intopieces

A common response is that Apple’s cut is too high. How did you arrive at 2 to 3 percent?

I don’t think the sending money to businesses feature will require you to disclose your phone number. WeChat doesn’t, and that app is a privacy nightmare.

Is Wal-Mart a monopoly too, since I’m not allowed to walk in and set up my own shelf of goods to sell? Serious question

YouTube premium does it.

Agreed, this is a better framing, especially when you consider the tense of the word "Choose": "Congress chooses to leave this in place without exceptions," which is in line with textualism / separation of powers.

There isn't precedent for discrimination based on the gender of spouse specifically. In general, to answer the question "Is it discrimination?" It's helpful to apply the replacement test: if it were someone else who differed in only one non-work related aspect, would that person receive the same outcome?

I think what you're trying to get at in your edit is more in line with Pre-Employment Inquiries and Marital Status. [0]. The EEOC puts it this way:

"It is clearly discriminatory to ask such questions only of women and not men (or vice-versa). Even if asked of both men and women, such questions may be seen as evidence of intent to discriminate against, for example, women with children."

There established precedent for "sex-plus" discrimination [1], whereby the claimants sex "plus" another factor brings it closer to a Title VII claim.

The TL;DR answer to your question is that nobody has brought a case (that I can find) with those particular details, but you can't treat men differently than women and vice-versa, and that includes gay and trans men and women

[0]https://www.eeoc.gov/pre-employment-inquiries-and-marital-st... [1]https://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/52309/title-vii-sex-...

There appears to be something of a contradiction in the majority opinion:

From page 2: "Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. Likely, they weren’t thinking about many of the Act’s consequences that have become apparent over the years, including its prohibition against discrimination on the basis of motherhood or its ban on the sexual harassment of male employees. But the limits of the drafters’ imagination supply no reason to ignore the law’s demands."

Then later, on page 4:

"The employers also stress that homosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex, and that if Congress wanted to address these matters in Title VII, it would have referenced them specifically. But when Congress chooses not to include any exceptions to a broad rule, this Court applies the broad rule."

The Majority refuses to limit the scope of Title VII simply because the drafters did not consider gay and trans workers when they made the law, and also penalizes those same drafters for not creating exceptions for individuals they lacked the imagination to think of to start with.

> but its a textualist argument that the original legislation did not intend to include homosexuality

Ah, but that's not textualism. Textualism is a method of statutory interpretation whereby the plain text of a statute is used to determine the meaning of the legislation. Instead of attempting to determine statutory purpose or legislative intent, textualists adhere to the objective meaning of the legal text. [0]

[0]https://ballotpedia.org/Textualism

The answer to that question would depend on how the employer has treated other applicants of the opposite gender in same situation (that is, being married to a female). The law hinges on disparate treatment; it does not account for what the employer cares about.

And yet decidedly inconsistent with his reputation of being a textualist, since he appears to take into consideration the intention drafters of the law by looking at other attempts to amend it. He does not appear to address in his dissent the meaning of the text itself beyond pointing out an omission that the Majority opinion addresses explicitly (though somewhat contradictorily).

It is sex discrimination to refuse to hire someone due to them being married to a woman if you would hire someone of that person's opposite sex despite them being married to a woman.

To be even more explicit about this, an employer cannot refuse to higher only married lesbians. A cisgender man married to a woman could bring a suit for sex discrimination.

Discrimination is defined by what's called "disparate treatment," that is, treating individuals differently because of their sex. It doesn't relate to what is legally permissible outside that situation.

In what way does Hoffman represent legacy media? As well, when do you trace the rise of rage based enticement? 50 years ago was 1970.

Yes, this is accurate. There is no expectation, from anyone, that a person with a $1.1m medical bill will pay that. There's a specific group of people called Medical Bill Advocates that help people navigate the medical billing system.

As well, people don't really go bankrupt from medical costs that often. Hospitalizations cause about 4% of bankruptcies among nonelderly adults. Among uninsured, this rate is about 6%. They mostly go bankrupt because they lose their jobs and income [0].

[0]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5865642/

>You get fucked when you don't have insurance, because you can't participate in this process

This is not accurate. Cash payers just have to go through the administrative part themselves, cobbling together charity and self-negotiation, eventually landing on a payment plan that doesn't get reported to credit agencies.

Is that a laughing reaction to George Floyd's brother tearfully calling for police reform? Christ Facebook is even more toxic than I thought it was.

I'd say ads inside apps is antithetical to Apple's brand. Does anyone like those?

Apple should wind down their ads system (iAd) entirely. Advertisements are antithetical to what Apple stands for - privacy, premium experience, doing the right thing for users. They should lower their cut to 10% (not to 20, as the article states) and start offering curated experience bundles like they do with AppleTV.

The first step to making it a place where people want to go is making it easier to build that place.

For the next billion users of the web/computers $100 is still a big investment.

> Shouldn't their family left behind be able to enjoy some of the profits for a period of time?

It doesn't take copyright to make a profit off of a work. the Criterion Collection includes Charade, which is out of copyright: https://www.criterion.com/films/603-charade

I'm sure the children of the author can come up with inventive ways of selling the work.

When America fixes copyright to be life of the author only, I will agree with your concerns.

The police have the power of the government behind them, which in the US literally has the ability to kill you in some states.

At least if it's in the hands of corporations there's still a chance that the only entity more powerful (the government) will do something about it (through regulation).

There is something fundamentally wrong with American society, though. No arguments there.

Are Zoom events like the one in the article public, such that any person who logs into Zoom can access as part of their interface, with out looking for it, the event in question?

Does the content of the event persist in a way that makes it easily sharable, with comments?

If the answer to both of these is “no,” I contend that the communications on these platforms is “private” and should be regulated by the US Government against censorship (though I have no hope that it will be). My reasoning is this:

(1) Zoom has no expectation that private communications will harm their business. In the same way Ma Bell never took responsibility for the zillions or drug deals and kidnappings that got coordinated over their system.

(2) Lack of viral potential means the possibility of inciting violence, cyber bullying, and other negative consequences of mass internet communication is diminished.

Both of these points have a correlating contention about censorship on Twitter, Facebook, etc: they (not the government) ought to censor content that has the potential for negative outcomes like those I mentioned. Is it difficult? Absolutely. Will there be disagreements? For sure. But, they can afford to figure it out, and our society can’t afford for them to not to.

NB: We need nuance and reasoning here. Falling back on first principles and calling it a day is not enough; those principles were articulated at a time where speech replication depended on industrial machines and were limited by how fast a pony could run. We’re talking the ability to beam information practically into every child’s brain 24/7 anywhere on the planet using psychological tricks to engage them.

I'm not sure it's correct to say "remote first" for Facebook. IIRC, they're just giving the option for trusted employees, not hiring straight out of college for remote.

Yes but lots of people locked into a 4 year vesting schedule based on Bay Area COL. I don't think they're going to take those back. So even with a pay cut, you're likely to come out ahead -- maybe even paid-for-house ahead.

>If national news stations get high ratings does that mean people necessarily like the people generating or publishing the content?

I think national news stations are not an apt comparison, since they have faces. This user, for all intents and purposes, exists only in text and non-personal image posts. For that reason -- the lack of "personal connection" that voice and face provide -- upvotes are reasonable proxy for "like" and "approval".

I contend that people don't "dislike" this user specifically, but actually "dislike" the idea that the content they are consuming comes not from many original minds, but a few minds copying the same content over and over. As I pointed out in my original comment, this is the entire platform! What people dislike is not the user, but the entire system.

In that regard, it is possible for a medium to generate interest and attention while actively attempting to exploit or manipulate its viewers, because that's what Reddit does. It's a classic attention merchant.

I think from a business perspective TW is definitely the rise but the real move is towards Singapore.

> Generally, he is disliked by a large portion of reddit.

Huh? 98.1% of users don't post [0]. The user mentioned in the article has the most points of anyone, meaning their posts have the most votes. That doesn't indicate dislike. Quite the opposite, actually.

Was there a poll about this user to gauge sentiment?

[0]https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/b5f9wi/let...

China takes the precise opposite path to the US. While the US pumps trillions into private hands to keep private enterprise afloat, China spends an equal amount on infrastructure, largely financed through debt. This is a smart move because your countries economy could collapse but the nation's financiers aren't able to repossess poured concrete, AI knowledge or wireless access points.

If you believe in the power of targeted marketing, believe in TikTok. I didn't log in, I gave this app no information about me at all and it managed to turn 1 or 2 likes into a stream of endless content that hit a certain spot for me. I had to delete it.

Are there any open source Notion alternatives? This is the main benefit of open source software, in my mind: no one can "take" it from you because it doesn't belong to "them" in the same way that a product does.