corin_

Were you just guessing their motivation before, when you wrote "Claimed their users were too ill-informed to know the difference."?

If you trust the OS, it could hypothetically be built into the OS such that the app only gives what needs to be encrypted to the OS and gets back an encrypted payload to send, then the app wouldn't need to access your keys?

Of course at that point the OS has to either provide good key management itself, or a good API so that the apps can still make things seamless while still not accessing the keys directly.. and probably other problems I haven't thought of.

I agree.

Well for example, and I'm not advocating for these ideas other than pointing out that they'd be much simpler than changing the structure of society: the Government could either buy, or forcefully take control of, Wikipedia, or they could create a competitor with enough funding to take over. They could do it creating a gov department to run it, or they could set it up as an organisation fully owned by the state. They wouldn't even have to go that far, they could just pass a bill that would send however much money from taxpayers to Wikipedia every year, or as a one-off to create a new taxpayer-funded endowment.

There's lots of changes to society that I think would be good, but "ability for government to decide to spend taxpayer money on a charity like Wikipedia, or to create their own version in-house" isn't exactly lacking from the current system.

Why would that require communism or a revolution? The American state already gives tax breaks and/or funding to charities, research organisations, public messaging initiatives, school systems, public services etc... there's a huge range of options that involve tweaking the rules of current systems before even getting anywhere near needing to change the entire political system.

Couldn't the police just take a mugshot, confirm the arrest, and say "this person was later released without charge, none of our business where they are now"?

It wouldn't bring any benefit to anyone (except maybe private prison companies).

And also it's because he's still a person. A person who did a terrible thing while literally insane, but still a person.

It's long in the context of how much mental health treatment they can have provided him over that time.

If 7 years is how long it took to be sure he wouldn't reoffend, why go longer? It would be a waste of taxpayer money, it would worsen his life for no benefit, it wouldn't solve anything for society, and it wouldn't even be useful as a deterrent because I'm pretty sure he wasn't thinking about ROI of crime vs. potential punishment when committing the crime considering he believed God was ordering him to do it, and he didn't deny having done it.

If mental health treatment were so far advanced that his problems could have been 100% cured within a month, I would have supported his being released after a month.

The offender was found to be not criminally responsible due to extreme mental health problem, was put into secure treatment for long time, and eventually considered safe to be in society. Locking him up further would be purely revenge not justice.

Yes it's being going up overall (a lot), but even if you just look at a chart of the last 12 months, it hasn't dipped more now than it did a few times last year - I can see why some people think it's going to keep going up for a long time, and others the opposite, but I can't see why anyone would think "great it's always going up" until now and be scared by a relatively minor dip down here.

Your lawyer may have recommended it but it seems to me that you could have chosen not to mess up that kid's life. Ah well, at least your dogs are happier!

Better an overly close reading (which I think is actually correct) than the one in which you literally misquoted their words inside quote marks.

The same way you can own part of a house, part of a business, or even part of a bottle of wine. Contracts can easily dictate who owns how much of a thing, they wouldn't have to literally rip a paper stock in two.

Would you prefer they count each bike as a separate crime so that once somebody has stolen a certain quantity they'll be locked up for life?

16 months combined with some sort of monitoring afterwards (and, in an ideal world, support in jail and afterwards to find it easy to move into legal work) should be enough to make the crime not worth doing and to hopefully stop that person doing it again.

Would doubling that prison time help anything?

The point I'm making is that you're wrong to think that the "British union movement [.. is] destructive", in actual fact the unions have been unfairly scapegoated and villainised for decades leading some people to believe what you believe.

Of course, maybe you're not buying into the propaganda but actually purposefully spreading it. Or maybe my opinions are wrong, but I obviously don't believe that to be the case.

I'm afraid I can't be much more useful in my argument, I've met and discussed with many British trade union leaders and representatives, as well as many managers who didn't enjoy having to deal with unions and I have a very strong opinion that you're wrong without really having a thought about how to change your mind other than suggesting learning more about the subject. If you'd be interested I'd be happy to text a friend and ask if they have a recommendation for a single book to read about it, or maybe your mind is already made up.

> "British union leaders simply play workers against management for their own gain, then leave both workers and management worse off, but workers get the worst of it."

Again, you're buying into nonsense anti-union propaganda.

You're buying into propaganda about British unions, blaming them for the car industry is ridiculous, and when it comes to mining you seem to think that the mines would have lasted longer had unions not been against shutting mines?

Minor correction, I think you meant "I have doubts..." not "I have no doubts" (or you meant to double negative it later with "I have no doubt that... would not want...")

I don't entirely agree with their comment, but while "technology" is a single noun, it's not a singular noun - it encompasses many different things.

That feels a little bit like pointing at Obama to prove there's no racism in the US.

I know little about the subject, and it would certainly make sense for it to be running late with a pandemic going on, but it seems like 5 years is a typical prediction from start of building to being in operation according to this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_nuclear_power_station...

The planning and getting approvals actually takes longer than the construction itself.

As one data point, one of the UK's in-development nuclear power stations, Hinkley Point C, was announced in 2010, plans approved by the owner + government in 2016, and expected to be operational by 2025 (no idea if that's an accurate expectation or not). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_...

So a bit less than 20 years, even including the 6 years between announcing a site and actually confirming plans to go ahead with it.

Why would airport layout data not be handled the same way as city layouts? Maybe effectively automatically caching airports to make up for potential bandwidth issues?

And for the specific UX, sure but isn't that just a single feature for airports in general, and the app can pull the up to date airlines/terminals data for the specific airport when needed?

Wouldn't it be significantly less than a MB for all the info about "how does Uber work at this airport" info to come in json or whatever? It could surely survive without downloading special airport-specific media like logos, do the airport rules require complicated heavy code on the phone?

Thinking of my experience with Uber at airports, it's generally stuff like "pickups from this terminal are only available at the west exit" (show on map - so needs coordinates and message text), or "There is a £10 airport pickup fee for all private hire vehicles here which will be added to your bill", or whatever along those lines.

But perhaps your point still stands even if it's KBs rather than MBs.

I'm probably missing something obvious as I'm tired, but why does the Uber app need stuff like specific airport rules stored in it rather than pulled from their servers when needed?

Map apps let you look at any city in the world without needing all of that data inside the core app, and if you have enough data to use the Uber app wouldn't you almost certainly also be fine to have it download in the background the required info (coordinates of where pickup is or isn't allowed, specific instructions message to display, etc.) the same as it receives information about local pricing, location of available cars nearby and so on?

It's not really a loophole is it? European drivers are welcome to drive LHD cars into UK via boats/channel tunnel just as we can take British cars to the rest of Europe, American troops just happen to be a significant group who take advantage of it being completely legal.

As to the confused looks, I would hazard a guess (having lived near a US base in the past, now not but still see EU cars every day) that they were over your choice of make/model (e.g. a Chevy of a type that no Brits buy), rather than driver side. Maybe I'm wrong and lots of people give weird looks because of the driver side, but personally I've definitely stood staring at cars that looked weird to me and were clearly US imports, but if I see a car that's common in the UK it's not that interesting noticing when there's a foreign version on the road here.

edit: oh and number plates too. American style is obviously much less common than even most old European country styles, yet alone the more standardised versions of the past couple of decades. So even if the model of car is the same, seeing an EU plate you think "they probably drove it from mainland Europe" which is pretty common for holidays, work, or just people relocating and keeping their car, whereas seeing a US plate makes you wonder who cared enough to ship it all the way here.

If I were friends with Buffet, and a billionaire, I absolutely would pick individual stocks on my own, if only to be able to tease him if I were to get lucky. Not as my only investment strategy, sure...

If that theory is definitely wrong, it hasn't yet worked its way out of common use. Examples:

NHS current website "This type of medication [SSRIs] works by increasing the level of a chemical called serotonin in your brain." https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/generalised-anxiety-disorder/t...

Wikipedia "It is believed to work by blocking the re-uptake of the chemical serotonin by neurons in the brain." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paroxetine

etc.

Site not loading, here's a Google cached link [1]

Seems to me there's two separate issues.

First, if it were an abstract situation of "Generic Company spends...", I feel that's the wrong way round of thinking about it. All $6.5M came from Generic Company's marketing budget, complaining about only a relatively small % going to charity should be addressed equally at any other company buying a Superbowl ad who didn't spend any of their Superbowl marketing budget on charitable donations. Obviously there are plenty of bigger conversations to be had about the world at large, wealth equality, poverty, areas that charities address that as a species we should be able to just end as problems, etc. but it's not like this case in as example of a company which was expected to do $6.5M worth of good and wasted $5.5M on advertising. DoorDash never claimed to be a charity, nor (as far as I know) suggested they would give more money to charity to any of their funding sources. Unless we get rid of all marketing, or solve all problems so that no charities need donations, shouldn't we encourage companies to donate more even if it's for promotional motives?

The second point is about DoorDash specifically and their business doings/ethics. Maybe the fact that it's them, not an unnamed random company, means they should be criticised for being hypocritical in their marketing messaging vs. their actions? But that would be equally true or not had they made a charitable donation and only done very cheap, basic marcom around it. But that makes for a less exciting headline.

[1] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kArvLb...

I might be misunderstanding a valid criticism, but your complaint is about the parent comment's using "are" rather than "is"?

That's simply the plural version: if one person is asexual, multiple people are asexual.