I’ve come across more and more sites in recent years with no account deletion option and it’s hugely frustrating. One I discover it and manage to shut my account down via a support channel they have lost me for good. There is no way I’m ever becoming a customer again because I can’t trust them with my data if they’re going to hold it hostage. If they’d included the account deletion option I very well may have returned in the future.

iTunesU predates things like Coursera. I’d say it took someone like Apple to convince major universities that making their lectures available was worthwhile or else people like Coursera never would have gotten off the ground. It’s a very different market now and iTunesU definitely stagnated but in 2007 it was pretty cool.

Shame, I got a lot of value from it in the first few years after it’s launch. At the time that sort of content wasn’t really available elsewhere.

I’d love to know whether it works in their favour or not. I find myself viewing less and less Netflix content on my Apple TV as the “up next” queue is always full of non-Netflix content.

…and this changes that (to an extent) by allowing iOS/Mac users to have FaceTime calls with people in different ecosystems.

Apple bought Dark Sky. That’s why they now have next hour rain data I believe.

Netflix don’t implement the Apple TV features that allow you to see content from multiple sources on one page or “up next” either.

>> It’s worth mentioning that Tim Ferriss didn’t actually get wealthy by following his own advice.

This is missing the point of the book though. Wealth isn't the goal. Earning enough money per month to satisfy your needs + wants in addition to freeing up as much time as possible is.[1]

[1] https://tim.blog/lifestyle-costing/

>> if you work 4 hours to live a normal lifestyle, why not work 40 and get on top of the pyramid

The point is that you don't need to get to the top of the pyramid to get what you want. If you list all the things you want (including things like sports cards, travel etc.) the monthly income you need to do this things (e.g. lease the sports car) is less than you think. That monthly income target (+maximising free time to do what you like) should be your goal, not "being a millionaire/being a CEO etc.".

Is anyone actually advocating everybody have a 4-hour work week? Of course not. Tim Ferriss doesn't even specifically advocate a work week of 4 hours. The point is to delegate to the maximum so you can spend as much of your time doing what you choose - which can include working. Unfortunately there are always going to be jobs that need done and some of them suck. We should pay these people well and we should appreciate the work that they do.

Unless we completely change our economic systems some people are going to have easier lives than others. A medium article bitching about that isn't going to change it. There are people with much easier lives than the author - but the author also has a much more privileged life than most.

Reducing the worlds inequalities and problems to "millions of “enlightened” bros" and "fragile white males with degrees from Princeton, and podcasts selling high speed internet" is ridiculous.

In England when you move GP records are sent to the new GP without any action from the patient (although in practice this doesn’t always work). If you move to another part of the UK this doesn’t work because the devolved nations manage their own health systems.

>> At the end of the day if people working from home get more done, they'll be allowed to do so[...] Instead of being a zealot about it, go prove it works for you.

That's not what's happening though. Apple was requiring all employees to be back three days a week. There's a reason people are getting vocal about this stuff. A lot of people hate working in the office and don't need to and this is a one time opportunity for them. It took a worldwide pandemic to finally show a lot of bosses that "it's not possible to do this job remotely" is largely bullshit. If people relent and go back against their will, it could be difficult to make the shift again.

Although it does depend a bit on what the cookies they are storing here are used for you cannot use implied consent to workaround the law.

Taking your example of signs in stores: if a store had a sign saying "if you try to steal from this store you will be shot on sight" it does not suddenly make that legal because a customer saw the sign and still decided to enter.

Additionally with a website you do not see the message until you have already entered and they have already placed the cookie so again, there can't be implied consent. It's just notification of what they have already done.

The EU cookie laws are basically, for non-essential cookies (e.g. mostly tracking/ad stuff) users must be given the option to reject them before they are enabled. Seems pretty simple + pretty fair to me. The problem is that most websites fail to implement it correctly. When they do implement it correctly it's really useful in my opinion.

Why would anyone trust 'legal advice' on a complex piece of legislation from a site that can't even implement a straightforward regulation correctly.

How do you get randomly pinged outside working hours? Is Slack on your personal phone? If so, delete it. Keep your work emails closed (and not on your personal phone). Use a separate browser profile for work/personal if you are working on your personal laptop.

I sympathise with people finding it hard to switch off (I was one until I did all of the above) but it's a simple problem to solve and it's absolutely nothing to do with WFH.

Interesting. Given it was just a couple of months was there any element of getting adjusted to the new arrangements/developing better remote processes that could have contributed?

Interesting, however I think any data gathered during the pandemic is not too useful. WFH is very abnormal currently for most. My current WFH productivity is certainly lower than when I WFH pre-pandemic.

If I was making decisions about the future of a company I would allow totally flexibility for at least 6 months post-pandemic so I could gather more accurate data. Trying to make people decide what they want (remote/office/mix) now is going to lead to decisions that people end up changing a little down the line.

True but my point was more than you will find every CEO that forces people to come back make a similar statement.

Also - Apple is a large company. Not everybody there is working on the next big thing. I'm sure there are plenty of people doing their job at Apple for money alone like anywhere else.

"Cook wrapped up the memo by saying that he's looking forward to seeing employee faces. "I know I'm not alone in missing the hum of activity, the energy, creativity and collaboration of our in-person meetings and the sense of community we've all built," he wrote."

CEO's all spout the same nonsense. The majority of people work because they need to earn money. They're not working to make a new 'family' or change the world or be around 'creative people'. It's generally the leadership teams at companies that think it's great to be in the office but that's because they've sacrificed a lot to get where they are and they care deeply about their job and the company. The majority of people just want to earn some money and do it as easily as possible. I think companies not offering full remote work options will see a lot of employee turnover and will have to change their policy very quickly.

I'm surprised anyone would write this off. It's a trendy eBay for a specific niche (used/"vintage" clothes). If you can get it to scale (obviously not easy) it seems like it's an easy win and easy to monetise. On the surface a much better investment opportunity than a lot of the stuff we see on HN.

Interesting! I guess it depends on the specific speakers/monitors. It's not something I would have considered before. I'll have to check out those JBL's.

Studio monitors and HiFi equipment seem like different categories and use cases to me. HiFi speakers should fill the room. To get a good sound from studio monitors you need to be positioned well. Just moving a little bit can make a big difference in the sound.

“Privacy campaigners and doctors have raised the alarm about plans, led by the Department of Health and Social Care, to put the medical histories of more than 55 million patients into a new database where they will be made available to the private sector and other researchers.”

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jun/01/gps-urged-to...

>> - a lot of practical lessons learned about managing global virus outbreaks

You would think, but I feel like with each wave (and therefore each opportunity to learn from previous mistakes) countries repeated the mistakes of the past. I have very little confidence that if we were faced with a similar threat in the near future that things would be different.

I think SKY is well prepared for this. With their NowTV service you can get the movies/entertainment/sports packages all separately. You can even buy the sports package for a day or a weekend. They also have quite a lot of exclusive content through SKY Atlantic + their sports offerings.

On top of that they are a major Broadband provider. If they started losing full SKY TV subscriptions I think their other business areas will make up for it. I would never get SKY TV...but I've paid for their broadband + pay £30 a month for sports via NowTV.

Amber Rudd also said this week that techies were ‘patronising’ and she doesn’t need to understand encryption. She wants them to give her access to terrorist messages on WhatsApp etc. - but she’s not asking for a backdoor.

The point here seems to be that unselfish people are more empathetic to the plight of others. while I don't disagree I wonder if unselfishness leads people into situations where they work towards others benefit (people they perceive as being treated unfairly) at their own detriment also possibly leading to issues with depression. That's the point I presumed the article would make before I read it.

Around 100 years of history isn't a big sample size when it comes to political/economic ideologies. Also, I would argue their are examples of it existing with non-evil dictators. I won't bother naming anyone specifically as it's easy to say 'but x did y' however I feel like that applies to a majority of world leaders under any system. There are certainly leaders of communist countries who did no-more evil than some of our recent democratically elected leaders in the west.

Are you saying communism cannot exist separately from (evil) dictator? Lots of the ideas do (there are plenty of functioning highly socialist countries). Theoretically at least communism could exist peacefully (although it seems you would need everyone in the country to agree and remain agreed to the principals for that to work).

Also - dictatorships can work. There have been several 'benevolent' dictators who made communism work without introducing any more evil than many democratically elected leaders. A dictatorship doesn't naturally lead to Mao/Stalin etc.