justchilly

Would that apply to criminals of all ages, based on their intelligence / mental maturity? Plenty of incarcerated 18+ adults with less brainpower than this guy were deemed responsible for their actions.

The curfew was ordered by the mayor, an elected official (LA in the case of the video you linked), not the police.

Dozens of employees. Put in PTO. Facebook has 44k+ Employees. There are protests going on across the US/World. If anything the news should be how few employees are part of this.

Counterpoint: Is it really fair to say this is "more surveillance"? Requiring employees to be on site where there is a manager present is a form of intrusive surveillance. Wouldn't this kind of monitoring simply be an effort to retain existing dynamics.

Its not a zero sum game. Many billionaires - including the ones referenced in the article - got that way by executing on ideas/products that improve society. Think of all the ways companies created by billionaires progressed our quality of life (yes even Bezos, Larry/Sergy, Gates, Musk, Zuckerberg, not to mention industries like food, pharma, agriculture, construction, transportation). The way we get to version of society where everyone can have a high quality of life (with socialism, UBI or whatever mechanism necessary) is to first let the current system create these efficiencies.

Rich people aren't spending all their money on stuff, they're investing it. If wealthy people were to take all that wealth and start buying stuff (themselves or via redistribution through taxes to UBI), there isn't magically more stuff, so the price of stuff goes way up => inflation.

Not sure I follow how the milk as a substitute for water analogy translates to housing. There are no substitutes for housing in desirable areas. When the entire working class suddenly has more income, it doesn't create more housing, it pushes up the price of housing. Sure we could build more, but why? After all, if the price of affordable housing goes up, so does less affordable housing, and luxury housing. And we end up in the same place, except with inflation.

Appears to be powered by Bing. The search results are nearly identical. More importantly snippets for each site are identical, which is the real giveaway.

I'd argue the %s are not intuitive either way. In fact, if P(A) does happen, and there really is an unlucky doppelganger, that person is very likely to be charged. That could have been avoided with technology produced gave 5 other suspects that don't live on that block. Should it therefor be allowed for criminal defense if not prosecution?

The issue with the P(A) and P(B) argument is that police already use databases heavily, and most people don't have any problem with it. But why when it comes to facial recognition, is it too dangerous to use technology to drive efficiency.

If they're looking for somebody named Jane Doe, anybody with that name shows up on a list and police investigate. Of course if there are Jane Does in a 2 mile radius, they start with those. So why not just say if the system delivers a match within x accuracy and the person is within y residents (plus a variety of other variables), and x/y is below a threshold, then the match can be presented to police for further investigation.

Searching databases for matches is fine for names, or fingerprints, shoe prints, tire track, fiber analysis - but not faces? I personally wonder if it's really any different, or if its just better tailored for the media outrage machine because "China does it", or because "facial recognition targets minorities".

Question for people that are anti facial recognition. What methods of identifying people are you ok with? Are you ok with the police/news asking other people to help identify someone? To me that sounds like facial recognition with extra steps?

The arguments against facial recognition like that there can be false positives, or that can affect some groups more than others, doesn't that also apply when people are identifying people? If so isn't the real solution to require more evidence than just a facial match, not to ban an effective way of narrowing a suspect pool. That way police can spend less time manually identifying people and more time getting other evidence.

San Francisco has the #1 highest property crime rate in the country. Can hardly compliment their policing policies. https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/The-Scanner-San-Fr...

Stock based comp expense. If Amazon paid these employees cash instead of stock, Amazon's cash profits would have been lower. Instead they pay in stock, and employees pay the tax (which they're happy to do because the stock keeps going up). Furthermore if Amazon sold that stock in the public markets to fund those cash payments to employees, it wouldn't be revenue at all, and still not taxable.

From the article: "On average the thousands of staff who handle orders received about £3,000 per person last year. Senior staff will have taken home considerably more.

Amazon’s share price has surged 84% in the last two years. Last year the shares vested at an average stock price of $992, in 2016 it was $704 and in 2015 $467.

The payouts will have reduced Amazon’s tax bill because under UK tax law companies are required to deduct the vest value of the shares provided to employees."

Definitely a one-sided title designed to get clicks and drive outrage, but we are talking about buzzfeed news here.

Dismissing a valid (albeit sensationalized) point by saying "probably an article by some lobbyists" doesn't help. It just indicates you have your own agenda and are not willing to take an objective view.

Crime is historically high in SF. Obvious to anyone that has lived in Sf for a while.

Source 1) https://hoodline.com/2019/04/crime-is-on-the-rise-in-san-fra...

Source 1b) https://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/

Source 2) home burgled twice so far in 2019

The assumptions in your screen capture are dramatically more aggressive than any company in history. E.g. You are showing 60% yoy revenue growth 10 years in. For comparison: Google in year 10: 31%. Amazon in year 10: 23%. Dropbox in year 10: 27%. If these kinds of growth rates were possible, there would likely be much higher discount rates to go with them. Lots of investors do long term DCFs like this (and almost all update 5-year models on a rolling basis).They're just not as useful as a shorter term model given lack of visibility that far into the future and likelyhood of having to return funds well before then.

What about the cone? Hand Roles. Ice cream cones. Some crepes. Or is that a type of Soup/Salad/Bread Bowl...

Jump bikes are 250 and yep, pretty good for SF hills. 250 W goes a lot further on an ebike (as a compliment to to leg power) than a scooter.

The old Bird and Lime scooters had 250W motors. The new Skip scooters have 350W (plus suspension which is nice). The skips can get to a walking pace up to ~10% grade, but grind to a halt anywhere near Nob/Russian Hill. You need at least 750W to do the trick.

They also all have just a single break, which makes going down those hills dangerous.

I bought an iPhone X 100% based on the Qualcomm modem. I have the Apple store CDMA qualcomm version even tho I'm on T-mobile which had the intel version available sooner and cheaper. T-mobile service in San Francisco is absolutely terrible. Doesn't work deep inside most buildings. In the past I went through a bunch of iPhone 7's on T-mobile due to loss/theft/damage. Also compared many side by side. Some with qualcomm, some with intel, always on T-mo. Signal was a little better with qualcomm, battery life was SIGNIFICANTLY better with qualcomm. I'd guess 20-25% which is the difference between the phone dying by the end of the day or not.

Stanford sold for an average of $187 per share for the 1.8mm they received. That was years later at the IPO beyond. At the time they received them the value was far far lower (likely on the order of what I suggested). And the license amounts.. the article says it was 80k in 2012. That's an awful licensing agreement by any measure. This is a company that Stanford's own president - a genius by any measure - was an investor in so clearly believed in it's value, and yet he agreed to sell the IP essentially for a pittance to himself.

Correct me if I'm wrong but didnt Hennessy, while President of Stanford, agree to give away university-owned page rank IP to Google for $1mm (a company he was conveniently personally invested in) thereby lining himself up for massive personal gains at the expense of the University?

Artistic skill itself has become commoditized, it's all about the brand. The key to fame/high valuations in all marketing and building a following. If you have two artists that can create the same works, one could charge $20k and the other couldn't charge $200 if they don't have a name for themselves (and previous buyers). It seems like the big disadvantage these Chinese artists have is not so much skill as marketability.

Another interesting change that’s happening, that this article omits, is that artists/factories are able to reach customers directly on Alibaba/Amazon/Etsy. A few years it would have required visiting artists/factories Daifen to get things rolling. It’s a bummer to see the impact FAANG are having on startups... but in this case they may actually be helping poor artists keep a bigger share of the revenue.

Sites such as Instapainting.com / Paintyourlife.com (endless options/higher prices) / Oilbyhand.com (few options/lower prices) / pixeli.st (good UX) still have the advantage of focus and marketing (and customer support?), but the actual products they deliver are likely the same as you’d get directly from the artists.

Link to Alibaba search: https://www.alibaba.com/trade/search?fsb=y&IndexArea=product...