yzmtf2008

I think you missed the point of distributing. I’m never going to let you email me your serviceworkers because I can’t forward this document to anyone without relying on you hosting a server / not changing the content.

Who/What has been exploited here? As others mentioned, you could install debs just fine.

I wouldn't say GCC has an edge on "codebase quality / ease of contribution". Doesn't RMS actively pushes against such metrics? https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00247.html

> To do that on a module, you have to first import that module - and then all the imports at the top of it would've already run.

Why not just replace the `__import__` function at program startup, when you haven't imported anything? Monkey patching `__import__` at any other time seems like a bad idea.

Untrue, you could literally replace `__import__` in python and achieve the same thing: https://docs.python.org/3.8/library/functions.html#__import_...

b) isn't it fair then that Apple charges a premium for access to a better market segment?

Is it really cherry-picked? Or if it is, is it really that difficult to pick out the "cherries"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherton_station

Both Lyft and Uber are public companies. If you know this is a bubble for sure, there are plenty of opportunities for you to cash in on that. In fact, if you have solid research that proves it's a bubble, plenty of people will pay you for that research.

Is forcing wheelchair users to use subway human decency to you? We're talking about a situation where it's cheaper to let them use taxi service, and it's a better experience.

My uncle lives in a wheelchair by the way. The horror of imagining him having to use the subway...

> who wouldn't prefer a private air-conditioned taxi over 100 ˚F subway platforms?

When it's prohibitively expensive to take private air-conditioned taxi.

If taxi is, as you said, both cheaper and provides a better experience, why not? Are we torturing people just for your poetic justice?

> If you have a lot of such companies or such jobs then you will have a societal insolvency, won't you?

See: Canada's free health system, or UK's NHS, or literally any other single payer system.

That’s an incredibly naive way of viewing things. Not everyone can afford losing their job. Let’s say job loss increases your chance of dying by 5% — not an exaggeration in some communities — 20 jobs lost is exactly the same as one death.

There's a very specific value of human life: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/835571843

I edited my original comment to now say "The idea that there are fundamental differences between human lives and corporate assets is flawed."

Thank you for your logic lesson but I fail to see how this changes the discussion.

>"They said they saw a difference."

Which would be the point, that there are no fundamental differences between corporate assets and human lives.

> "However I see a huge difference between protecting human lives versus protecting corporate assets."

The idea that there are fundamental differences between human lives and corporate assets is flawed. There's a very specific value of human life: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/835571843

>"the most basic offline redundancy"

How many people you meet everyday that are not in IT even knows what offline redundancy means?

I think what your suggestion amounts to, is effectively a mandate on SMBs having either an in house security team, or a contract with a consultancy on cyber security. That's a huge burden. It's not really easier than local tax code. These things change much more frequently and it's not like you can just walk into a local H&R Block to take care of your cybersecurity needs. Ransomeware, as it is now, didn't even exist (or is that popular) 10 years ago.

An insurance would be a much better idea than what OP suggested.

So you suggestion is to let any company that doesn't have the budget to have a proper cybersecurity team just die? I'll guarantee you that most of the small businesses that you encounter each day do not have such a thing setup.

None of the parents of your comment mentioned Windows. Perhaps you have the wrong thread?

who said anything about windows?

> There's more than enough private capital available without requiring the government to step in.

If that were true, the price wouldn't have tanked so much?

Having antibody doesn't mean you can't spread the virus. For example, antibody tests are often used to diagnose HIV, but testing positive for HIV antibody (i.e. you are infected) doesn't mean that life will be normal.

seems so: https://codepen.io/andyfangdz/pen/abOjPxe

> You have to throw money at the banks right now or the world will go under! No time for thinking.

Yes, that's exactly what you do. You fix the imminent problem now, and then introduce legislative measures later. See Dodd-Frank.

> what sucks about these bailouts designed to help America out are all the people that this won’t help.

Contrary to what you might think, this helps more people than just the banking industry. Without the banks giving out loans, your neighborhood McDonalds stops being able to hand out paychecks. Without incentive to do investments, your own company starts hoarding cash and laying off people just to survive. If a bank goes down -- not only does the bank and all of its employees suffer -- the banks are not prop shops: the money is owned by someone else. Your 401(k), your city's muni fund, pension fund, university endowment, etc., gone.

None of this is supposed to be a justification for trickle down economics, of course. Trickle down doesn't work. This is about saving what we have right now. An argument could be made that the banks are too big to fail, sure, but that doesn't change what needs to be saved, right now.

> I hope the US government remembers 2008 and doesn’t just bend over to the banking industry to only have this same thing happen again in 10 years.

These are very different times. 2008 is probably caused by the financial industry itself, sure. But this time around, the fundamentals is the problem: no matter how good the banks are, they're just not going to survive without help if the whole economy just shuts down for a year.

Nobody said you shouldn’t be prepared. The system will be overwhelmed (and probably already is from the flu this year).

We’re just saying not 100% of people are going to be infected. Even your business insider article is not saying that. Stop moving the goalpost. Sometimes we're wrong or we misread something, and that's okay.

It might be written ambiguously, but one should not interpret it to mean that 100% of people in the U.S. will be infected.

Especially when the "80%" is followed by:

> 80% of the population may experience mild symptoms, such as fever or flu-like symptoms that they treat at home

> 15% may seek medical care, such as visiting an Urgent Care or Emergency Department

> 5% may require critical care, meaning being admitted as an inpatient

> The price war should be won by the airline that can most efficiently manage resources and adapt different business models to provide stable service with fewer inputs.

And then what? Is that not a monopoly? I know the classic response to this is newcomers will come up with lower prices, but what if there's economy of scale, and newcomers just can't compete?

So one thing to note is that the “population” referred in the doc you linked is talking about people that are infected, not the general population. Of course, that doesn’t make the outlook that much better: if history is any guidance, H1N1 likely infected 15% of the world’s population[0], and interpolating that makes the required number of beds ~3 million. That’s still a lot of beds, but a lot more manageable. With techniques to delay the arrival as much as possible (e.g. at least wait out the flu season), and to avoid spikes, we’ll make it through this.

It’s still undoubtedly a monumental event in history, but we will make it through.

[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic

I mean, what do you expect happens after airlines die from a price war? It’s not lower prices.