bigbob2

In that case maybe I'll give it 50 years to develop the same safety record.

Doesn't it stand to reason that delivery drivers would be in the grocery store as well?

That's not really a fair comparison though. If FB was pushing US propaganda in China, there would have been no such hearing in the US. That's more equivalent to what TikTok is doing.

I used to make $9 an hour and was not eligible for Medicaid. ACA exchange in Kentucky (Kynect) wanted well over $100 a month which was not affordable for me, but then again neither was the fee imposed by not having insurance. I paid around 30% of my wages in taxes, which I consider to be quite a lot more than nothing. I was able to live in a very cheap place (with room mates, of course), but not put anything away.

Thanks for the context--that definitely makes sense. It seems fair to say that legitimate leaks were probably diluted by baseless and largely irrelevant claims such as the Steve Jobs leak. Definitely fair to say if it can be done to Steve Jobs it can be done to Joe Sixpack as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the comment was a response not about proving that claim to be false (as the commenter pointed out there was no evidence either way), but rather the ethics of releasing data protected under HIPAA.

Just 5 years?

What does that have to do with Assange being charged?

EDIT: It seems any effort to seek clarification is discouraged here. My apologies.

I would think a "criminal beggar" as you call it could come up with an equally convincing sob story which doesn't involve revealing a "criminal" background. In my anecdotal experiences, random strangers asking for money almost always give the excuse that their church bus full of children broke down 10 blocks away in the bad part of town, etc.

> Get outside and talk to people in your community.

Not sure if that's the best advice given the present situation...

I would respond by simply saying nothing is getting done already, so worst case what would the difference have been? By your argument, no difference.

Maybe he can use it to endorse another moderate Democrat who would never dream of enacting such a policy.

> Hillary and Biden snaring the nomination ahead of Bernie show how thoroughly the establishment Democrats can school him on politics. His appeal to certain voters is great, but he still has to play the game to some degree.

That is not hard when they benefit from a multiple year media blackout against Bernie. Playing the game sounds a lot like compromising on values; something which would have also led to voters losing interest. I would argue he did play the game, and that's why he lost. He did not try to draw enough distinctions between himself and Biden for fear of hurting the Democrats, and in the process missed many opportunities to call Biden out on his inconsistencies.

> Failing to even get Warren to endorse him isn't a failure of his ideology, it's a case of political incompetence.

Failing to get Warren to endorse him is not a case of political incompetence, but rather desire to gain more power by Warren. The political machine built by the establishment Democrats was always going to be put to work against a candidate like Bernie, or if you prefer, to "facilitate the gatekeepers."

> I hope someone (Warren? others?) echoes a lot of what he has to say and then actually executes within the political system we have today to accomplish those things.

Warren already executed exactly what she wanted to execute within the political system; to ensure the gatekeepers maintain order. She will be rewarded accordingly, probably with a cabinet position, if Biden somehow manages to win the Presidency.

> Maybe he's got a future in politics.

Seeing as he's extremely wealthy, powerful, and connected, I'd say that's a good guess.

I can only assume you mean without drastic changes to our current economic system, because otherwise in this modern age of automation that seems entirely possible.

I initially jokingly searched for pizza, but was blown away when I found a ton of great looking frozen pizzas. There seems to be a shortage of chicken breasts in my area right now as well and some of the options here look nice. This app seems very useful to me and I will probably be ordering some items today!

I wasn't arguing that those things aren't pushed, but rather that they're rarely pushed with technical merit. See: "...which end up being the optimal choices?"

Unless I imagined it, they previously said publicly that they were unlikely to pursue a sell like this because they had succeeded at previous companies and cared more about the impact this product could make than the profit they could make from selling it. I based my decision to agree to the terms of Keybase around this statement which I can conveniently no longer find. I suspect it was in one of their airdrop announcements, and conveniently those links don't work in the Wayback Machine.

That has nothing to do with the parent wishing for the Green New Deal not to be pushed by Noam Chomsky. Also as far as I'm aware, Noam Chomsky is not a tech person so I don't see where your "we aren't 6 and get nothing for 'being right'" argument is relevant there. If anything it's snarky and probably goes against the guidelines of this website. On the other hand, I guess this entire article and thread do as well.

It worries me because P2P is a powerful censorship prevention mechanism. Requiring a license to use P2P technologies would mean disallowing much more than just torrents by default. Not only that but lots of illegal content distribution takes place on standard HTTP servers which would presumably not be considered P2P. With that said, disallowing any protocol which is currently allowed today seems like it would open the door for large corporate and governmental interests to disassemble what we know as the open internet. Furthermore it sounds like it would be complicated to deal with ownership of derivative work and resolution of disputes.

> Shouldn't programmers by default be suggesting the best algorithm/programming language/design patterns for the problem at hand? In a perfect world, yes. But we live in an imperfect world where sub-optimal choices are made due to time constraints, lack of knowledge/experience, etc.

I don't understand. Are you saying you frequently have non-technical customers of your software business asking for specific languages, design patterns and frameworks which end up being the optimal choices? In my personal experience this has never been the case. Also somehow I feel like it would be even worse if they heard about them from TV instead of from a generic blog post somewhere.

> Are you arguing the counter, that his personal behavior is in any way laudable? Do you think he's a good role model, and would want your children to emulate his behavior?

I don't have to think that he's a good role model to think that previous presidents have also violated human rights and eroded freedoms.

> I really wish the "Green New Deal" wasn't mentioned in these pushes for the future.

Yes, and what do you personally prefer to see instead?

> I don't think it deserves any credit for the few good ideas that it did contain

Why would something not deserve credit for any good ideas it contained?

> Sure, it's recognizable, but not necessarily in a good way.

I'm really not trying to nitpick, but it seems like you're overgeneralizing. To whom would it be recognizable but not necessarily in a good way?

Our current systems definitely won't fix the climate. I think I would take probably over definitely.

So I guess the idea here is that as long as you're an employee of Apple, you have no free time?

My point was to illustrate that previous presidents have also done things which could be considered unpresidential depending on your opinion. Unless I'm missing some official definition of presidential, these are all things that you personally believe are unpresidential. I'm not saying I disagree with you, but things like "never takes the high road" sound a bit biased.

> FWIW, I think the best outcome would have been to deny Trump at the gate, and instead find a candidate who could get those policies done without being a danger to democracy.

The problem is that's anti-democratic because many of those gatekeepers are appointed rather than elected. At that point the gatekeepers may as well directly decide who the president is, because it has already been chosen regardless.

From the non-gatekeepers' perspective, the difficulty of policy implementation does not matter when the policies themselves are ineffective and only serve to maintain status quo financial structures, which benefit the wealthy often at the expense of the most vulnerable.

What specifically makes the president unpresidential as opposed to other presidents? Is it removals as a percentage of the estimated illegal immigrant population? The dramatic expansion of the power of the executive branch into the realm of national security? Number of U.S. citizens executed without trial? Those are all things which happened under previous presidencies.

> If the Republicans had done their job as well like usual

Is it really fair to argue that gatekeepers are effective if they failed to do what you view as their jobs? "If it wasn't for those meddling Republicans!"

Very convenient way for party insiders to justify coronation of their preferred candidates regardless of "benefit to the nation." This same line of "gatekeeper" reasoning is exactly what justifies polling locations being closed and reopened elsewhere without notifying voters, years-long revolving door media propaganda campaigns, and accusing everyone who disagrees of being a Russian asset. The Republicans and Democrats alike are guilty of such behavior.

I too believe Trump is a symptom, not from lack/failure of gatekeeping, but rather the act of gatekeeping itself. I think the general public is (subconsciously or not) aware that these party insiders view themselves as "gatekeepers" and are anxious to "stick it to them" even if it comes at their own demise. Whether or not you agree or disagree with them, the issue here is that their trust in what they viewed as democracy was already eroded. This is probably reflected through the terribly small number of working class voters who participate in the political process.

I knew several employees at the Lexington, KY facility and none described the job as fantastic relative to other options. Proof is that all of them have moved on to other jobs, some of which pay less, because the conditions are better. I've heard packing is the worst job, mainly because of ~100 degree indoor temperatures in the Summer months. Another commonly cited issue was that there were many meth addicts working there, presumably because it did not show up on a drug test. Not sure if conditions have changed since then, or if they're different at each warehouse; just another anecdotal data point.