http://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion/laura-washington-uber-so...
804 karma · joined February 17, 2016
http://chicago.suntimes.com/opinion/laura-washington-uber-so...
https://www.scribd.com/document/348851011/Uber-2017-05-15-Lt...
It's weird in the digital age to say information needs to be "returned" (although they did also say "and all copies"). Still, I'm reminded of the old "getting my song back fucker" quote:
> the chances of the publicly known story being accurate are pretty slim
That's empty speculation. If that's the only defense for his actions then there isn't any.
It's going to take a lot more than that to convince people to vote for him.
"As part of the settlement, Cruise and its founder Kyle Vogt now acknowledge that Guillory was a cofounder of the company."[2]
On top of that, Sam's post originally included the statement "it’s important to the way Silicon Valley works that such behavior not be tolerated" in reference to Guillory fighting for his recognition, which he later removed.[3]
This is not someone I would support for any sort of public office.
EDIT: He's not above criticism, folks. If you disagree with me, how about replying and explaining instead of down-voting?
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11490188
[2] http://www.businessinsider.com/car-startup-cruise-settles-le...
The president firing the FBI director is huge news. The story is currently at the top of every single message board and news outlet except this one.
[Note: that's actually him (Nick Sand) in the video clip above.]
I notice that several people are responding to me as though I am advocating vigilantism even though I am doing the opposite, so I feel I must reiterate once again that I am fully opposed to it. Instead, I am trying to raise the alarm that if highly visible crimes like the one described in this article are not addressed sufficiently, the public may react with vigilantism. That is an outcome I want to avoid.
That's a quote from me, not from the HuffPo article. The article says "The crime rate in the dangerous subways plunged dramatically…", as I quoted originally.
> I've actually spent the last hour looking for statistics to back or not back you up. I've wasted my life.
I replied to you here with a source that only took a few minutes to find:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14189548
You seem very emotional about this topic. I would urge you to look at it more dispassionately. As I already stated (but it bears repeating), I absolutely do not want vigilantism to be the result of crimes like this, but I fear unless there is an open and honest conversation, things may end up there anyway. I believe the best (and perhaps only) way to avoid such an outcome is to consider the possibilities that may result from various actions (or inactions), unpleasant as they may be.
"Vigilante Mobilization and Local Order: Evidence from Mexico"
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/522fc0aee4b06bf96fa60...
> Our empirical approach traces the sources of recent self-defense groups to the early twentieth cen- tury Cristero rebellion and, using an instrumental variables approach, we show that contemporary community mobilization has succeeded in reducing a broad range of crimes.
Also I note that you're pushing back against my statement regarding things being swept under the rug (e.g., your statements about "somehow" this making it to the news). Did you also notice that the link to this article is gone from the HN front page? My intuition is that the public in general is going to turn a blind eye to this topic, until they can't any more (that's usually when something really bad happens). Note again that I am very unhappy with that idea and wish it were not so, but it strikes me as unfortunately very likely. I'd love to be wrong, but I see nothing to indicate otherwise. There is always hope I suppose.
That leads me to say: sweeping this kind of crime under the rug will not help. Instead, it will lead to a repeat of the Goetz vigilante incident in NYC in the early 1980s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_New_York_City_Subway_shoo...
http://nypost.com/2011/12/23/one-of-bernhard-goetzs-victims-...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-feldman/bernie-goetz-t...
That last link in particular contains a stunning statement:
> The crime rate in the dangerous subways plunged dramatically — so much so the authorities even held back the numbers — the truth hurt too much.
The ugly and frightening truth about vigilantism is that it works. Please note I hate the idea of vigilantism and hope with every fiber of my being that things do not come to that, but it at first glance appears that things are headed in that direction, which I am immensely sad and scared to see.
[1] http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/how-mark-zuckerberg-l...
What could possibly be in there?
I doubt it's all that sophisticated.
Yes, I mentioned that in my comment.
> As 'klodolph mentions, there's a lot of layers of verification for software updates.
I realize that, but my point is that apps that mix HTTP and HTTPS connections have a tendency to provide strange and confusing feedback to the user in situations like this. Some operations work, some don't. Apple News for example will load text but no images on unauthorized captive networks like the one I was using. An app that I worked on had the same problem (API calls went over HTTPS, but CDN-served content did not), and it was always confusing to users when secure connections went through but non-secure did not (or vice-versa). From what I've seen, it's a much better experience and much easier for the user to understand if all connections are treated the same. Having a mixture can lead to confusing situations where some things fail and some don't, and it's very hard for a non-technical person to know why. It just seems broken to them.
For example: think about the experience I had. The device appeared to be online, even downloaded the system update just fine, but then suddenly the Settings app complained that I was not online, even though many network functions (such as email) were still working just fine. A natural response might be to say that captive networks are the problem, but I promise that non-technical users will not see it that way. They will not blame the network. They will blame the app. In their minds, they are either online or not, and if only certain things fail, those things must be the problem.
Captive networks suck, but they are a reality of the world we live in and are not going away. Writing apps such that they always treat connections in the same manner will be far more understandable for users in the long run.
Lawyer: <complains about proceedings appearing in the news>
Judge: "Okay. The public will read what you just said."
It's likely f.lux cannot ever do anything about it. Until Night Shift was available, I've been in the habit of of creating "low color temp" color profiles and manually setting my display to them when it gets late in the day (a crude approximation of f.lux, but ultimately the same thing they are doing). It always produced the same artifact.
Incidentally, I find it strange that f.lux is claiming they output so much less blue light than Apple's Night Shift, since as far as I can tell, all they do is shift the color profile, just like Night Shift does. Anyone who has seen the video issues I'm describing above can attest that there is still plenty of blue light coming out of the screen with f.lux (and manual color profile adjustments). All three accomplish the same thing, it's just that Apple's implementation appears to be cleaner and work in more cases (not surprising -- it's their system, so presumably they know how to integrate with it better than anyone). I think perhaps at most they have a point that the default settings are maybe not "warm" enough, but that's the only flaw I can see.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13955981
Amazon is due for a reckoning. They've let this get completely out of control.