bravo22

The biggest problem facing Amazon workers isn't unionization. It is the not having alternatives to earning a similar wage in more humane conditions.

Because you can switch to another firm which is more friendly to you.

2008 monetary expansion did cause inflation, in all asset classes.

Negative.

That's not necessarily a given. To be fair we also technically live in a democracy with a democratic process. Many would argue that the views of the majority are not reflected.

I think it does matter. This is an issue that is affecting black people. White people who are protesting should be doing it to support them, not to hijack their movement and running it how they see fit.

The fringe elements are blending into the crowds. The poor protestors are getting gassed. Let's not create this narrative that the majority of protestors are out to loot and damage property. They're not. And most of the ones who are causing damage aren't black.

The media and the government are both very clear that there are fringe elements (both far-left and far-right) infiltrating the protests and trying to derail the efforts. So everyone is going out of their way to separate protesting from looting.

The only place I see where there is concentrated effort to equate protestors and rioting is on the twitter left.

Yes. The system is inherently unproductive. Pumping more money into it like giving a sedentary person more calories and expect their physique to end up like an athlete's.

But you can also pump that money into the hands of people and have the same problem. If you give everyone 10K you haven't change affordability. If you give everyone 10K you haven't changed relative food prices. There are more fundamental problems to be solved.

On second thought, I was wrong.

Believing in fairy tale magical solutions without caring to understand the complexity of underlying problem, is a quintessential human characteristic. So I correct myself, believing in socialism is very natural.

> Sure, you might disagree that socialism is possible without big government, but that has nothing to do with the definition. My only point is that it doesn't inherently have anything to do with control. The problem with saying that socialism means big government is it associates it with decades of red-scare propaganda and makes all discussion impossible.

I didn't say that at all. You can review my comments. But the point is that socialism doesn't distribute power, it concentrates it because "society" is never in control of anything. They'll elect representatives and they will be in charge. It is something that would work, provided human nature didn't exist.

> Not really, if the workers have ownership over the company and the capital, then they "own the means of production".

Shareholders have control over capital and have ownership.

> Sure, resource allocation is hard, but "lets just let the rich/monarchs/the lizard people decide" is a cop-out.

That's not what anyone is saying and that's not what is happening today.

There may be some who have a philosophical difference about "many" being in charge versus a "few". But just because I believe that in plurality of power it doesn't mean I believe socialism is the best way to get there.

I am not going by Twitter here. I have read a lot on the subject. Most of what I see uses socialism as a shorthand for "common good" and capitalism as shorthand for "greed". It is incorrect.

As an analogy, imagine if we're taking about ethics and morality and how to have a better and just world. If this was 100 years ago in the west, "Christianity" would be shorthand for morality and "Atheism" synonymous with evil, greed, and depravity. We've moved beyond that today and realized that neither of those will necessarily lead to a more moral or just world, and that ethics and morality are nuanced topics with a lot of details to be worked out. Simply being Christian doesn't make you one or the other, although hard to prove that to an average American in 1895. Furthermore, of the two, one is more static, dogmatic, and leads to corruption. I view the socialism and capitalism debate in the same vein.

Except you can't really have such a thing as a large group of people have an equal say in control of anything, c.f. democracy. It is the mechanics that are the issue.

If you are talking about workers being "shareholders" then that's still capitalism.

The reason government comes into play in socialism is because you still need decision makers and decision makers concentrate power. You have a democracy today that is basically turning into an oligarchy, and the belief is that by some magic if we transferred control of "means of production" to workers this would change.

Ok, divide Amazon's shares across its workers. What have you changed? Who comes up with the list of options for them to choose from? What happens to their stock aka "control" once they leave the company? There are a million tiny details which when you work through show you why it is not workable and at best you end up back here today.

The fundamental problem we are dealing with is allocation of resources, and the masses not being sufficiently informed to make decisions. Until you solve that problem every system you put in place corrupts, some worse than others and some with few mechanisms for correction and recovery.

The 'ism' is about control, not about benefit.

Philosophically I agree that we need a better system the benefits everyone, and I agree with the gist of your comment.

However saying we need socialism skips over the most important part of it -- the mechanism to achieve that. That's the hard part that we haven't quite figured out and need to discuss. The current narrative assumes that simply funnelling the money through government for redistribution fixes the problem. It doesn't. It makes things a lot worse.

Unless they're stuffing their wealth in mattresses that wealth is spread everywhere in economy. Also a lot of that wealth is based on market value of assets which ebb and flow and inflate and crash. It is not based on sucking cash out of the economy.

Put another way, the economy is fucked but a small % are able to inflate the market value of their assets.

The cost and complexity of making parts that can survive autoclave is a big driver of single use parts.

Looks like they just etch pattern into a single material.

Did he do everything to maximize the position of the corporation and the shareholders or did he act mainly in his own interests as a shareholder?

There are no overt acts, I agree, but that also means a good DA can convince a judge that certain actions of his were primarily for self interest. The fact that he walked away with 1Bn dollar when other shareholders lost money does not look good.

It is hard to argue that your actions were not primarily for self enrichment when you walk away with a ton of money and everyone else at the table loses. In a way his lawyers would have an uphill battle convincing the judge that his actions were primarily to further the enterprise and that through a series of unfortunate events he is the only one who ended up with a lot of money.

Nothing you've said contradicts my assertion that consumer demand drives production, which causes emissions.

Nothing that I've said contradicts your point that management and regulation matter.

You're subscribing to an either/or dichotomy which is false. Consumers demand drives emission. The fix is to enforce heavy regulation on the producers which will ultimately result in lower demand through increased cost.

CO2 emissions are only ONE of the environmental challenges we're dealing with. We're resource bound in other ways, and regular ol' pollution of the environment is a huge concern which sometimes run contrary to CO2 emission. Meaning you can have a technology that reduces CO2 emission in production, so you consume more and throw away more. That is good for climate change but still bad for the planet.

We're beyond incentives. We need taxation, aka carbon tax.

My point was that the "capitalist" is not running that production line in isolation, it is the end consumer demand that drives that pipeline. So yes consumer demand is the ultimate source of all this.

Carbon tax is but a first step but it is necessary as it will force the actors to take action. As you correctly pointed out they have no "incentive" to do so right now.

Carbon neutrality is a necessity, as is population reduction. I am not advocating for one over the other. Either alone will not work, not short term certainly not long term.

I agree that it can be reduced, my point was that it is directly tied to consumer demand and human activity. It will still be a none-zero number after reduction. No business is out there emitting methane for shits and giggles.

As I said elsewhere in this post, you can cut emission but population growth offsets all the benefits. You cannot address climate change without drastic long term reduction in human activity/population.

Not really possible. Ultimately it is human demand that is driving climate change. Even if you have a magical technology that cuts all emissions today by 25% -- which would be truly magic -- you only need a 25% growth* in population to offset that and put us back to square one.

At the current rate of 1.2% that's only ~18 years.

Per the article, most of the sites were landfills, dairy farms, and natural gas facilities. All of those are directly controlled by consumer demand.

The whole point of USB is reduced wiring. Side channel interrupt would not have made sense.

"Polling" doesn't involves the host CPU, adds no latency. It is done by the USB controller, which sends poll packets to the device. This is all a philosophical decision by USB which is master/slave and doesn't support anything asynchronous by the slave.

The master can choose to ignore certain slaves on the bus if it desires, which isn't always possible with an asynchronous slave. Recall that many devices dangle off a single USB chain.

> Even his son says

The article is by his daughter Caroline.

Huawei sells 5G equipment. Think the equivalent of routers, switches but for cellular network. If they have backdoors then China can intercept and disrupt communication across many countries. That's the concern in a nutshell.

You can implement all the encryption/authentication at the application layer, depending on your use case. USB can stay as-is.

In theory sniffing attacks can extend to anything. The basic problem is that: 1) All electronics create EMI. 2) We have very cheap ways to measure EMI with high sensitivity.

The brute force solution is to faraday cage everything, but even then something leaks out and it is just a matter of time before more sensitive equipment is available at low cost.

As someone who has worked on a chip design team and had to deal with this stuff... one of the biggest reasons is patents -- software patents. They can't sue you if they can't see what you're doing. There are lots of dumb software patents out there. AMD did get hit with a couple of those, but we were able to beat them because the order of operation didn't exactly match the claims in the patent.

Professional setup has much tighter tolerance than 3dB. I was using 6dB as an example. Usually you're trying to kill peaks that are 10-20dB over.

This kind of debugging is very routine. You do it manually with E/H field probes and a spectrum analyzer in between lab visits. This setup makes it more repeatable by automating it.

This is useful when you fail your EMC testing. You have a baseline measurement and you're looking at relative change. For example you may have be over the limit by 6dB at 430 MHz. You would take a reading using this setup, and normalize it against your lab plot.

You then try a number of fixes, and take readings using this setup. It is easy to determine if you're close to 6dB drop that you need.