powowowow

A handshake is symbolic and can be easily replaced with a different symbol.

It really sucks that people are downvoting your cogent and fact-based response.

I didn't fact-check all of your links, but the first two that I randomly selected showed transit usage increasing over time.

Thanks. Sometimes I suck. I'll do better.

Americans used to spend 15% of household income on clothing, and they got fewer items of clothing in return.

I understand that you think it best if the government force me to support my inefficient local textile manufacturer, my local cotton mill, and my local cotton grower. However I don't think that's best.

The supply chains that you rail against have successfully delivered the greatest levels of prosperity to the largest number of humans in all of history.

They were created not by some mysterious force, but by individuals making rational choices about how they want to allocate their time, their energy and their resources.

The "suicidal deindustrialization" you refer to is the result of people making informed choices that you happen to disagree with. They didn't want a $400 locally knitted sweater, made from neighborhood sheep. They wanted a $40 sweater that was made as efficiently as possible, and $360 of change.

Please don't mistake your belief that you could design a better society for an actual analysis of reality.

An apology doesn't mean you took an action with bad intent; it indicates you recognize that some people were unhappy with the results of your action and that you care about those people.

I understand that you claim that it enhanced their bottom line, but that makes no sense.

I (and many others) will _immediately replace_ a phone that routinely turns itself off under load. I will limp along, for quite a while, with a phone that is a bit slow. Every piece of evidence supports the notion that it was a well-intentioned decision that turned out to be not ideal.

And yet all you unhinged haters are _STILL COMPLAINING_ two years after Apple apologized for the decision, explained it, built features to expose the battery health, cut battery replacement costs down to zero-margin levels, and have now agreed to pay a settlement on top of that. To quote you: "Just. Stop."

The 'Battery Health' screen shows the device specific aspect of the implementation.

There's a section titled 'Peak Performance Capability' which will say "This iPhone has experienced an unexpected shutdown because the battery was unable to deliver the necessary peak power. Performance management has been applied to help prevent this from happening again." if that specific device had an unexpected shutdown related to battery health.

That's how it worked both before and after the controversy; the only thing that changed was that Apple added the battery health UI along with an option to disable the performance management features.

Yes and they have a near total monopoly with their [checks notes] 20% global handset marketshare.

You can't just go to Samsung, Huawei, Xiaomi, Oppo, Nokia, or anybody else and get one!!

They made a decision to try to keep battery life closer to constant at the expense of performance, believing it was a better UX (slow phone > no phone).

I think this was totally defensible, and I also think that the people who claim it's some sort of malicious activity are unhinged. That said, it makes sense to avoid a lawsuit where you'll spend a fortune in legal fees, then roll the dice on the verdict possibly losing _billions_ instead, and definitely earning a lot of ongoing PR along the way. Better to just pay it once, get one more round of dumb "Apple slowed their phones because they're evil hurr durr" commentary out, and then get back to business.

Exactly; but Missosoup has strongly internalized the idea that neither blacks nor queers deserve respect; as such he truly doesn’t understand why calling them derogatory terms is a bad thing.

To him, it’s insane that a white person could care about a non-white; or a straight could care about a queer. He thinks that’s fake.

It’s sad, but it’s a peek inside the mind of a shitty human being who had abhorrent parents.

The notion that Apple should not be “allowed” to keep some software out of their App Store is nonsense. It saddens me that a person who claims to care about freedom also wants the government to forbid people from making editorial decisions on their private platforms.

It's absolutely what he said.

Political correctness is a right-wing term used when they want to call somebody X, but may face social consequences for doing so.

It's not a wealthy western phenomena. It's global and it's as old as the hills.

> pretty unique to the wealthier segments of the West and Europe.

Thank you for letting me know that Asia has no complex rules about how to address people, and no social consequences for failure to obey those rules.

Your example was also fatally flawed because it buys into the notion that white collar work is not working class.

White collar laborers are labor; they are not capital.

I make a couple hundred thousand dollars per year. I have far more in common with a nurse or a teacher or a store clerk than I do with somebody who was born with $10MM in a trust fund, and who makes as much as I do (by selling my full-time labor) just by buying and holding VTI.

It would be more accurate to frame payment for order flow as: "We get private institutions to offer you better than public prices; so you'll routinely buy each share a few cents lower, and sell a few cents higher than you would at a broker that does not offer this feature."

The institution can do so not because it's a giant scam, but because they have confidence that a seller on RH is not about to sell a billion more of the same name, depressing the price. They know that it's going to be a small and essentially random trade, which is easier to risk manage.

> There is virtually no nuance in the reporting.

If you want to read ad-supported news, then you will be stuck with news that is intended to have the lowest possible production costs, and garner the most possible eyeballs. This business does not support nuance, because nuance is expensive and less audacious.

Nuanced reporting exists on essentially every topic that it is possible to care about, but it is often in smaller paid publications.

100 years or more would be a reasonable start if we're going to have perspective.

Go read some old newspapers. It's clear you haven't.

> We also need to accept the fact that sometimes we go down paths, make discoveries, and need to reverse course,

All of which are made harder by people who share your preference for exceedingly inefficient but low-error processes.

> or hold people accountable so the wrong people don't pay for the mistakes of others.

This part of your sentence isn't compatible with the first part of your sentence. This is at the core of the problem. The prevalence of this attitude leads to a culture of ass-covering rather than ambition and risk-taking. That ass-covering creates gross inefficiencies, leading to every step costing 10x too much, and taking 5x too long.

We need to stop pretending that these missed estimates are a catastrophe. They're inventing new things, and there's uncertainty.

We'd be a lot better served, as a nation and a society, if we accepted these realities in the same way that our best businesses do. Instead, we're stuck with a Day 2 mentality, where the risks associated with grand endeavors are unacceptable because a bunch of whiners will complain.

The same assholes who whinge about the JWST being $4b over budget will happily cheer for hundreds of billions to be spent on wars or whatever. They're not arguing honestly, and we need to learn to ignore them.

I think it's nostalgia for an age that never existed, multiplied by a US-based demagogue's campaign against facts.

Journalism has always been deeply flawed and massively biased, yet still useful. The people of the past knew that. You're not smarter than your great grandparents on that front. Tech wasn't some cure-all that opened your eyes but not theirs.

People knew these things.

That is a situation where humans routinely crash.

The machines are better drivers, in that they admit defeat and stop.

I've found Pandas extremely easy to learn and to use; to the point where I find it confusing to see somebody say that it's not human-understandable.

If you're reading this thread and wondering if it's easy to hard to use, I suggest taking a look at the docs (https://pandas.pydata.org/pandas-docs/stable/index.html) and making your own decision.

I find the combination of basic intros, user guides, and the API reference to be extremely usable and understandable; and I am reasonably sure I am human. But opinions may vary.