hoorayimhelping

A big reason Etsy has lost a lot of trust with consumers is their inconsistently applied policies and their allowance of cheap knock off crap. When I was there a few years ago, there were all sorts of forum posts, reddit posts and tweets about the problem all the time. The leadership (and more importantly) the people in the company, absolutely refused to believe it was a problem. We came up with any excuse and rationalization we could for not addressing it. The most common one was, "they (the people complaining) don't have access to our data, they don't know what we know, therefore their points are irrelevant." Another was, "they're just mad, let them vent, it's no big deal." Pure denial, the simplest reaction to bad news.

By continuously shoving their heads in the sand and not addressing the perception (whether it was real or not) the company allowed the perception to become reality. I'd be pretty surprised if reddit leadership doesn't do the same thing when they see messages on HN talking about how shit reddit is. They'll rationalize how we're a bunch of pedantic, angry nerds who don't represent the average user. They'll ignore the growing negative trends in favor of looking at the positive ones. They'll do anything they can to not change the strategy they've committed to. It smacks of a company that doesn't plan, doesn't think about the consequences of their decisions, and goes with the first idea that pops into their head.

Isn't that exactly the point that the big image on the front page is making? If most people have a mental model of a technology that doesn't match what the company is putting out, it makes very little sense to blame the people who have the 'incorrect' mental model. If it wasn't so widespread, your point would be much stronger. But the fact that the core pieces of react are misunderstood, especially when React publishes documents explaining how all of this is supposed to work and how you're supposed to think about this is an indication that something is wrong with React, not the people who use it.

This is such a facepalm moment. "This service is awesome, it does everything you need, it's reliable, it's safe, it's practical, and all you have to do is encrypt your files, share encryption keys, validate identities, and establish trust with the person you're sharing with. Also if you screw it up in any way, your file is public forever. It's so rad!"

>Monitor various collection platforms for incidents that pose direct and indirect risk to Amazon operations, personnel, or brand;

There is nothing in there about union busting or making sure employees don't organize. This author is naive to think that Amazon isn't dealing with state level threats. They likely need state level intelligence.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200901125940/https://www.amazo...

https://web.archive.org/web/20200901142713/https://www.amazo...

>will typically get a lot of upvotes during US night time and then gets suddenly killed when US wakes up.

I don't know about the downvotes, but you're presenting a false equivalency that doesn't make any sense and is kind of insulting to me as an American. Specifically about Malaria, which a US president has created a program to address https://www.usaid.gov/global-health/health-areas/malaria. America sends billions of dollars worth of aid and supplies around the world every year. But to hear Europeans talk about it, the only thing America does is cause problems for them with our imperialism.

Sometimes I wish America would just listen to Europe and let them fend for themselves. Let their navies handle global piracy and securing global shipping lanes for their interests. Let their armies deal with Russian and Chinese saber rattling and the effect that will have on trade. Sometimes I wish I could go back and tell the government to let European militaries spend their own money to launch and maintain GPS systems that the entire western world has been given and using for the past 40 years, paid for by American taxpayers.

>A larger lesson is that you want somebody teach virtuous behavior you need to be able to show the virtue yourself or you are not going to achieve very much in terms of results.

Very ironic, since you're doing the same thing to America / Americans. What part of you and your society is so virtuous that you feel the need to give America a lesson on how to be virtuous?

"I haven't ever gotten professional training, but I think my driving ability is above average because I analyze what I do."

You're talking about a TV show meant to entertain and generate buzz and word of mouth. It's not meant to be taken as an actual explanation. The theories of a TV show, no matter how grounded in reality, shouldn't be trotted out as examples when we have the actual reality and facts the TV show is based on.

In a time when facts are freely available to everyone, people are pointing to entertainment as data points into how we should make policy. It's embarrassing to see.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_air_support

Without close air support, troops on the ground can't overwhelm enemies with firepower. Without air superiority, we don't provide close air support. Our strategy dictates air superiority to enable our tactics of close air support.

The reason there's only been one dogfight in the past 20 years is not because these fighters aren't effective, or because they're a relic of the past. It's that they're too effective. We own the sky and nobody is capable of challenging us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Horne...

The unclassified ceiling is 50,000 feet, with a 250 m/s climb rate. Could a drone strapped with explosives come anywhere near that level of performance?

We're saying, "he's better at predicting things than the mainstream media!" The issue is that the mainstream media's bar is so low, there is no bar. And the reason this guy is somewhat respected is because his bar is only slightly higher than rat shit, which seems amazing compared to what we're used to.

The guy sucks at actually modelling outcomes. Because everyone does. He just sucks very slightly less than everyone else. Maybe the issue isn't that Nate Silver is slightly better than average, maybe the issue is that we shouldn't be sharing this garbage on the news, since it's not reflective of reality.

It's like saying, "sure, Cuba is a human rights nightmare, but it's okay to trade and interact with them, cause at least it ain't the Congo!"

Then Halo came out in November, and in the spring semester, when everyone returned to school after the holidays, and a lot of people had new XBoxes with Halo, nobody thought it was weird anymore. Almost overnight, online video games became normalized, at least to college age dudes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enterprise_service_bus

Spoiler alert: it's not the beautiful, decoupled silver bullet it seems like. The concept makes a ton of sense, but good execution of it is difficult. The biggest issue I've run into using systems that use this pattern is throughput and latency. Most shops design and deploy their systems in such a way that as soon as there's a little bit of traffic beyond the norm, the whole thing gets clogged and backed up for hours.

What would you tell the authorities? That there are people in a gym and that they need to be arrested? What outcome would you hope to achieve by tattling on them?

Because this explanation:

>Canon has announced the results of its investigation into the loss of image data on the image.canon cloud platform. According to Canon, when the company switched over to a new version of the image.canon software on 30 July, the code to control the short-term storage operated on both the short-term storage and the long-term storage functions, causing the loss of some images stored for more than 30 days.

seems pretty banal. Updating a service and forgetting to update the backups is not an uncommon thing, and quite a few software companies have published post mortems saying they did exactly that.

This seems like a pretty broad generalization. Forget the semantic fact that by definition, accommodating something takes effort. Some people's worldviews may not account for gender identity being expressed this way. Whether you agree or disagree with the worldview, saying it costs them nothing to acknowledge it seems pretty unfair. Especially when it assigns a label to people its imploring to be accepting and accommodating of. It's a strange way to try to win allies.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I'd venture that if you're going to say, "suggesting this marginalizes people," you should back it up with why you think that. It does no good for anyone to say something like that (and in doing so, heavily imply that the person making the statement is some kind of icky paraiah) and leave it at that.

Why is everyone so freaking obsessed with saving the world and fixing all its ills? When did it become not good enough to just make something people enjoy using?

Could you imagine how stupid and obnoxious it would be if every time you bought a tool from a hardware store, the packaging went on some long winded self congratulatory rant about how it's saving the world and battling the woes of humanity?

Cartels are usually thought of as groups in the same market colluding, but it's not limited to that. Two companies colluding not to compete in their respective markets is still a cartel.

Take a look at the clipper route https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipper_route. To ship goods across the world by sail in any reasonable amount of time, you have to sail way down in the southern ocean, where the winds and seas are incredibly rough and dangerous, and many many people have died horribly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaring_Forties.

We stopped using sails, because people were tired of sailors taking one for the team.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zha9DyS-PPA

Some of Steve Albini's interviews are really on point with regards to this stuff. Really worth listening to if nothing more than to provide contrast to comments like the one above (which seem pretty reductive and flippant): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRAc3hx5pok

The central theme of that book is that people attribute dumb behaviors to things like chemical dependence, when in fact it's a behavioral habit. The classic example from the book is people trying to quit smoking. You kick the physical dependency in a few days - the headaches and irritability go away, but smokers still relapse months or years afterwards. Why? It's because the smoking formed a habit to their brain, and their brain associated good feelings with smoking.

Read the book. But if you don't: Your brain has trained you to feel good when you read the news. You break this habit by replacing the good feeling of reading the news with a good feeling from some other, positive, healthy activity. Example: every time you get a desire to pull out your phone, do 10 pushups instead. You get a little physical exercise, and your brain starts associating positive feelings with positive activities.

Also, why the hell do you have notifications turned on if you're worried about the phone or the news being addictive? It's like asking to have cravings amplified. Turn off badges, notifications, etc. Check it on your own time and terms.