forgotaccount3

> The visual risk of walking out without paying is much greater than the risk that anyone actually investigates AND tries to track him down for it.

So scan everything, then put it in the cart and walk off without putting in the credit card. Again, both are stealing but paying some fake, reduced rate is leaving your calling card at the scene of a crime.

> Wait, so.. how are we supposed to test Intel builds of our macOS apps from now on?

Isn't this a general form of 'how do we deal with the transition from a to b?'

If your client's can get intel Mac's, then you should be able to get one. If they can't, why do you need to keep supporting intel Mac's?

Why not? That continent is not their target audience.

It probably wasn't worth the effort to block foreign countries just from random unnecessary compute cost to serve a site to them, but when those countries start being serious about penalties you could face for serving their residents? Now it's justifiable to block non-US countries.

Yes, great response. But is the failing here an individual one 'This person is bad at their job and needs more training/be replaced' or a company one 'This company only hires bad people and we shouldn't use them'

Every company of non-trivial sizes will eventually hire someone who is a bad hire.

What law is it breaking?

If a company leaks my sensitive data, I get some nice junkmail offering me some period of time of credit monitoring or whatever so what are browsers doing to prevent this?

The issue should never be 'We want entities to have this data but only use it in some constrained and arbitrary manner that we can't even agree about it's definition.' instead 'This data shouldn't be made available to X'

> I know people who don't even type search queries or URLs into a browser, they just tell the phone what they want to find and open whatever shows up in a search result.

I don't know exactly what you are talking about here, but if I wanted to find a restaurant that is local I definitely just type 'Miguels' into the browser and then it searches google for 'Miguels' automatically and it know's my location so the first result is going to be their website and phone number and I can load the website for the menu or just call if I know what my family wants.

However even then, I'd rather have an app for them where I can enter in the items I want to order. I've noticed apps tend to be more responsive. Maybe it's just the coding paradigm that the applications tend to load all of the content already and the actions I take in the app are just changing what is displayed, but on a website they make every 'action' trigger an API call that requires a response before it moves on to the next page? This makes a big difference when my connection isn't great.

I also find it easier to swap between active apps instead of between tabs of a browser. If I want to check on the status of the order or whatnot, it's easier to swap to the app and have that refresh then it is to click the 'tab' button of the browser and find the correct tab the order was placed in.

> Does this not have more to do with desirability?

Not really. NYC population still hasn't fully recovered to the pre-covid peak: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/NYPOP

NYC is losing it's share of the global finance jobs as firms shift staffing to other, more desirable locations: https://pix11.com/news/local-news/nyc-job-market-loses-thous...

NYC rent being unaffordable is due to legislation that keeps apartments off of the market due to not being financially viable to repair to habitable standards in addition to legislation overly empowering local groups to block new construction.

> It's sufficient to have a process that satisfies the letter of the law

No.

Let's take an example of 401ks.

Any company that has a 401k has to pass non-discrimination testing to ensure their plan doesn't favor highly compensated employees over non-highly compensated employees. This is done through Actual Deferral Percentage and Actual Contribution Percentage tests. Just doing these tests can be very costly.

If you don't want to do these tests, then you can follow a 'safe harbor' action where the company automatically contributes x% for everyone. If the plan executes the 'safe harbor' action, then they automatically pass the two tests above.

However, if they don't follow through that plan they may still not have violated the nondiscrimination policies if they end up passing those two tests.

So to bring it back to the circumstance here, because Cox was not following their own processes which would have afforded them safe harbor they do not get the benefit of being automatically protected from the action. Then the court goes to see if Cox was sufficiently involved in the violating actions in order to be liable, and the court found that Cox was not.

So going back to the line...: > It's sufficient to have a process that satisfies the letter of the law, but you can simply not follow through and enforce it.

Not at all. Because it was not enforced, Cox lost the safe harbor protections and had to defend themselves.

> I guess it was a mix of enjoying the attention, pitying weaker students, and wanting to reward "participation".

It probably wasn't intentional, just 'I have x minutes a day with the students to teach them the day's lesson. I have more than x minutes worth of content to convey. If you willingly spend more time with me, you may get information that was lower in importance and was missed during the day's classes.'

> But Baumol's argument, which you introduced to the conversation, is that outcome and process cannot actually be distinguished

How is that Baumol's argument? How is 'outcome' vs 'process' relevant to his argument at all?

'Cost disease' is just the foundational truth that the cost of the output from industries with stagnant productivity will increase due to the fact that the workers in that industry can be more valuable in other industries, reducing the number of relative workers in the stagnant industry.

If you want to make the output from a stagnant industry available to a broader spectrum of the population then you have to improve the productivity of that industry.

Have you thought about creating building a faraday cage into your house so all internet has to go through the router's hardline?

Yes, backups are great but a 'dumb robot' or a 'mistaken junior' shouldn't have access to prod.

And a sleep-deprived senior? Even then. They shouldn't have access to destructive effects on prod.

Maybe the senior can get broader access in a time-limited scope if senior management temporarily escalates the developers access to address a pressing production issue, but at that point the person addressing the issue shouldn't be fighting to stay awake nor lulled into a false sense of security as during day to day operations.

Otherwise it's only the release pipeline that should have permissions to take destructive actions on production and those actions should be released as part of a peer reviewed set of changes through the pipeline.

> Top management has insane levels of compensation as a strategy by ownership to alight management's interests with their own, by turning them into owners. If there is going to be a management layer at all, for example the proposed "A-suite", then their compensation will balloon for exactly the same reasons.

That is not correct.

Owner's don't align top management's interests with the owner's interests by giving them 'insane levels of compensation', they do it by giving the managements compensation in the form of shares of the company. It's not the volume of the compensation that aligns their interests, it's the type. Otherwise the 'top management' could just invest in the competitor and torpedo their own company making multiples of the original cash compensation as clients leave for the competitor.

> I can bet you a hefty sum that Alameda will never go without electrical contractors.

You *really* don't understand the issue then because no one is saying that there will be 0 electrical contractors.

Electrical contractors will continue to exist because demand will continue to exist, but the wait time to get the work done will increase due to not enough electrical contractors.

Or the work will be left undone because the owner doesn't have enough money to pay the few electrical contractors that remain.

Or the work will occur but will avoid all regulations because the cost of complying relative to the odds of being caught don't justify paying it.

> But companies prefer to put in that effort and annoy their users so they can have that tracking.

This is making the assumption that the company has already paid the significant legal fees to see if they need the banner or not. Or ignoring the companies that think it is easier to add the banner than pay a law firm to review it's data usage.

It's like 'Hey, I make T-shirts. I want to sell them to anyone who visits my website. Do I need a cookie banner? I don't know. I do collect personal information to facilitate the transaction. I do retain the information for refund purposes. I do log IP addresses. Is this covered without a banner? Am I 'safer' to just make a banner saying we are saving their data and using it? I can't afford a lawyer to review everything we do, but I can afford a developer to make a banner like they did on other sites. Even if they implement it incorrectly, I think it's worth the cost to have the banner because I probably won't be liable if I attempted to follow the law. And maybe I'm wrong there because again, I have no idea what the letter of the law requires. I just make t-shirts and want to sell them.'

> I also recognize that websites don't need the banner if they aren't trying to track me

And I recognize that there is a non-trivial cost to knowing if you need the banner or not, and people are likely to ask their web designer/dev "Hey, where's the cookie banner?" and then pay for the subsequent cost of implementing that because it's cheaper than expensive lawyers.

> The bigger problem is the unbanning

The was my first thought as well. Yes, using the Safe Browsing list feels wrong, but I don't know enough to speak definitively in that regards. However wouldn't a relatively simple solution be that if a registrar is choosing to use some third party's list of banned DNS entries that the registrar then also implement sufficient unblocked components that will allow people to be unbanned from that third party?

> Add a DNS TXT or a CNAME record.

I haven't had a use-case for a TXT record come up yet, but isn't it low risk enough to allow domain owners to continue to configure TXT records even if the registrar wants to ban configuring other record types? Then the person in the article could prove ownership and could then get off of the third party ban list that the registrar was utilizing.

My only concern here is that it's using ex post facto information to try to dispute earlier assessments.

If I 'moved' some AI 'patents' to another country 5 years ago and stated they were worth $x using some formula and now some years later the government steps in and says 'No no no, you earned $x + $y and lied on the original value which should have represented the discounted future income!' that's not disputing the formula used in the original point. It's just that 5 years ago people underestimated how far and how valuable AI would be.

As a tech-literate person, I'm not 100% against the concept of ID if only because I think people will be more reasonable if they weren't anonymous.

This conflicts with my concerns about government crackdowns and the importance of anonymity when discussing topics that cover people who have a monopoly on violence and a tendency to use it.

So it's not entirely a black/white discussion to me.

> it’s prudent to assume that they’ll shift to a “merit based”

There is already a "Merit based" system that supports the arts. It's called the private market.

My initial gut reaction was akin to many responses here but a post that detailed the implementation mitigates many concerns I'd have if I were an Irish citizen. As long as the system has some required 'buy-in' from applicants to prove they are working towards being an artist, and the distribution is random so it's not a guaranteed payout, and possibly the odds of being selected are driven by the number of applicants and so no one could do a cost-benefit analysis of submitting the 'buy-in' purely with hope of receiving a payout, then this seems to be a more fair way of supporting up and coming 'arts' than the government paying some already established artist for a mural or to design a park or to create a sculpture.

> What part of your idea was supposed to stop that happening

The part where people see their money burning away paying maintenance and tax on deteriorating assets.

Why are people holding assets unused?

Because they don't believe that the city will allow sufficient development to allow them to purchase like-assets in the future if they chose to reinvest and the carrying cost is minimal because council taxes are trivial relative to the value of the asset. If my research is correct, Kensington council taxes are under 10k USD per year.

> A server like Marvel Rivals has literally millions of users. Players join that discord to socialize with all of those players and build a community around the game.

Going back to something you said earlier:

> Rocket chat is a Slack alternative for people wanting to host a server for a community. It's not a platform, you need to register and login to each server manually.

So the primary thing is that there is no SSO for each server? No centralized auth system? Because everyone I know that uses discord 'found' the discord via some official means of those million person discord's like the official Marvel Rivals one. If the only purpose of the centralized system is not requiring a new login for every server, then a centralized auth system could be implemented by relying on people's other social media accounts. Login with Google/Facebook/Apple etc.

> many telecoms are reluctant to do it.

This really buries the lede. Telecoms are reluctant to do it because 'doing' it isn't aligned with their priorities.

Why would a telecom risk bankruptcy by investing heavily into a system that their competitors aren't?

If you want a back-door to exist (questionable) then the government either needs to have strong regulatory compliance where poor implementations receive a heavy fine such that telecoms who don't invest into a secure implementation get fined in excess of the investment cost or the government needs to fund the implementation itself.

> They are specifically making it as engaging as possible because that's [how they make money.] ... what people want.

Fixed that for you.

Your argument is basically the same as saying that Banana Ball should be banned because they are intentionally making the experience as fun as possible, because that's how they make money.

One is knowledge the user has, and the other is a physical key they own.

Providing your 'finger' to unlock a device is no different than providing your 'key' to unlock something. So you can be compelled to provide those biometrics.

Compelling you to reveal a password is not some *thing* you have but knowledge you contain. Being compelled to provide that knowledge is no different than being compelled to reveal where you were or what you were doing at some place or time.

Maybe the two public data points weren't connected before?

I don't use SoundCloud, but if profiles didn't have contact information like Email Address on them then it could be meaningful to now connect those two dots.

Like, 'Hey look, Person A, who is known to use email address X, kept Lost Prophets as one of their liked artists even after 2013!'

> Ingress being disabled doesn’t really net you all that much nowadays when it comes to restricting malware.

But how much of this is because ingress is typically disabled so ingress attacks are less valuable relative to exploiting humans in the loop to install something that ends up using egress as part of it's function.

> In my opinion most of the people who refuse to believe AI can help them while work with software are just incurious/archetypical late adopters.

The biggest blocker I see to having AI help us be more productive is that it transforms how the day to day operations work.

Right now there is some balance in the pipeline of receiving change requests/enhancements, documenting them, estimating implementation time, analyzing cost and benefits, breaking out the feature into discrete stories, having the teams review the stories and 'vote' on a point sizing, planning on when each feature should be completed given the teams current capacity and committing to the releases (PI Planning), and then actually implementing the changes being requested.

However if I can take a code base and enter in a high level feature request from the stakeholders and then hold hands with Kiro to produce a functioning implementation in a day, then the majority of those steps above are just wasting time. Spending a few hundred man-hours to prepare for work that takes a few hundred man-hours might be reasonable, but doing that same prep work for a task that takes 8 man-hours isn't.

And we can't shift to that faster workflow without significant changes to entire software pipeline. The entire PMO team dedicated to reporting when things will be done shifts if that 'thing' is done before the report to the PMO lead is finished being created. Or we need significantly more resources dedicated to planning enhancements so that we could have an actual backlog of work for the developers. But my company appears to neither be interested in shrinking the PMO team nor in expanding the intake staff.

> down time is supposed to be down time.

Life doesn't have down time. Should we avoid learning new things because no one is paying us to learn?

One of my favorite uses of AI is to quickly make some simple 'hello world' level application that I can run using a given technology.

Don't know what an MCP server is? Boot up Kiro and tell it you want to make a sample MCP server and ask it for suggestions on what the MCP server should do. A relatively short while later, with a lot of that time being spent letting AI do it's thing, and you can have an MCP server running on your computer. You have an AI waiting for you to ask questions about why the MCP server does x y or z or how can you get the server to do a, b or c etc

As someone who learns a lot better from doing or seeing vs reading specs, this has been monumentally more efficient than searching the web for a good blog post explaining the concept.

And when I'm doing these learning exercises, I naturally lean towards the domain my company is in because it's easier to visualize how a concept could be implemented into a workflow when I understand the current pain points of that workflow.

I'm not going home and pulling in story's from my board and working on them (generally), I'm teaching myself new concepts in a way that also positions be to contribute better to my employer.

Not necessarily AI with 'hard guidelines' AI tools that pass output to a filter with 'hard guidelines' is definitely feasible.

Take the input as normal, pass it into Sora 2 and execute it as you would, pass the output through a filtering process that adheres to hard guidelines.

Of course, when talking about images, what is a 'hard guideline' here? Do you take the output and pass it through AI to identify if there's x y or z categorys of content here and then reject it?