npizzolato

Eh, you can choose to believe Zuckerberg here. I personally have no faith Facebook will voluntarily permanently delete someone's data when they close an account. They have shown very little prior behavior that would lead me to find his statements on this to be trustworthy.

If you feel so guilty about how little your nanny makes, so much so that you're pulling tags off everything you buy, maybe it's not a bad idea to pay your nanny a little above the going rate. Partially for your own sake as well as hers.

I also think only supporting larger movements is the wrong way to go about things. The more local the problem, the more impact you can have on it. Support Medicare for All? That's certainly good to do if you feel that's right, but that's going to be a long, drawn-out battle. Paying your nanny a little bit more? That's very easy to do and can immediately improve someone's life.

Perhaps the attitude of measuring the good-ness of a chat client solely on how much memory it uses is one of the main contributors to the rise in popularity of Slack and the decline in popularity of IRC. I personally don't care if my chat client uses more ram than its competitors if it's easier to use. Judging by the amount of people using Slack, I don't think I'm alone.

It was pretty clear he was talking about his own experiences. Does he need evidence to justify his claim that management also abused their powers?

Intent matters (in ethical considerations, anyway). Intentionally making mistakes to conceal your automation is on a completely different level than unintentional mistakes made when doing the work (either manually or through automation).

Do you work on services that are expected to be working 24/7? It's not exactly uncommon for a production service to have problems and need to be fixed ASAP.

It's not a local issue when a multinational organization is doing the same thing across an entire country. Then it's rightly a federal issue.

How is it an overreach to define finding who is a LEO and feeding them false information to deceive them and waste their time as obstruction of justice?

So they misled investigators throughout multiple cities across the United States. Therefore, it's a federal issue. This really isn't that hard to understand.

A real criminal investigation probably isn't going to be satisfied with the lowly coder. If this ends up going all the way, I would expect people high up to be punished.

If you do that with the intention of passing through a checkpoint to hide your contraband, why shouldn't that be a crime?

There doesn't need to be an actual crime. There needs to be an investigation of an actual crime. One which seems to have been taking place.

Also, given how often Uber is brought up in these forums for ignoring/breaking local laws, I really would not be surprised to find that they have committed real crimes. I would be far more surprised if they had not.

It's also the most important thing. If your culture is bad, changing what tool you use isn't going to fix everything. You're just going to have a new tool everyone uses poorly.

You're never going to move large groups of people by just yelling "xxx is terrible!" You have to make something better that people want to use to get them to switch. Unfortunately, Slack is better than IRC in many ways that matter to a lot of people. Ignoring all of those things doesn't make IRC better, and it's not going to make people want to use IRC over Slack.

Not really. Once they get discovered and reported on a supported browser, it sounds like they'd be routed to the team. Theoretically, bugs could exist in supported browsers that only get reported in unsupported browsers, but you'd have to weigh the likelihood of that against randomizing the team investigating bugs in unsupported scenarios.

He's proven he's willing to enact executive orders with no notice which bar legal immigrants from entering the country. So we've got action against immigrants already. Not just plans.

> Apparently, the father-to-be realised his film was streaming publicly on social media about 30 minutes into recording, but decided to leave it that way.

It would be one thing if he never realized he was broadcasting publicly. Once you realize something is public and decide to leave it up, I think you lose any moral authority to claim others shouldn't have any fair use claim to your public work.

If the fun people had with Wii Sports was worth $200 to them (or whatever the Wii cost), then who cares if they only bought the console for that one game?

What risk? Yahoo failed, but Marissa Mayer made out with millions of dollars. Seems like a no-risk endeavor to me.

> Their net worth is none of your business.

But net worth has everything to do with risk. A person worth $1 million putting up all $1 million is risking everything he has. A person worth $1 billion probably won't even notice if he loses $1 million. There's almost no risk to him if he loses that money.

By design.

Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/793/

I think it's really easy to look at something from the outside and think "how hard could that really be?" I bet if you asked someone who wasn't in CS how hard an identity management system is, they wouldn't think it is all that hard. Only once you get into the details do the challenges become apparent, and I suspect that's very true for bakeries as well.

It seems like the two topics are correctly being linked. Airbnb is trying to use arbitration clauses to avoid having to answer any questions about large-scale discrimination. Why should it be talked about in a vacuum?

There's a difference between a decision being made for a moral/ethical reason that happens to be in line with shareholders and a decision being made only to appease shareholders. Given how hard it is to determine if any one decision is truly good for the short/long-term health of the business, it seems silly to say that the first case never happens.

I hate this argument that companies are completely void of all emotion. You could just as easily say that no one cares about privacy and that taking a stand is a bad financial decision. Given the amount of bad press Apple got for their stand against the FBI, that doesn't seem like a very difficult argument to make.

So given that it's not very hard to make the arguments that standing up for privacy might be or might not be a good financial decision, why would you think the decision Tim Cook chose had absolutely nothing to do with his life experiences?

EDIT: Another comment chain had this quote from Tim Cook in a shareholders meeting that I think illustrates my point. From https://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/tim-cook-soundly-rej...:

""When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind," he said, "I don't consider the bloody ROI." He said that the same thing about environmental issues, worker safety, and other areas where Apple is a leader."

You can pry my cheap $5 headphones from my cold, dead fingers. No way am I paying $150+ for something I'm likely to lose several times a year.

Ah, the Apple way. That problem we just created for you? Here's a dongle to solve it. That'll be an extra $10 (if you're lucky). You're welcome.

I can't tell if this is satire or not. It almost writes itself.

Conversation is impossible when you assume everyone is out to get you.

It honestly works for everyone. Words are cheap. Actions matter.