greghatch

Yeah - but how would they know what is legally enforceable or not?

It's really complicated and I don't think it's reasonable to assume people have access to a clear answer on enforceability and certainly not an answer they could rely upon enough to risk their job over,

> “It hit me that I had no idea what he was talking about, or what I was doing,” Montañez recalled. “I was shaking, and I damn near wanted to pass out…[but] I opened my arms and I said, ‘This much market share!’ I didn’t even know how ridiculous that looked.”

>The room went silent as the CEO stood up and smiled. “Ladies and gentlemen, do you realize we have an opportunity to go after this much market share?” he said, stretching out his arms.

Huge smiles from me here.

This really amplifies the willingness of this CEO to listen and promote good ideas. I don't have a ton more context but I can relate to this janitor in many ways and this reaction from the CEO would be incredible.

I'm so glad it happened this way and that it came from the janitor's perspective.

That's not entirely comforting

This analogy is great, thanks.

In a sense, yes. However, I think the farmers in this analogy were more willing/able to be nomadic in the earlier days of osx and ios apps, where now they are much more likely to make the land their permanent home.

This could be because the app store is more stable or reliable as a source of income or from a realization that the Mac App store is the best/only way to present information to a sufficiently wide audience - that wasn't really something developers knew to be true in the earlier years I imagine - maybe the thoughtful ones knew but the rest were still warming up their feet.

My intention was to show why comparing the two things you mentioned and claiming the comparison is outrageous was not a reasonable dismissal of OP's concern - because they were talking about the similarities of society predicated on wealth accumulation generally and not the violence inflicted to protect that wealth and how that has changed over time.

Many disagree with the tenants of capitalism regardless of how violent those in power are or how corrupted their authority is, the system itself can occur as strange, especially when it puts a lot of power into the hands of a few people - that causes uneasiness in many cultures and it is certainly something to think about as wealth inequality gaps widen, for better or worse.

I don't really have any stake in the result of this conversation and my views aren't as critical of capitalism generally, I'm commenting because your out of hand dismissal of OP's comment made me think that you might either be erroneously framing the comment or reading his concern as something far more serious than the casual comment would otherwise indicate (at least, that's how I read it).

Another way to read the OP would be something this - "Doesn't this remind anyone of how wealth was distributed in more clearly feudalistic times? Weird, right? - it makes me feel weird. I worry sometimes that this might be the beginnings of what we will consider to be a slip into a dystopian society. It worries me, and I wonder about it from time to time."

EDIT: copy/pasted a little too much and repeated myself

The negatives need not be so similar for the two to occupy the same space of vast property ownership concerns - namely that a single person has what many consider to be a troubling amount of wealth and power.

EDIT: sentence structure change

> One would think that this should be enough to put at rest any possible suspicion.

But, it wasn't. People were still suspicious - and in his working with kids it doesn't make sense to "take a risk" on an allegedly exonerated pedophile.

What should happen and what did happen as a result of his three weeks of suspicion was starkly different. Certainly we don't need to blame anything or anyone in particular to understand how awful something like false charges can be regardless of how awful they ought to be.

> Three weeks are not such a long ordeal, especially when you know from the start it's all a mistake.

He didn't know it was three weeks at the time, he didn't know if he would be able to exonerate himself or if he was being framed or whatever - it's not like he's just sleeping it off when law enforcement already got one thing wrong enough to falsely arrest.

> But time crystals aren't perpetual motion just by dint of not being closed systems at all, so they're kind of neither here nor there.

Literally!

I mean, it does if the culture is to turn a blind eye to managers that do this.

Of course, from what I can tell, there's far more than one problem manager involved in all this.

It's a little tone deaf to offer "should've done it this way!" as advice to a person already in a bad way.

Unless OP is asking for better processes to avoid this in the future, I think it's not a good idea to offer preventative advice as a first response. YMMV, but this sort of comment is often unwelcome (especially if you phrase the questions in an interrogative way... example - "Why are you landing 400 commits in one go? Half of those were on files which then start causing merge conflicts for your team and wasted a huge amount of your time?" comes across like you kind of enjoyed typing it and doesn't really occur as a kind stranger leaning in to help)

If your post was directed more to the readers of the thread instead of at OP, I think it would've come across less admonishing. Of course, I'm not judging you for your comment to be clear, just providing feedback on why your comment might rub people the wrong way (apologies for length).

I think you might be too YOUNG to get it.

I think older people love the idea of interacting with a computer with voice - it's way easier for someone to get a quick answer with voice if they're otherwise unfamiliar with navigating a smart phone or laptop (plus the added Star Trek "Computer, locate Commander Riker" aspect - with that added feeling of nostalgia, maybe).

EDIT: changed words for clarity

There are many that view holy books as a collection of historical accounts given by visionaries or in witness of visionaries - those that view it as "merely" a book of facts to take or leave can still hold this view, and can still be religious. Devoutness comes in many forms. Blind belief in the Bible, for example, isn't something I've really encountered in my religious upbringing - not really all that common to encounter outside of specific examples made a mockery of on Facebook or political rally (grew up in California, likely different in bible belt).

Doubt is often encouraged, though min got the better of me and I've since been pretty distant from faith-based living.

EDIT: grammar and clarity, minor changes

Sleeping dogs are actually quite honest in my experience.

I don't think you're reading the comment correctly. The comment is not proposing that falsely accusing more people will solve any problems.

EDIT: gender agnostic phrasing

I think that was his point, he's critical of Amazon because they lied about their reasoning for not carrying the products, not questioning the legality of not carrying specific products.

I thought that was obvious, and a charitable interpretation of his post would've made this clear, I think.

It's not reasonable to assume that a human changed their mind that quickly. The idea of putting out an offer with the intention of changing your mind and letting a computer handle that process cements the point that its not a change of mind here, more likely an intentional misrepresentation of buying pressure - otherwise what's the point?

This is not what changing someone's mind looks like.

If it's hidden, then its assumed to be unprecedented until evidence presents otherwise. There aren't going to be forward assumptions of precedents without evidence.