ehmmmmmmmm

I've been there as well.

In reality 99% of the time you don't need new gear. However there is also a delicate balance where a new piece of gear makes you excited to go out and do your hobby more and it's that going out more than makes you get better at it.

Big Tech's latest ploy: using live facial recognition to monitor and control riots. Surveillance overreach meets dystopian nightmare. Because nothing says "protecting democracy" like treating every citizen as a potential criminal under the watchful eye of an algorithm. Welcome to the future, where privacy is a relic and Big Brother is always watching.

Intel's recent struggles are the result of a decade-long failure to diversify and innovate beyond its x86 stronghold. The company's delayed pivot to AI and smartphone SoCs, coupled with poor financials, make its current woes unsurprising. Cost-cutting measures might free up cash, but without groundbreaking changes, Intel risks becoming a cautionary tale of how not to manage a tech giant.

It's disappointing to hear that Paddle requires three months of processing statements before allowing integration for new SaaS products. This creates a classic chicken-and-egg dilemma: without a payment solution, you can't generate transactions, and without transactions, you can't qualify for Paddle.

For new SaaS products, starting with an alternative payment processor like Stripe, which does not have this requirement, seems to be a necessary step. Stripe is straightforward to integrate and widely trusted. After generating the required transaction history, migrating to Paddle for its comprehensive tax handling could be considered.

Alternatively, many tax solutions can integrate with Stripe, providing similar benefits to what Paddle offers without the initial barrier.

This requirement seems counterintuitive and might deter new businesses from considering Paddle from the start. If Paddle could reconsider or provide a pathway for new products without existing transaction history, it could be more appealing to startups.

In San Francisco if you make $1M as a W-2 employee your marginal tax rate is ~53% and your effective tax rate is ~47%.

If you make $1M on your own the rates are even higher.

(That's not including the 10% sales tax you pay on almost everything you buy with the money you have left, property taxes on property you thought you owned, property taxes landlords financially pass onto you as a renter, etc.)

Sure, but it also feels slightly pretentious. Is representation in PR what the community wants? Why not actually uplifting the community such that artifical representation isn't necessary?

Something I think which really needs to be discussed. Why do tech companies always put a token black person in their PR videos but yet their hiring doesn't reflect that?

No, you don't want dumb people to have representation, because idiots will spread misinformation (everything from climate change being fake to masks being unnecessary) and adopt corrupt practices to garner their votes. Smart people are less vulnerable to misinformation.

You want people who believe science, have a sense of foresight for several years, understand international politics, and how resources and economics work to decide the future of the country.

It also gets rid of people who are too dumb to understand RCV. Hee hee. Intellectual filter on the voting population. :)

I used to use "anting" to refer to the behavior of cyclists who stand on the pedals and don't sit firmly planted on their seats, as if they have ants in their pants.

And then there were "beeing" which are the cyclists who do the above while also rocking the cycle from left to right -- that's more like bees in their pants.

It's probably not compliant. As with all good things, if you're in the Land of the Free (TM), eventually people will hunt you down if you try to do good things.

Alternatively, base your site out of a country which gives you the freedom to do things like this. Build it in China and you'll be applauded instead of sued. Copyright suits for petty things like this would laughed off when it's something actually useful.

> fears of others

Fear of other people based on disability is discrimination. I have zero fear of blind people.

Fear of other species is not immoral. I'm afraid of snakes and alligators, and I'm just as afraid, if not much MORE afraid, of dogs, and my fears are justified by both hard data as well as past trauma.

No you haven't. ADA should be supporting people who have fears of animals as well, IMO. It's about supporting everyone, not just one class of disability.

For that matter, a driver with a severe back problem shouldn't be forced to help a disabled customer with lifting their luggage into the trunk. A different driver should be found. ADA should support both individuals in being safe.

I don't think that's funny or a valid comparison.

Dogs aren't even the same species. It's not immoral to be afraid of them and having PTSD because of negative interactions with a particular predatory canine species is very normal.

Hopefully service robots won't be very far into the future. I don't want to discriminate against blind people. But I really don't think there is a problem with not being okay around a particular set of non-human species (alligators, hornets, lions, coyotes, dogs, bears, mosquitoes, ...)

I don't think the system would be abused that much, especially if Uber could offer a little extra financial reward to the driver for taking the service dog, to the extent necessary that people with service dogs get the same level of wait times and service.

I think it's perfectly fine to be a window cleaner but refuse you're employer's request to go clean a 100-storey skyscraper and keep taking the 2-storey buildings you usually do.

Yes, I agree with you, Uber should have to deal with it.

A lot of people in this thread are arguing that the driver should be forced to suck it up and I think that's shitty for both the driver's and rider's safety.

This is good. PTSD should be added to that as well.

Dogs send me into panic and it would be a bad idea for the law to force me to drive against it. I mean, I would because it's the law, and as a result, you would be in danger.

Sorry, I don't think that's a fair or constructive comparison.

Again, the law doesn't precede science, and doesn't change the fact that it's going to be life-threatening.

You can quote the law all you want, but if you're blind and someone with PTSD is driving (and because they don't have much of a choice job-wise) you're going to be in grave danger.

If you don't want to be in grave danger, speak out against this law. End of story.

That kind of policy means that people with PTSD from dogs who are desperate for a job will sign up and WILL experience PTSD and WILL endanger riders.

It's a shitty policy IMO.

> If they're afraid of dogs they shouldn't drive unknown people for a living

Not everyone has a hundred companies trying to hire them. They have to take any job they can get to pay their food and electricity and mortgage and health insurance and child support and all that bullshit. And some of those people have PTSD from dogs.

Not every Uber driver has much choice of a thousand companies trying to hire them.

How the law is written doesn't change the fact that driving on highway with peanut butter allergy is life-threatening, and driving on highway with PTSD to a stimulus in the car is also life-threatening.

Thank you. I think this is a reasonable strategy. Requiring every driver to accept dogs against their allergies and PTSD on the other hand, I don't agree with, as that would directly endanger lives.

So if I really need the cash, I need to risk my life and the customer's life in the name of ADA compliance ...

If you're building a new building you should be required to have wheelchair ramps. Allergies and PTSD to ramps isn't really a thing, so it's okay to require them.

If you have an old building it's on the government to provide the ramps OR cut property taxes so that the landlord has the cash to install the ramps. If you want to hit everyone with insane property taxes they can't be expected to maintain buildings to standards at the same time.

Not that I plan to, but if I did, I'd be able to pick up a lot of the slack of rides without dogs so that other drivers could pick up the dog rides. I'm sure many drivers are more than willing.

I don't see how this isn't a win-win for them to allow it but give each driver a preference.

> "The bottom line is that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a guide dog should be able to go anywhere that a blind person can go."

Okay, I completely get this, but question -- what about business owners and drivers who are traumatized by dogs? If I were a driver, I'd be much more likely to crash the car if there was a dog in the car of any kind. I've had traumatic experiences with dogs and being near one sends me into panic.

A big fallacy is that the "Chinese government" is this big monolithic entity. It's not. Supporting the Chinese government does not equal support censorship.

Do you support the National Park Service?

Do you support the Federal Aviation Administration?

Do you support the USDA?

Do you support Donald Trump?

Do you support the FDA?

Do you support NIST?

Do you support Joe Biden?

Do you support NIH?

Do you support public schools?

Do you support Guantanamo Bay?

Do you support the Environmental Protection Agency?

The Chinese government, although not democratically elected, is similar in one aspect, in that it is a very multi-faceted set of institutions that do a whole lot of things well that the majority of people support, and a few things that the majority of people secretly do not support but are unlikely to be vocal about.