Thorncorona

Perhaps we could stop dismantling the domestic economy by implementing policies that reward domestic investment? Huge swaths [0] of the country are losing their livelihoods due to offshoring and monopolistic practices.

[0] https://policybynumbers.com/economic-stagnation-and-electora...

Honestly are you really surprised? It's been going on for almost 40 years. Any exec saying they're surprised by this is disingenous at best, and lying at worst. If an exec sees a 40 year long pattern and decides to continue working with China, they're either incompetent or deciding that the potential profits are worth it.

To turn around and act surprised by this is like acting surprised that Trump keeps saying inflammatory things.

How is freedom of the press a fundamental right? That is a uniquely American idea.

Looking at Australia, allowing foreign companies (Newscorp) free reign over the press can have incredibly negative consequences.

Yes because everyone is rich and can choose not to work, so let's force immunocompromised Americans to go back to work. Excellent idea.

If 4/5 Americans cannot stay afloat 1 month on their own then yes, it is a big problem. If someone gets into an accident, or has a medical issue, or suddenly loses their job, it puts them into the same position.

I think we should arrive for a society where it's citizens can earn enough on their own to at least have a small safety net.

The simplest solution would be to charge a fair price for water since the vast majority of water is used for farming. But since most corporate farms have multi-decade long water contracts, this isn't possible (aka you must legislate, which would also benefit corporate farms).

I've gotten by using a templating engine like Handlebars along with jQuery for async behavior for pretty much all of my apps. Reduced the time I spent building UIs a huge amount.

There are actually very few websites that 'require' an app-in-browser experience. And for many of those, clever usage of jQuery plugins works well enough.

I'm reading your comment as "Companies ought to have no morals, except in cases where required by law, because there are no common morals" I'm going to take a couple assumption about your political stance and try to explain why I think this is false and also terrible policy.

1. You are libertarian, or lean extremely conservative. This is from your dislike of new laws in general => prior comment "Sure, all law is an exercise of authority, and hence authoritarianism. The commenter was merely calling out that... no matter how you dice it... a new law is always authoritarian, whether you acknowledge it or not."

2. You believe everything not strictly disallowed by the law should be allowed, and that unless the law says otherwise, it should be allowed. Libertus.

Generally, laws exist to protect public and individual good. This is true for both the Western and Eastern hemispheres. For example, punishment for murder, penalties for illegal dumping of chemicals. Individual rights and societal living standards are protected by ensuring one does not infringe upon the rights of others. However, it does not say what is "Good" or "Bad". This is why in addition to learning about basic societal law, parents teach their kids morals and norms. Cheating is bad, it is rude to interrupt others when talking, hospitality, gratitude. However none of these are codified into law. This is also historically found in all civilizations [-1]. When people break these norms, they are penalized by society.However companies, which simply are groups of people, will discard these norms to pursue profit because there is no significant penalty for ignoring norms and morals, nor laws which are frequently lobbied against or weaseled out of [0].

We can and should require companies to consider moral obligations because there is no way to codify directives such as "don't ruin the planet." Laws are generally written from the actions from the past. Monsanto knew for decades the effects of DDT, but they didn't do anything because there was no law requiring them to act. But should Monsanto have took initiative to act? Eventually, laws are enacted to combat abuse, but in many cases, the damage is already done. [1-3]

[-1] https://evolution-institute.org/the-seven-moral-rules-found-... [0] https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/climate/trump-envir... [1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190426110601.h... [2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-cont... [3] https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/federal-study-...

I live in Seattle and think that this tax was a joke. Seattle/King County has spent $700M+ on this issue over the last ten years with 0 results. They have given no reason to pour money into dysfunctional programs.

I think you're contriving viewpoints that simply aren't there. Nobody is talking about Trump, rather people are enjoying the irony of the US being one of the countries that subsidizes the most yet complaining about other countries.

On another note, I think your headline is fine. After all, surely the secret service is capable of non-lethally incapacitating a man with a machete. But even if not, it's false equivocation.

The irony of Boeing complaining about favorable treatment by the government is palpable.

Are you guys planning on changing your internship policy this summer?

Was satire...

I totally agree with you. Parent comment is completely unreasonable in rallying against parts of another culture that he believes stupid. We must be inclusive of all parts of every culture because each culture has a very different lens, and there is oft little that can be agreed on as a result.

Sources? I'd love to read about the analyses done on this topic. Most of the papers I've read have suggested the opposite conclusion that you're claiming.

No it's like buying a truck for your business and being upset when it can't tow its advertised load.

Don't think the intent of my question was communicated clearly. Let's try again.

From your original post:

> The only reason this is exaggerated as a "data breech" is because of the connection to the Trump campaign.

You have provided no evidence of this, and until you do, your comment is read as a case of whataboutism[0]. Because we are not shoehorned into the pursuit of a unilateral solution, we can both [A] call out Trump's unethical engagement of Cambridge Analytica (CA) and [B] lobby for more stringent privacy regulations, like the EU is doing.

Given the, as a prior commenter said, 25 scandals, along with string of accusations of indecent conduct, collusion, etc. that Trump is clouded with, the conclusion being made is that his engagement is not the unknowing of an unethical actor acting on his behalf, rather the turning of a blind eye.

So given the inflammatory nature of the original comment:

> Let's be realistic here. This headline is nothing but partisanship.

So in sum, on first glance your comment leads me to assume you have an agenda.

Assuming that this isn't true, lets talk about main issue here: the micro targeting of ads, and the usage of this "data breach" in the Trump campaign.

Frankly, this scares me. The power this data provides and the way that it can be wielded should scare people - who wants to live in a world where the government/corporations/people can induce people into certain behaviors? Whether Trump or Clinton uses this information would result in people bringing up their pitchforks.

I don't think that we're exaggerating here calling it a data breach - it is a gross misuse of personal information, however gained. And while I'll admit the term data breach is a bit of a stretch, the connotation of the word fits perfectly with the situation. People downloaded an app for a survey, had their entire social network scraped, and then had that information used for an ulterior motive, without them knowing at all. We should be holding them accountable for their scummy behavior. Facebook already is starting to.

We've already seen the GOP bring up the email campaign and Benghazi for the entire length of the Clinton campaign. Note the irony here as the GOP is almost completely silent over America's current president's daily antics. It is the lack of response from the GOP toward any of the recent political events that is characterizing HN's response toward CA as overblown.

So with that said, why do you believe that it's unethical to call out Trump and by extension CA's actions.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Can you explain why it's unethical to hold people accountable for their actions or actions others took on their behalf?

To shed some light on why they won, they chose a character (Shadow Fiend) that heavily relies on tight timings to execute moves. Naturally, AIs beat humans in events where timing is the key differentiator. Even so it’s quite impressive

If anybody listened to your advice then search engines, stack overflow, web forums, news agencies, and Reddit would simply disappear.

1: Let us know when you start working 18 hour days and consent to getting nickel and dimed by grubby companies who continually raise rates because they know you don't have a better option.

2: USA/Canada are great, but that doesn't mean they can't be improved.

3: You whole argument is doing nothing = everything will be fine. That's ridiculous.

Read my full comment please.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should. Taking advantage of others (such as lobbying for loopholes) falls under the umbrella.

Just because you can dump industrial waste into a river doesn't mean you should. Just because you can steal doesn't mean you should. Just because you can shortchange citizens doesn't mean you should.

Yes laws should be passed, I agree, but that doesn't mean we can't also multilaterally also go after others at the same time. Do you hold the parent responsible for the kid stealing? Yes. But you also hold the kid responsible for stealing.

Most of all, I want to get of this notion that public corporations have fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit. In the Supreme Court case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the supreme court stated that "modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so. For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes."

There is a better option, we just aren't taking it. As citizens, we should be supporting multilateral action for a more ethical capitalist economy.

That's a terrible argument. Even in the 1600s where indentured servitude was commonplace, the system was essentially slavery, with comparable death rates. Hell America had a rebellion because of white slavery - Bacon's rebellion.

We got rid of slavery because of the social impact and also because of the moral implications. There's no reason to bring it back in another form.

FF just came out with multi account containers about a month ago ->

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account...

Of course if you're buying the cheapest stuff manufacturers are going to cut corners. When you buy more expensive stuff that is well made, like Apple products which are also manufactured in China but much more expensive, of course you're going to get something that's good. Your problem is to not go for the lowest denominator and generalize.

US gas subsidy, clean coal research subsidies, tax credits for oil transportation / refinement. Totalled together its in the 10s of billions range

Dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15062225

You're niche. Most people don't care as long as their phone is fast and they can use their phone all day. By the time a phone's battery becomes unusably short (my iPhone 4s still holds a charge for about a full day), most people agree their phone is ready for replacement.

He's a troll. Inflammatory speech is what he does.