This is the opposite of stifling innovation. It's literally not innovative, which is a big point of the ruling.
The company produces and sells watches with the technology. It's not a patent troll.
278 karma · joined November 22, 2022
The company produces and sells watches with the technology. It's not a patent troll.
Vanguard growth fund (VIGAX) 42%
AMZN 71%
APPL 56%
MSFT 55%
GOOG 52%
TSLA 124%
Anyone with an aggressive but not insane portfolio could be at 47% growth in 2023.
A great gag-worthy line: "Please know we are focused on treating our impacted colleagues with the respect and compassion they deserve".
Also, if the note doesn't include the CEO stepping down (even with a transition period would be fine), then it's not a good layoff note.
So you only want "competing" views if they line up with your views?
The study was about driving, something many/most of us do on a regular basis. It shows that:
1. Sleep deprivation while driving is comparable to being intoxicated while driving.
2. Those who are sleep deprived are not reliably able to recognize their impairment.
If you think it's "obtuse" to bring this up, then I don't know what you're trying to do here. Those are extremely important pieces of information to bring up.
You are underestimating the impact of sleep deprivation, and the ability for a person to recognize the impacts while sleep deprived.
https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s...
"It was concluded that sleep deprivation has a greater impact on driving performance than a BrAC of 22 μg/100mls of breath, as measured by driving simulation. Coffee is not an effective countermeasure for sleep deprived driving and drivers’ ability to judge this impairment is suggested to be limited."
I feel great after a few beers, but keeping that state is a very bad idea. "try it and see" is not a great idea when it comes to your brain.
Because you keep paying for it. It's not like you're going to not pay for internet, and you probably don't have many alternative options.
We all do, of course.
> I certainly don't want to be responsible for paying a cost for someone else's bad choice
Then, in some cases, you'd prefer them dead/permanently disabled/permanently in pain/etc. Which, I guess is a position to have, but not one I'd like to take. It sounds like I'm exaggerating here but I'm not.
Remember, the theory in the posts above is that technology makes people more likely to take more risky behaviors. And I'm arguing that there will always be a significant percentage of the population that engages in risky behaviors (for whatever your definition of risky is), and we should have technology to help.
> esp. if the bad choice gave them an advantage or "profit".
Not everything is black and white. We are allowed to pick and choose here and limit this from happening. Most examples we've been talking about involve an individual having to use some communal system, like a healthcare system. That isn't an "advantage" or "profit" that the individual is abusing.
An individual can independently choose to brush, floss, engage in less risky behaviors, have a good diet, maintain a health weight, etc. It's not hard.
But when talking about society as a whole, that breaks down. Society is going to have a percentage of people who don't brush and floss. Who aren't managing their diet and weight. Who are taking risks beyond what you find acceptable.
When talking about society as a whole, it's a dead end to just say, "well people should just be better". It doesn't work that way, and it certainly doesn't fix anything. Society will always have people who have a lot of sex. Making it safer is better. Society will always have people who have teeth issues. Not having them die or be in massive pain is better. Society will always have people who can't maintain a healthy weight. Making it easier is better.
They shouldn't. Fight the ISPs.
> For what it’s worth my personal philosophy would be trust, but verify. That necessarily entails some way to verify.
Again, trust what? Do all roads lead to porn?
> Furthermore, in many jurisdictions parents are civilly or even potentially criminally liable for their childrens’ activities. If you’re in one of those jurisdictions you have a duty to prevent your child from breaking the relevant laws or other rules.
Really grasping at straws here. What laws are you worried your child will break that would reasonably reach the level you're worried about?
If you're so concerned with Internet pornography that you want to lock down your child's digital life and know every single thing they say and do, then so be it. We probably won't change each other's minds.
Social media addiction, etc. can be helped by restricting time without restricting access.
So much to unpack here.
These restrictions just don't make sense to me. I was a pretty reserved child, so I can't imagine getting over all the hurdles needed to grow as a person and foster my love for programming/tech:
- Asking for permission to read all the random Perl forums or IRC chats I stumbled upon just wouldn't be a thing I would have done.
- My parents probably wouldn't have understood what it all was and denied my request. Early on I probably wouldn't have even been able to explain why I needed that access.
- Remember installing linux for the first time? Sorry, not going to happen because the stalkerware doesn't work on linux.
- You want access to a website called "hacker news"?? No way! (HN wasn't really a thing I think back in my childhood but you get the idea).
-----
Second, I was a latchkey kid. Having two working parents is neglectful? What would have been the alternative?
And my point with the porn is that it's not worth locking everything down for fear that your child is going to see some boobs. It's not worth it, and it seems that it's the driving force or a lot of these restrictions.
So porn is part of the issue? Really?
- What am I going to do with my child's browsing history except snoop? Are we still worried about porn in 2023?
- What applications are they going to install that I'd want to override that couldn't be solved by not giving them a credit card number?
- What are they going to watch on Youtube that can't be solved by simply limiting device time?
- Shock sites? Surely every one of us experienced that at some point in our childhood, and I haven't thought about them in years. And are they even in vogue these days?
- Stories like strangers trying to meet up with children seem on par with poisoned halloween candy. It happens incredibly infrequently, often ends up being a known family member anyway, and people forever fear it as if it's actually something to fear in their daily lives.
I think communication, education, and limiting screen time at certain ages is the only healthy thing to do. Giving children (yes, even young children) some privacy is important. Your suggestions I believe fall into the "helicopter parent" territory.
It doesn't say the government is profiting either. You just made that up.
That's not the correct way to think about it. The correct way to think about it is whether or not there's more harm with more data than the status quo.
Most medical professionals seem to think there's more harm than the status quo, but that doesn't change the fact that you're thinking about it wrong.
Those who joined big-tech early-ish in their career likely see the state of the company at the time as way better than what they're used to. Then it gets worse.
It doesn't really matter where you enter in the history of the company, the culture is almost always going to be the best as you know it when you join and get worse over time. Very rarely does the opposite happen.
That's not a requirement in the US.
ctrl+f "monetization"
ctrl+f "moderation"
ctrl+f "existing infrastructure"
ctrl+f "personalization"
etc etc
Yeah about what I expect from a "we rebuilt twitter for cheap" post. There's no point to the comparisons with the Twitter codebase size/cost. It completely distracts from what is probably a perfectly fine project.
Where does this come from? It's something that sounds right, but then I look back at my parent's office jobs and pop culture from 20+ years ago and it doesn't line up. Open office spaces have been extremely common for a very very long time, with private offices reserved for higher level people.
Lmao. I'm no where near C-Suite but I've also never worked as hard as I did as an intern/junior engineer. Moving up often means working less hard.
> I don't really see any other way around it apart from a dehumanizing process to treat everyone exactly the same regardless of capabilities
This post is about WFH, not treating everyone the same regardless of capabilities. Those are such different things that I'm convinced you must be arguing in bad faith.
Any if it is? We surely can't solve every, or even most societal issue that causes it.
You can continue to support improvements to the societal issues of the world while still supporting pharmaceutical interventions for those who need it right now.
Got it, I see you're in the "make up stuff about the other person" phase of the discussion. No point in continuing here.
So at minimum, in person would be the same. So I can't possibly see how in person could be worse.
Oh come on... I get arguing that there are ways to make remote training good enough. Maybe even similar. Maybe even a net-positive when you look at the entire picture (including the productivity and happiness of your senior staff). But saying remote is better for training specifically? No way. That makes no logical sense.