usea

> I suspect the primary issue is that there are simply way less people willing to work as letter carriers.

A family member of mine works for the post office in their city. They don't have trouble hiring for any positions. There is a long waiting list that takes months to get through to be given a chance at the bottom of the totem pole. The various postal unions give the jobs good benefits, pay, hours, etc. Carriers specifically are highly sought-after positions that can set you up for life.

It's not a matter of not being able to find people. it's not willing to hire more people. I would be very surprised if the post office in your town is trying to hire people, but nobody is willing to work. It's a great job, and people line up to work there.

If the only thing stopping them from decrypting your messages is instructions to their own employees to not allow it to be done, that is not a defense against providing access to law enforcement. They can just change those instructions at any time without anybody knowing. Just like they can just change the server software to allow it.

> The freedom to deny the freedom of another person is not a freedom worth discussing.

If that was true, you wouldn't be doing just that.

> No single person will ever willingly consent to having their personal photos used to benefit a money grabbing company like Meta, or any company for that matter.

I'm pretty against big money-grabbing companies as you put it, but I'm happy to license all my photos, code, and art with public domain licenses, even if it benefits those companies. Because I think it's the right thing to do. Ultimately, companies use copyright as a weapon to oppress the speech and learning of regular folk.

If some kid who's trying to learn coding sees a function I wrote, they should be able to copy it wholesale if it pleases them to do so. If somebody in school is learning to make hobby games while they're supposed to be doing homework, they should be able to take a bunch of sprites from nintendo games and make the story about spider-man if they want to. they should be able to share that game with other people, and even sell it.

If meta uses artifacts I create to train their AI, that's a small price to pay for doing what's right for people who are just trying to learn and express themselves naturally.

I've never seen such systems emerge from the team as a tool for self-empowerment. They are always foisted upon the team by managers who are trying to, ultimately, turn estimates into promises.

> CTOs see productivity multipliers

The CTOs are hallucinating as much as the LLMs are.

If a breach is so inevitable like you say, then it's negligent to store the information in the first place. They're accumulating and organizing data with the inescapable conclusion of handing it out to criminal organizations.

My experience at companies is that the vast majority of the code is not understood by anybody working there, nor even attempted to be. It sits in third party libraries that nobody audits.

That's a very bad thing, but this sounds like just more of that. Which most developers seem totally fine with.

Many services will happily remove the authenticator from your account if you email them and say you lost it. The whole thing is a joke.

It absolutely could. It just doesn't. For reasons.

Create react app.

> What would I get using a web client like Phanpy?

You can use it in a browser.

It's a popup that shows immediately upon visiting your link: https://i.imgur.com/uZEyE0Y.png

This is just another way of saying you're under-staffed so owners can capture more of the value of your labor. It's neither virtuous nor effective.

Because school is important and not at all irrelevant.

Google can spend a lot of money on it, and still be non-compliant. How much time has been spent on it, or how seriously it's being taken, is not really indicative of anything relevant.

> disingenuous argument to smear me like I am stupid

I don't know what this is about. My post has nothing like that.

The thing I disagree with is that you think being an American gives you the unique privilege to weigh in on the matters of America, and that people in other countries should just keep their nose out of it. And that not knowing one single detail about something fairly inconsequential disqualifies people from having an opinion.

Attack their argument. You don't get to disqualify them from having one because of where they live.

> That's not at all what I talked about wondering about:

You did talk about wondering about it:

> I sometimes wonder how many American children get born while one of their parents is in service.

As a first approximation from a quick google search, approximately 2.75% of US children are born to one or more parents who are in the military. This was not hard information to find, but I can't vouch for its veracity; the language used is sloppy and without sources.

A bunch of pages all say the same line that 100,000 children are born each year to "military families", or about 1.5 million between 2003 and 2016. Google also says that about 3.65 million children are born in the US each year. I used division to reach the percentage. I'm sure it's not perfect, but it gives us some idea.

As to your wider point, the idea that you as an American have been unable to find this information and therefore anyone who is not American cannot have a valid observation of the issue because they are missing this critical info is less than useful.

Because the decision isn't made for the benefit of the business. It's made for the benefit of individuals; either management, their friends/families, or investors. At the expense of shareholders and employees.

> they’d be in a world of hurt if they didn’t respond to a legitimate call

How do you figure? There are no consequences for them, and not responding to legitimate calls is ubiquitous.

If there were consequences, they would be suffering them for what they've inflicted on the victim in this story.

They killed people for money. They will get away with it because the managerial class is generally not held responsible for their actions. One legal system is not immune from criticism just because worse ones exist.

Is that how you judge others' words? By what accomplishments they have?

Apple isn't forced to host anything.

Console manufacturers shouldn't be allowed to extract those fees either.

Yes, you can generally name things whatever you want. Champagne is a notable exception. The absurdity of this exception is not lost on people.

Incompetence is the most likely explanation.

> I mean, in many cases that’s grounds for dismissal and legitimately the job of a manager.

It seems like the NLRB disagrees with you.

When my wife was in business school, the teacher of her management class used this idea as an unironic definition of management. They had to memorize the definition, which was essentially "taking credit for the work of other people." Not as a joke.

For many people it is. They cannot see another doctor if they want to continue doing things like eating food. If they're lucky enough to be insured at all.

When over 95% of the calls you receive are spam, it's not reasonable to excuse yourself from meetings whenever you get a phone call.

I mean, unless you just don't want to be in meetings. Which is okay.