jhowell

> Hell no. I shared an unpopular opinion on LinkedIn once. The mob immediately descended.

I am glad your convictions are not strongly held. As you charge forward with this perspective, you may find more disagreements with those behind you than those in front. Bringing feelings to the surface is part of the healing and self discovery process.

> I have no data one way or another, but why would that matter?

I was curious about how you see your opinion reflected in the world. You seem to understand that it is not popular and are asking people to convince you otherwise. If not, I imagine you'd be in another forum right not having a much different conversation than can be had here.

"There are no strangers. There are only versions of ourselves, many of which we have not embraced, most of which we wish to protect ourselves from." - Toni Morrison

> Maybe he just has a different opinions - he understands them, but he disagrees that it's a problem (or the biggest problem).

Given the unique ability of his technology to magnify and control the distribution of information should we impose greater liabilities if their actions are demonstrably negative?

> But all the arguments fall flat the moment the rules are not enforced uniformly.

Is this not the point of the unrest?

Is it your opinion that the people who met with Zuckerberg were props, and his intention was to positively influence the public's opinion of his actions with respect to the protests and civil unrest happening in the country today? Seems a questionable tactic.

Would you publicly stand behind your opinions and reveal your identity? Do you feel your opinion is widely shared?

For some people this type of rhetoric is simple rhetoric. For others it represents a very real threat to their physical, emotional and psychological safety. For those who are most impacted by these words and pursuant actions, they represent a death sentence, they are no longer with us.

"The disaster ruins everything, all the while leaving everything intact." - Maurice Blanchot

> In an interview with Bloomberg News immediately after the call, Robinson said that “the problem with my ongoing conversations with Mark, is that I feel like I spent a lot of time, and my colleagues spent a lot of time, explaining to him why these things are a problem, and I think he just very much lacks the ability to understand it.”

Is there bias in objectivity even if expressed by others?

In your opinion whose view best represents "the population as a whole," and what percentage of the conversation does their opinion represent?

I think what happened here is a little different than how you describe. For me, it seems they had a hypothesis, found support for their hypothesis, then changed its definition for speculative motivations with tangible harm.

> To me, it sounded like they were saying that when a developer works alone at nights or on the weekend, they cannot ask other members of the team, or the person who originally filed the ticket, any questions.

I think in response to the OP, the user identified the "problem." I've worked places where the above was the norm, and other places where if ticket showed up in front of a developer and required additional clarification (from QA or other developers) this would be covered in detail during sprint retrospectives, with the intention of making sure that the team works hard to make sure that this never happens. It can blow estimates not only for the given task, but can have cascading effects as well.

That said, this might not be easily attainable or the best practice for all organizations, but I think I prefer better processes over evening and weekend work.

What's an acceptable death rate look like for you? Anecdotally does that number change if we're talking about your life, or the lives of people you are responsible for?

The impact changes in consumer behavior will have on business models that employ hourly wage earners is unknown and difficult to model especially in the absence of a vaccine. The value in sharing a car ride to go out for the evening, attending a concert or sporting event, or living in large, (formerly) convenient, densely populated areas is being reevaluated by consumers no matter how much money the federal reserve puts into circulation to bolster these potentially antiquated practices.

The thought of dying, being intubated or having long term respiratory problems that elevate your risk for future medical complications is part of the calculation now.

The upside I see is the amount of money people who are working are saving now that there is much less to consume, though this changes behavior as well.

I wish it were my implementation.

> but I seem to remember reading somewhere ... at best sensationalism, at worst pure fearmongering

This type of thinking is proving to be more dangerous than the ideas expressed.

Anecdotal account from an alleged Amazon delivery driver, (from Wall Street Bets) https://old.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/fn3irh/im_a...

Is this advice anecdotal or from personal experience?

Hopefully not here (or there): https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/merkel-coronavir...

I wonder if they'll receive some type of financial consideration given the loss in revenue. They aren't as good this year as in previous years but it looks like there are at least 1,000 spectators at the games most nights.

What in your opinion is wrong with the Grapes maintainer? The comment seems like an indictment of some sort without obvious evidence.

Well, that as you say, sounds like it "sucks for locals" to be certain.

Is it possible that at some point someone in your family tree was preferred for employment due to their immigration, or perhaps other status, which created opportunities that brought you to where you are today?

How is the right to bear arms going to help me if the government decides to use RPGs, helicopters, aircraft or submarines, or take away communications? Seems like a thin firewall.

Hopefully, you'll never have to make this decision. In the interim, why judge someone else?

> Lombardi’s ruthless focus on the fundamentals made him the winningest coach in the history of football, with more championships (5) than any other coach in history.

Needs and update

I'm not Asian, but am curious to know why the word Asian is relevant in your post?

It's essential. From my reading of the news it seems the Chinese want access to US universities, tech and financial service companies for a variety of reasons. I'd imagine that access to these resources is impossible without coming to the US.

Not very good at the data security thing. In other industries such as health care, there are tables that define fines and penalties. Maybe the same is needed here.

We've spent so much time and money gentrifying urban areas, now we're going back to the burbs. This is like going back to the mainframe, or from the cloud back to physical hardware. We toggle between the two extremes.

My only hesitation is that the burbs haven't historically been so diverse and welcoming in the past and likely part of the reason "the kids" flee to the city. Maybe that will change.

I think the comment questions the clickbait title and not necessarily the content.

That kind of sounds like "rural people are better with money than the city slickers." But, when I look at places like Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri there seem be a fair number of bankruptcies. I imagine we can look this up if we're so inclined. Is there a correlation between level of education and number of bankruptcy filings?