spaced-out

I'm all for more transparency around money in politics, but unfortunately there's one political party that has consistently blocked efforts address this issue.

What do you mean by "efforts to influence"? You mean calling people like Elon Musk on the phone and asking them to do stuff? Or like sending emails to people on their mailing list asking them to boycott something?

> A powerful unaccountable shadow organization that threatens social media networks to control speech and political conversations online should concern more than just Musk.

WTF is a "shadow organization", can you please define that term you used?

Really, it just sounds like you have a problem with free speech and/or free association. If a group of people want to form an organization called Free Press (https://www.freepress.net/) and advocate for things they think are important, that's part of being in a free country.

> Divorcing an employee from prior company culture is all about shock therapy. When you transplant a team from one company to another then breaking past culture is your number one priority or you will never get the loyalty of those employees to the new company's cause.

WTF is this nonsense? Have you ever changed jobs before, or worked in a corporate environment?

>Most customers don't care

How much is "most"? What data do you have? Plus, even if ~20% of customers care and only half will boycott, that's still going to have an impact on the company's bottom line.

Maybe you might like that, but I personally don't want to wade through dozens of "MAKE BIG $$$$ WORKING FROM HOME!!!" every morning on my feed.

> Rant about "Free market" until you lose the competition. Then its all out, hypocritical, double-standard protectionism, even economic warfare.

Not sure who you're talking about, the Biden administration has definitely not been "ranting about 'free market'".

The WARN act for one, which Musk may have violated. California also mandates sick leave and family leave for both parents of a newborn child.

When California says you can fire an employee for any reason, what they really mean is any reason except for a bunch of reasons we've decided are unacceptable.

>The downside of employee protections is that it makes companies more reluctant to hire. And also once hired, the salary to be offered is reduced to cover the estimated current value of the future employee protections.

Yep, that why software engineers in California and New York, where there are a lot of employee protections, don't get paid as much as SWEs in the Midwest or the South, where there are less... Right?

Or maybe the real economy is more complex than the kiddie models you were taught in Econ 101?

I wonder how this jives with his stated plan to lay off a lot of people? If he wants to implement that he'll need a lot more engineers and related support staff.

Sounds like a bad deal for the developer to promise they'll "fix" any issue for a flat rate of $5000 (minus whatever Github takes).

What if there's a dispute about whether it's fixed or not, who decides who gets the keep the money?

Another great example is the end of the third episode, start of the fourth. Arondir and the other elves make an escape attempt. They fail, Arondir is about to be killed, but for some reason he wasn't. They took him to their leader instead, who just lets him go with a "message".

- Why did the orc leader wait until the escape attempt to send someone with a message to the humans?

- Why would he believe an elf would relay his message, that humans could surrender and join him? Aren't the elves trying to prevent humans from being corrupted?

- Why did he give him back his weapons?

- Why are other orcs attacking him? Did Adar not even care if Arondir made back to the humans alive?

It makes more sense if you consider that the plot was written that Arondir would get captured, meet the bad guy, save the kid, and go back to the woman he's in love with to face the bad guy with the humans. Once that was decided they just threw together some scenes to fill in the blanks. No consideration was given as to whether the characters decisions made sense in the moment, only that they move the plot to where it was supposed to go.

>They won’t get any more buyers while it’s happening and it’s a massive distraction.

No one is going to buy Twitter at anything close to what Musk offered.

>I’ve worked at companies like this and it brutal on employee morale. People just leave.

You know how much Twitter engineers get paid, right? Twitter offer fully remote positions; no engineer with any sense is going to work at some no-name company for ~$100k if they can get an offer from Twitter, which will be almost twice that at least.

The only people I see "opposing" Musk are randos on Twitter he gets into arguments with. I wouldn't exactly call that a "great deal of pressure".

You think the EPA is blocking nuclear power?

Great for the voters living today, sure. Unfortunately the climate isn't going to wait for us to work through our political issues.

>Or its dominated by legal conservatives who have different ideas about constitutional interpretation than the Warren Court, put there by politicians whose constituents oppose abortion.

Exactly, those judges were determined to stop abortions, it didn't matter how strong or weak the legal arguments of RvW were, or whether or not the legislature codified it in law or not. They would have jumped through any number of legal hoops to stop people from getting abortions.

>its legal reasoning left it vulnerable, which is another way of saying it was weak

As if any of that mattered in the end. The Supreme Court ruled how it did because it's dominated by religious conservatives that don't like abortion.

No she didn't and no it wasn't. RvW ruled that in order to be free, people have an implicit right to privacy when making personal medical decisions. Obviously moral busybodies don't like that so they're calling it "overreach".

The counter-argument people will make, which I'm not sure if I agree with or not, is that regardless of what Apple's customers want, one company having that much power over its own ecosystem is bad for the market as a whole.

AWS has 33% of the cloud market share, I wouldn't exactly call that a monopoly.

https://www.channele2e.com/news/cloud-market-share-amazon-aw...

Exactly this. One of the best things governments could do to help lower greenhouse gasses is incentivize people to get their goods delivered instead of going to the store. So much fuel is wasted moving a ~2 ton vehicle and a >100 lbs person to the store so they can pick up, often, <100 lbs of goods. That's <5% fuel efficiency.

Amazon still has competition, both from brick and mortar stores that will let you actually touch the product and go home with it the same day, and from other online stores that can also ship stuff to you within a few days. What does Amazon sell that you cannot get something similar to from some other store?

They just provide a better experience.

What revolution was the 1917 woman's grandfather apart of?

>The good news is the ransomware attack on Colonial Pipeline in May 2021 probably marks the beginning of the end. Comforting as that might sound, it tells us very little about how that ending will turn out.

I wonder what level of liability would be reasonable when considering the increasing sophistication of these types of hacks. Going back to the bridge analogy, we would hold the licensed engineer responsible if the bridge they built collapsed because of a thunderstorm, but not if the bridge collapsed because a terrorist or rival nation state bombed it. Which of those situations is more analogous to getting hit with ransomeware or some other type of hack?

Say a piece of software from a small company is compromised, should the liability be different if the attacker is some script kiddie versus if it's some hacking group that likely has ties to a foreign intelligence service? Is it reasonable to expect every software company to be able to fend off even the most well-financed attack?

He's just trying to weasel out of it because the high from all the media attention wore off and he's now realized that Twitter always was a terrible investment which he offered way too much money for.

He should have figured this out when Jack Dorsey and the Twitter board that hated his guts jumped on this deal within a day of it being offered...

I guess we could just throw our hands up and say nothing will ever change, but I think things could change, and a great first step would be a grassroots push to adopt voting systems which make it easier for 3rd parties to break in.

> Enshrining the two party system in law is something that even the current power system in the US hasn't managed. By doing "top two to general" you'd be converting a de-facto duopoly into an actual duopoly.

Just the opposite, the top two candidates, regardless of what party they're from will appear on the ballot, this would allow people to vote for a 3rd party candidate in the primary without worrying about "wasting" their vote. If the 3rd party candidate is one of the top two they'll appear in the general, if not that voter can still pick the lesser of two evils in the general.

>The first case has clients outlined, a good estimation of revenue, competition, etc... The second is more abstract but aims higher. Success (albeit highly unlikely) means billions in revenues.

It's a stereotype that startups don't have things like estimates of revenue, a clear business plan, clients, etc... A few crazy outliers get all the attention but the vast majority that get funding have a clear and convincing plan to get to profitability, and often clients or at least partner businesses (in other words clients that aren't paying yet, but are willing to spend their own resources working with you).

The problem is that most new businesses fail, so if you're investing in new businesses the winners can't just make you a little money, they have to pay for multiple losers too.

You also need to convince investors that it's worth putting their money into these risky businesses instead of say Microsoft/Apple/Google/Amazon/etc... which will not go out of businesses anytime soon and produce respectable returns.

Because, in this instance, the lion is not the one that launched an invasion. Particularly egregious, launching a pre-emptive war based on a flimsy premise of what Ukraine might do in the future.

Can someone help me understand what caused Doordash to block the account? The title says "cross platform surveillance" but the ban message says they noticed issues on their own account.