drewrv

> I suppose some “conspiracy theories” are more socially acceptable than others.

I think if there's a massive amount of evidence, it becomes more socially acceptable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...

There are different types of reporting, specifically there's a difference between reporting a story and running a profile.

If your piece is about morale within the state department, an unnamed source who works there could be acceptable. If your piece is "here is this interesting person who runs this community" then identifying who the person actually is seems defensible.

http://egmncorp.com/student-journalist-toolbox/how-to-write-...

It's possible to have an immoral result without any individual doing an egregiously immoral thing. In fact it seems like a lot of law and corporate structure encourages these situations. Some examples that come to mind are paying low level employees such that they need government assistance, or situations where a corporation can break a law and profit more than whatever fine they might receive.

Corporations are legal and social entities. It's reasonable to consider what our laws and customs allow or encourage in an effort to nudge society towards a more just future.

I'm not sure where you're located, but the Jump bikes in Seattle are now operated by Lime (even though you still rent them in the Uber app for some reason).

https://www.geekwire.com/2020/jump-bikes-return-seattle-lime...

MacOS absolutely does this. https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/153379/how-do-you-...

There's a collection of racist quotes from him here: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/indi...

I recently had to get a new laptop and went with windows for the first time in a decade. Macs are still great to develop on for now, but looking at the trajectory apple has taken, the growing pains ARM will likely bring, and also the trajectory of Windows, it seemed like Windows would be the safer choice over the next few years.

This argument conflates government punished speech and socially ostracized speech. I’ve never heard articulated how a society without consequences for speech would actually function.

Being moved by a powerful speech or sermon is certainly a consequence. As is being entertained by a blockbuster film. Or is it only liberals being offended that we should eliminate in this hypothetical society?

In 2020, free speech is being attacked by the president literally trying to block the publication of a book because he doesn't like the content. People who are upset about website moderation policies or unruly college kids are probably not acting in good faith given the circumstances.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/us-judge-...

They're not exactly clear about it, but I think the use case they're getting at is that you can have one screen for videoconferencing and a second one for materials that are being presented. We had a setup like this at my office that I miss. If you're in a lot of meetings, it's nice to have a powerpoint slide or a screenshare in full screen, while still having the video streams up for questions and discussion.

Nobody wants them "to be the arbiters of what is allowed to be discussed". People want platforms to take responsibility for how they are used to spread misinformation. They want leaders held to the same standards as everyday users.

If pg came onto this site and started trolling people, throwing around insults, and spreading lies, what would it do to this community? And if dang responded by doing nothing?

It's so bizarre to me how common the "pro free speech" argument is on this site of all places. There is valuable and interesting discussion here precisely because it's heavily moderated. Facebook and Twitter are moderated too, the problem is they do it inconsistently. And despite Zuck's commitment to "allowing all voices to be heard", Facebook will remain moderated, or else it will turn into voat or 4chan.

That "the president is too dumb to understand the context of his words" is not a strong defense.

> The shadow restaurants opening up to serve these markets that massively lower the quality of the food in shared terrible kitchens (most not zoned for that and with little to no safety equipment) but using the restaurant name anyway?

Or as a recruiter recently pitched it to me, Travis Kalanicks next billion dollar opportunity!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.businessinsider.com/cloud-k...

He's not a freedom fighter sticking up for oppressed minorities here. He's a billionaire who is endangering his employees to make even more money. His employees are in a really bad situation right now, they get to choose between risking their livelihood or their health. He's forcing them to make this decision.

> We’d be ‘short’ high-tax markets and ‘long’ low-tax markets over the long-term.”

This seems really silly. My wife and I are considering leaving the city we love but tax rates have nothing to do with it. The reasons we want to live in the city (public transit, activities, social lives) have evaporated overnight. With no schools, no parks, and no office to commute into, there's an obvious appeal to buying a bigger house with a big yard. But for a family that's fortunate enough to be able to choose, the choice is about what kind of lifestyle we want, not the delta in tax rates.

The "labor market" is a social construct created by laws and customs. Collective action is one of those customs, and it's supported by laws. That the company paying workers has an app shouldn't matter.

> Because 99.9999% of drivers are human and have no issues seeing the concrete barriers and not hitting them head on at full speed.

In this particular case, a human driver did crash head-on into the barrier somewhat recently.

> What platform is doing better at this than Facebook right now?

Traditional media has always fact checked political ads. If Facebook can't do it, that's a sign to me that they're too big to responsibly sell political ads. If Facebook is so powerful that too much power would reside in the hands of their fact checkers, that's a sign they should be broken up.

I feel like there should be a law for social media: "Sufficiently passionate fanbases are indistinguishable from bots"

It still amazes me that the line of reasoning they publicly went with, around their decision not to fact check political advertisements, is that no one company should have that amount of power. The logical conclusion of their own argument is that Facebook should be broken up.

Respecting your abusers was much more prevalent.

The big companies have always been able to pay more than startups, but it feels like salaries have shot way up at the big cos since the wage fixing scandal was exposed. It makes me wonder if the wage fixing had a larger effect than anyone realized, or if there was more going on than what was exposed.

Regardless, part of what makes working at a startup less appealing these days is that companies are staying private longer. Startups could rectify this via regular tender offers.

Check out Goat Simulator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goat_Simulator

"The game, initially developed as a joke prototype from an internal game jam and shown in an early alpha state in YouTube videos, was met with excitement and attention, prompting the studio to build the game into a releasable state while still retaining various non-breaking bugs and glitches to maintain the game's entertainment value."

There are already outposts doing science in Antarctica.

Funny you mention CSV because my mind immediately thought of that as relatively easy, compared to dealing with Excel. Fortunately a good chunk of users don't even understand the difference between the two.

A lot of these items, like photo cropping/resizing, aren't hard per se. They're just harder than they should be, particularly to nail every detail. And it's often tangential to the core business.

Then why would management try to crush any organizing activity? Couldn't Sundar just say, "Interesting idea, let's take a vote"

Cuban is straight up lying about how he might need to sell his basketball team. Or he's lying about how much stock he owns. Either way he lacks credibility.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/30/mark-cuban-i-have-close-to-a...

There are some terrible^squared assumptions baked into this. The first bad assumption is that billionaires don't have any liquid assets. Nobody clever enough to earn that kind of money keeps 98% of it in an illiquid private investment.

Second bad assumption is that valuations would plummet because "everyone" would be trying to liquidate. The current proposals only apply to a small percentage of the population, and to a small percentage of their wealth, so obviously not "everyone" would be liquidating.

The third bad assumption is that this would lead to government takeover. By your own (contrived, alarmist) situation, the government would only be entitled to 2% of a persons holdings.

BTW, the IRS already does require private companies to perform regular valuations to track how much their shares are worth.

Or it means he's got such a huge ego, he considers himself an improvement.

It doesn't (necessarily) drive down wages because immigration expands the size of the market, there are more people to buy from and sell to.