thegayngler

I know this is going to be a really unpopular take.

I tend to be more libertarian on this. I think the government and tech should get out of the business of prioritizing and promoting a specific family structure using tax code and other benefits. Let people decide if they want to have kids and deal with the fallout accordingly.

We already have people we can't adequately support now but you have the government and tech companies incentivizing people financially to have families even when they can't afford it.

IMO it is selfish to force other people to finance your family even when there is already plenty of resources to pay for your own family.

These "benefits" the families are getting leave very little resources for the most vulnerable people in society.

I just think it's generally selfish and irresponsible to have kids if you need the government structures to finance your lifestyle through the tax code and other government institutions.

I see people making far and away more money than me but they pay a lower tax rate than me because they have kids and I don't. That's not only selfish on their part but also unfair.

If the US had an adequate social safety net that includes UBI, Housing and Healthcare this might all be moot.

To me this makes far more sense than a indiscriminate defunding. It’s what I’ve been advocating for. Defunding the police by itself doesn’t solve the problem. Firing crooked cops does to some extent.

I think this is a great point. We could be opening pandora's box here from a number of perspectives including the security aspect of things. This issue of app stores is not as cut and dry as people are making it out to be.

Secondly, you can "side load" iOS apps as well. You just have to go through a process of jailbreaking your iPhone which is not illegal but it may void the warranty.

When you buy the iPhone you are also buying into the platform. If having multiple options for app stores is a necessity for you then an iPhone is the wrong device to purchase. Buy something else. There is nothing wrong with voting with your wallet as there are other phones on the market for people to buy.

I quite like this study on de-escalation online. I myself have learned to not care about whether or not people forgave me for being wrong or instead just assume they forgave me for being wrong. If I think I am actually wrong i'll say it and then ignore any further replies to the post. In the case that I simply do not agree that I'm wrong, I do not apologize. I "pithily" re-iterate my opinion/disagreement/argument and why, then ignore any further responses. Keeping track of everyone else's petty beefs with me online is not worth the effort. shrug

As a side note: I do not believe in grudges. So..I do not stay mad.

As a POC, it bothers me that someone from the "corporate(or educated) class" of POCs always coming in to criticize those POC who have a legitimate concern about some injustice they are seeing. In this case Timmits concern is entirely valid and does not have a solution currently other than do not use ML for some applications. We benefit from Timmit and others voicing these valid concerns. Engineers always want to base everything on the data to take themselves out of what is being asked of them. It is not always possible to reduce problems to "the data". POC in particular should not be quiet when it comes to some of the issues around the questionable use of ML in relation to race and issues that are ultimately surrounding race.

So basically ML is completely useless for certain applications at this point in time? Is that what I am to take away from this?

I guess I just want the list in the order that it was posted in and without political ads.

My main gripe about FICO is that they are not transparent about the methodology and the ways in which you could appeal a decision are murky at best and are difficult and take months to fix in many cases. I prefer full transparency as to what the rules are and the algorithms used for the purposes of credit so we as a society can decide rather than private businesses deciding for us what our social credit and other forms of credit is. Why shouldn't I be allowed to improve my credit and why shouldn't that process be completely transparent?

This is one of the few things I disagree with her on. With that said she is my favorite candidate thus far.

I know I'll get downvoted but most of the time in my experience the people aren't actually lazy or underperforming. It's just that their manager doesn't like them. I'm going by what I've seen. TBQH! Usually if people are bored or lazy for too long they quit anyway.

How does one determine who's lazy and under performing and not? There is not a good qualitative way to evaluate this. Most of the time it just boils down to do you like the person or not.

Secondly, how do you address the racism in Unions even now? Within the last year multiple African American Union workers were complaining about racism within the Union and they were largely ignored by the Union.

I remember when I used to work at XYZ Company I would have to wait for weeks to have a union employee move my stuff from desk to desk (even a desk that was 1 desk over) when I could've done it myself in minutes. Why do I need a Union worker for something I can do myself? Why does a company need to spend $600 for something I can do myself in less than an hour for free.

Maybe in the US journalism and entertainment fields people can get off more easily with a Union as their jobs are somewhat shielded from the threat of offshoring. That is not the case in engineering and manufacturing. Unions are not for every industry and these things should be done at the Local, State and Federal level so everyone can benefit. The government is supposed to be counter balance to business. The government is outsourcing their job to Unions.

Why are you conflating what Apple is doing with tax treatments and loop holes (that every business tries to take advantage of in one form or another) with a message about taking responsibility for protecting people's privacy and their data?

If you trusted the company enough to give them your email address directly, I'm sure you would've done that. This is a great move. I get so much spam and I'd like to be able to not get it if I don't want it. Long after I've moved on from a service they are still sending me emails to get me back or to do some other transactions with them.

Why am I being downvoted simply for being happy about this update and that it brings down the learning curve for other engineers?

Thank you so much for this. I was learning iOS again for the fourth time. This time is different. I learned about programmatic UI from Brian LBTA guy which has been so much easier than IB. Now this update just makes my learning iOS a whole lot easier for me. I'm so thrilled. Thank you thank you thank you Apple!!!!!!!!

Our iOS engineer at work doesn't even own an iPhone. I just thought I would point that out.

Apple is not preventing you from buying iOS apps from anyone but Apple. Spotify and other companies are preventing people from buying directly from iOS apps by not offering the option for users to purchase their product with in app purchase API. Spotify uses Apples resources to distribute their apps but then complain about it. Anyone who is distributing an app on behalf of someone else is going to charge for the service and why shouldn't they. IMO the question isn't should they charge it's how much is appropriate? And people already have a right to install whatever software they want on their device at their own risk as it should be.

I guess Im just an outlier as I love the butterfly keyboard. It is certainly my favorite thing about the new macs. I still have my 2016 Mac and it is in prime condition. I am a light touch typer. Therefore I dislike having to mash my fingers down into the keys to register the click.

Top performers are already working for far less than the value they create allegedly. Usually, there are a whole host of people working on a project.

Right now you have fake writing and producing credits simply designed to generate a stream of income for the musician. I think going to a salary would allow people who are best at writing or production or something other than singing being able to focus and it brings the cost to produce a record down.

You may or may not be able to make more money independently. You never know when the public is going to move on to some other sounds and you never know the perks that are lost as a result. The top of the top performers probably could swing the independence but for many it may not be the way to go. The bottom line is that for the vast majority of musicians a salary system could be better to work under.

I think everything should be on the table as it relates to how the music business is run and that's what the Spotify CEO said he was interested in. He's just doing from one side instead of both sides of the equation. That's why the vast majority artists and content creators are on the losing end of Streaming.

That's interesting. I didn't know this but I think this model should be brought back for most cases I think safe guards can be put into place to guard against "unfair equity strategies".

I would argue that most musicians should be salaried employees making 80-150k. The label would then handle everything else. The musicians only need to focus on creation and performing. I have always been interested in the problem Spotify is trying to solve for. However, I think they've only solved half the problem. The other half of the problem is solved by putting long tail musicians on a salary and then they can graduate out of that once they achieve a certain level of commercial success.

(Why is this being downvoted?) It is on topic and is not at all hostile.

This legislation sounds so broad based on the article. Unless you know what youre doing legislation can be so broad that people wind up in court for years and no Cases are filed in civil court. I cant imagine it being effective in any way. With that said I havent read the details of the actual law so maybe it is solid.

Many of these 'change the world' efforts by non-profits do not scale if there is not a profit motive associated with them. The profit motive would naturally keep these programs running and people happy to make a good living while actually helping others when going to work. Instead what you have is non-profits totally relying on the government and rich people feeling pitty to keep their doors open. Generating a profit can eliminate that and can actually empower these companies to help in the ways they want to without middle men.

Is it a secured card? How do they determine the credit card limit?

We are talking about the average profit and risk without knowing the difference in default or move out, vacancy etc. I would think people with housing options would be a higher risk than people without housing options...ie they can afford to just leave if they want to. A person with limited housing options will go without things being fixed right away and can't necessarily afford to defend themselves in court or to just move out.

This is a dumb question. But, where did the data come from used to draw up the conclusion that landlords make more profit on average from poorer neighborhoods?

I had Bragi Dash headphones and took them back within 24 hours. The set up took me like 4 hours. Then the sound quality was so terrible it made my head spin....the sound quality was noticeably worse than even my earpods at the time. Also you had to have your phone in your right pocket otherwise you'd lose the connection. Walk three feet away and also lose connection.

The reviews are not great for Bragi Dash headphones at that time either. I though people were just hating but it turns out the reviews were accurate in this case.

Every company uses and contributes open source if they believe there is a business case for it. No one is immune from that fact.

I’m sorry but the whole open source claim is weak because the musicians aren’t releasing their product as free to use by anyone. Why would you otherwise need anti piracy measures like Spotify if the music was free to use to begin with?

Wow! Thats a new one. Pay the open source world who Apple have been heavy contributors to themselves. Apple are such hypocrites indeed.

Spotify literally sued artists and musicians because they didnt agree with a court ordered fee increase...but Apples hypocritical on this issue somehow.

Spotify also uses Apples infrastructure and marketing tools for its app. I dont think Ive seen any app creator up on stage at Apple events more than Spotify. Its not like Spotify will use Apples tools and ecosystem one time then stop. Its ongoing and 15% is reasonable. Apple literally changed the app store rules to accomodate Spotify and everyone knows it.

I will say that I think Spotify should be able to advertise payment outside the app.