fbelzile

It's easy nowadays to throw up a quick slash page with some SEO friendly pages to gauge market demand. Have an email wait list and if it gets large, you'll conveniently have the email of your first clients.

Tailwind has this built in if you're open to a new framework completely: https://tailwindcss.com/

> You can still do all those things on a computer.

Have you tried to distribute software on macOS out of the App Store recently?

Low interest rates definitely helped in the last few decades. Recently, yields have been rising though, which created some choppiness in the market. I think one of the main reasons the market hasn't responded in a big way yet is money supply: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/M1SL

The money being printed has got to go somewhere and a 1% return in the stock market (with high PE) is still worth more than a negative real rate accounting for inflation.

So you're saying Apple should pull Chrome's permission to run on macOS anytime there's an accidental zero day or vulnerability?

If Google wants to act like a platform, it should have some form of escalation with the developer to fix issues instead of complete removal without warning.

I agree, maybe removing the extension from the public facing web store is a better solution. But at the very least, allow the extension to be installed if you have the "hard to guess" URL. I do this with my app that requires a desktop app to be installed since it requires native app messaging.

If you don't like the risk this poses, don't use the extension. Your ability to make informed decisions about risk vs reward keeps getting chipped away when Google pulls this kind of stuff off. Google should warn you about the security risks (edit: or just remove it from the public facing store and only keep the hard to guess URL active) but don't tell me what extensions I'm allowed to use or not. Even adding local extensions I make myself are treated like a security threat with a popup every time I open Chrome.

Stop the helicopter computing. People keep saying they want the old Internet back, this is why.

I feel like people instinctively suggest to "raise your price" here because that's just what you're supposed to say nowadays. Yes, in most cases, a lot of people undervalue the value of their work, but as someone looking for this type of thing right now, I wouldn't pay more than $5/mo (or a $29 one time fee for something self-hosted). I just don't think adding tweets to my site is worth +$225/yr CAD in perpetuity.

OP should consider making a plugin for Shopify/Wix, etc. That would be more their target market anyway.

They were quoted saying the move "cements [their] Irish roots [and] provides enough space to gradually expand our team."

It'd be a breath of fresh air if CEO's could just say it like it is. I think more people would trust their brand and be more willing to invest in them. Our inner monologue wouldn't have had to fill in the blank with a possible hidden motive. Addressing the most common reason why companies "move" to Ireland could have been an opportunity to build trust.

The author lost me with "Tailwind is bloated." If it's bloated, you're doing it wrong. One of the main benefits is that you can run a command that creates a custom CSS file that only include the classes you need.

Especially if it was written in a type safe language like Swift.

> (or using cloud mail providers)

Why? I don't see moving to a cloud solution being much better. The cloud service itself would be the single point of failure and would be just as vulnerable to a zero day. The organization would have even fewer risk mitigation options like NAT, firewalls, etc.

Here in Canada, our air force takes out airworthy parts from planes, like emergency locator transmitter (ELT) batteries, before they're sent to museums. They have a stash of plane parts in a hangar somewhere for cases just like this.

I think a big problem is that the number of employees required to run many types of businesses has been steadily decreasing over time as technology improves. McDonald's for example went from 440,000 employees to 205,000 from 2012 to 2019 [1]. Multiply that out to include manufacturing companies and it's pretty easy to find the reason governments are strapped for cash. Maybe it's time to tax automation?

[1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/819966/mcdonald-s-number...

GME just went up almost 100% in the last half hour of trading. Probably a flood of people trying to visit WSB.

Or just, email me when... or call me when... At least it gives me a hint about the best way to contact you about something.

This is awesome. It has my favorite one: "ping me"

Man, I hated hearing this. Just use normal words, please.

Agreed. If you're going to start an ad business today, it should feel the least amount "sleazy," gimmicky? as possible. In case that was done on purpose to get more of your attention, that is.

Because of the historical high cyclically-adjusted price to earnings ratio (CAPE) of the US market [1]. I agree that historically low interest rates counter part of this argument, but overall, I still think there will be a reversion to the mean. Nobody knows if it'll be a sharp correction, or if prices will stagnate until earnings catch up.

Maybe I shouldn't have said risky. You're right that if retirement is a while away, you can continue not timing the market and you'll be okay. However, if you want to be more aggressive, it might be smart to sell some of the gains you've made in the US market thus far and allocate more to emerging market ETFs with more upside.

Using the CAPE ratio to project estimated returns has shown to be fairly accurate from 1995 to now [2]. There's no guarantee it'll continue to be true, but I think there's more upside to international equities for the next decade right now.

[1] https://www.starcapital.de/en/research/stock-market-valuatio...

[2] https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2020/07/20/the-...

Right now, many US stocks are overvalued and are at high risk for a correction within the next few years. Using historical averages for the last 20 years, the CAPE ratio for the US market is projecting returns to be only -3% to +3% for the next decade. Interest rates at are an all time low though, which may push expected returns up a bit from those numbers, but interest rates probably won't stay low forever. US index funds are a risky play right now.

Not all stocks are overvalued though. Look into buying value stocks that pay large dividends. Unsexy REITs, tobacco, bank stocks might be worth looking into again, as well as international or emerging market ETFs.

Bitcoin looks over-sold right now, but gold is relatively cheap as a hedge against inflation. The Fed pumping huge amounts of money into the economy will eventually lead to inflation. It might take a while though, since people need to be able to spend that money for inflation to happen. Various lock downs around the world are preventing this from happening, currently. If you're patient, I think gold and other commodities (Uranium possibly) are going to do well over the next few years. I think there are a lot of people buying Bitcoin as speculation and as soon as you have numbers go red, there might be a mass sell-off and switch to gold. The last Bitcoin halving event was just this past May which usually leads to surge in price as mining becomes more affordable, but as with other cycles, miners may start selling (since you can't yet pay bills with it) and prices will go down again until the next halving cycle.

To put things into perspective though: Aside from owning property, I'm about 5% REIT, 5% Gold, 20% Canadian index ETF (Canadian here), 30% international index ETFs, 10% US value stocks, 20% bonds, 10% cash.

I am not a financial advisor, please do your own DD.

I added the text to clarify the question later.

In this case, the grounds for dismissal are for wearing headphones during working hours. Drug test results can be positive for things done outside of working hours.

Not defending drug use at work, but if you're to be fired it should be for the performance related issues you mentioned caused by the drug, not because of the drug itself.

Edit for more context:

Depending on the drug, substances consumed outside of working hours would still show up in a drug test. Firing someone for something they do outside of work shouldn't be acceptable.

If you can prove they consumed drugs that would impair their ability to perform their job during working hours, that'd be a valid cause for dismissal. Drug tests don't measure that precisely enough though.

Not to mention, drug tests are not infallible. They can come back positive for morphine if you eat a poppy seed bagel in the morning [1].

[1] https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/poppy-seeds-alter-drug-tes...

You're right that I'd classify those as artificial monopolies. Wouldn't you agree that the world would be a better place if we had less of them?

Especially for general computing devices like a phone (unlike gaming consoles and media like your examples). We already know that Apple doesn't need the App Store for iDevices to be a commercial success, just look at the Mac and macOS.

No, you buy the phone hardware and a license to use iOS. The App Store is a service provided by Apple that you should have a choice to use or not. The Apple Tax is what you're 'buying' from Apple when using the App Store service.

You mentioned it yourself, most third party developers still use the Google Play Store on Android. The same will be true if the App Store continues to provide a better user experience. You might need to pay a little more for a game from the App Store, but I'm willing to bet most people will pay for the peace of mind. Let people decide whether the Apple tax is worth it or not. Either way, you're going to end up with a more efficient system where end users are paying an Apple Tax that is closer to the cost of running the store.

This does mean that Apple will need to start upping their game by either lowering their fee (which means lower costs for you) or supporting other independent games that deserve attention in the App Store.

Furthermore, iOS is a well designed platform with very tight security restrictions. You don't need the App Store to do that, it's build into the platform.

You're missing the point. Nobody is arguing that Apple has a monopoly on the smartphone market.

The problem is that Apple built an artificial monopoly in the distribution of apps by making the App Store the only curator of the platform. People who decided to purchase an iPhone with an iOS license should have the right to use the device to it's full extent (along with being able to fix it themselves if something breaks). If you don't feel safe running apps outside of the App Store, you don't need to!

I agree that there's no hypocrisy, but I think Apple is acting consistently as a platform owner in both cases. Yes, iOS users should being made aware of tracking software but it doesn't mean that they should continue being the sole store curator for their platform.

We know from past experience that it's commercially viable for platform owners to successfully develop secure operating systems that allow third party developers to develop and distribute apps without an additional tax. We don't have to look very far either. macOS is a great example of where the App Store and third party developers can coexist.

People should be able to choose to buy the app (for 30% more) using the App Store so that it's easy to ask for a refund, receive updates and for Apple to market apps they believe you'd like to use. But at the same time, Apple has no right to force people to overpay for services like Spotify on the App Store. Customers already pay to use a licensed copy of iOS on supported hardware.

Governments have every right to protect the customer from perpetually getting screwed by Apple. At the very least, we shouldn't allow Apple to limit free speech so that developers can't mention a way for their users to save money.

What are you talking about? Both Microsoft and Apple have had great success developing macOS and Windows while allowing third party developers to develop and distribute apps without an additional tax. There's clearly room in the market for operating systems that don't sell personal data and aren't artificially restrictive to generate more revenue. The fact that Apple cut the tax in half for small companies just shows how disconnected the revenue from the App Store is from the cost of running it.

By all means, keep overpaying for Spotify on the App Store so Apple can collect their 30% each month, but don't force me to. Customers already pay to use a licensed copy of iOS on supported hardware and governments have every right to protect the customer from perpetually getting screwed by Apple. At the very least, we shouldn't allow Apple to limit free speech so that developers can't mention a way for their users to save money.

I'm just guessing here but they might be hedging against future trade restrictions set by China against US companies like Tesla. If another trade war was to happen, people in China might be able to buy a Tesla using Bitcoin vs having to buy a NIO.