578 karma · joined March 27, 2019
No reasonable person of sound mind would ever confuse the two logos in this case.
We have only one thing we can do to get the economy back on the rails: bring the case count down. The longer we let this go without properly managing it, the harder it is to bring the case count down. The longer the case count is too high for reasonable, cautious people who care about their parents and grandparents' survival and their long term lung health to participate significantly in the economy, the more damage the economy will sustain.
If you want businesses to be opening up now, you should've demanded for them to close 6 months ago. If you want schools to open, you should've been demanding that everyone wear a mask 6 months ago.
At this stage of the pandemic, people who selfishly refused to do their part for their fellow citizens are entirely to blame for the continued necessity of mask requirements and schools closing.
This seems like two distinctly separate categories to me - if someone didn't go to the hospital because they feared the virus and later died, that person's death was completely unrelated to the lockdown (and if anything, a stronger lockdown could have saved some of those lives by ending the risk that drove them to stay home). If they didn't go to the hospital because of the advice to stay home rather than their own caution, I think that's a reasonable death to include in the numbers.
I don't know which way the balance swings in terms of people who can afford to pay and choose not to vs. people who can't afford to pay, but I think with something like the UFC that relies to some degree on fan culture for its appeal there's a clear benefit from having more people watch it even if those additional viewers don't pay.
Generally I think OS-bundled tools that may be used for stream processing of large amounts of data (like grep) should skew further towards performance, because there are a non-trivial number of people passing gigabytes of data through grep every day and a 10-20% performance improvement there is a significant boon to global productivity.
Tools that solve a very specific problem and do it with a strong expectation of correctness and performance are what makes *nix environments so powerful - not only can you throw together a nifty bash script that duplicates the functionality of a massive cluster operation, the script may actually outperform the cluster because of how performance-focused those tools are!
I see this issue as being a bit similar to high- vs. low-level programming languages. Could we write absolutely everything in JavaScript and probably have a lot of the code be more readable than it'd be in C or Rust? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean it's not worth using C in some cases to make the program perform well on hardware that doesn't have enough firepower to just ignore the overhead, and it doesn't mean it's not worth using Rust in cases where stability is absolutely required.
Unfortunately the people who feel most comfortable leaving the house are the people who are least likely to take precautions, which seems like a recipe for lots of super spreaders to me.
It's very possible (I'd argue probable) that operating a single, large-scale coal mining operation causes more total harm than bashing a single person's skull in with a hammer.
> existence and quantity of positive benefits
Coal as an industry is unnecessary at the scale it exists at today, so any added efficiencies in that industry due to the use of Autodesk products most likely count as a harm rather than a positive benefit.
> presence of stated intent
From the press releases on the page linked by the OP, it seems that Autodesk is well aware of the activities of the coal companies using their software, to the point that they use it as a selling point for their products. Perhaps the first moment they began selling to those companies they were unaware, but at this point they have explicitly advertised to the public that they know what those companies are doing.
* Edited to fix line breaks
An employee's perception of a job not having purpose can have a large impact on their productivity (humans in general tend to do badly when they're expected to do tasks they see as pointless for too long). Because of this, it's in the employer's interest to either explain the value an employee provides to the company sufficiently well that the employee doesn't feel that their job is pointless. If there is no way to convince the employee of that, the employee is likely either unqualified to understand their duties or genuinely doing a job that doesn't need to be done.
So the solution here is for a developer to add a bunch of code to their codebase on at least 4 platforms just to get to the same exact functionality and level of privacy, but with a worse user experience?
> For the third, don’t make me type in someone’s email. The exact same issue as described happens if they have multiple email addresses too. Just let me use my OS’s sharing mechanism to send a special link that they can open to establish the sharing connection. An invite to share, as it were. Not only does that solve the problem, it’s significantly more user-friendly.
As a user, I find that functionality to be incredibly clunky by comparison (on all platforms). It may be moderately better on iOS than Android, but even then Anylist and others are running multiplatform apps. If I'm using a computer and I need to manually copy a link, open my email client, compose a new email, type the subject and a message, paste the link, and hit send, that feels dramatically more cumbersome than just entering an email address and hitting "share". It also takes a good amount of new code to implement something like that on an existing system that uses email-based sharing, which I don't think developers should have to deal with just because Apple built a lousy login system.
At the very least Sign in with Apple needs to support a request for the user to enter the real email they want to use to be contacted by the app after-the-fact for cases where someone obfuscates their email but then wants access to functionality that explicitly requires their real email.
Did you read the article? It seemed very clear to me that they had significant issues with customer support past just verification.
And what would you suggest as an alternative way to identify the user, anyway? Any alternative method of authentication seems doomed to fail - using a real name runs into issues with duplication, requiring users to set a username would likely require significant changes to the platform to support it and lots of people would forget it when they couldn't get their preferred username, and having a customer support code inside the app wouldn't help when the user loses access to their account.
It seems like there are alternatives, but none that the average user who signs in with Apple and needs to contact support will be able to get past on a consistent basis.
Interestingly, people who claim everything about COVID-19 is a conspiracy by the media (or the elites, or whoever) to control the populace with fear are significantly more likely to be superspreaders. Why? Because all the simple, moderately-inconvenient precautions they refuse to take legitimately do slow the spread of the disease. Someone who frequently goes within 6 feet of other people while not wearing a mask and leaves their home more frequently than necessary has a much higher chance of getting the disease, a much higher chance of transmitting the disease to each person they come into contact with while contagious, and also a much higher number of contacts to potentially infect.
The term is actually incredibly useful, even on an individual level - if I'm considering who I'm willing to interact with, someone who's come into close contact with 500 people in the past week while not wearing a mask is significantly more dangerous to me and my loved ones than someone who has come into contact with 50 people at a distance of 6 feet or more while wearing a mask.