906 karma · joined November 22, 2013
It's the religious fervor by the Woke Crusaders who are willing to burn, pillage, destroy, kill in the name of "Diversity, Equity, Inclusion" - and destroying justice, REAL equality and our collective future.
I'm a Christian and have no problem with Atheist's or what have you. There's a strong chance that there isn't a heaven/hell/72 virgins/what have you waiting "on the other side". I can still be confident in the tactile important parts (IE: Do unto others, love they neighbor, etc) without having my worldview destroyed by a "might" or a "maybe".
It amazes me when someone can say with 100% confidence that it does or doesn't exist.
You realize a business isn't a person?
Plenty of routes to responsible use - and there needs to be evidence to back accusations: especially against an individual who's presumably done nothing wrong.
Isn't there ways to cross pollinate stuff? I've been out of school for awhile and I never got into biology... but why couldn't we get caffeine in, say, apples? or wheat? caffeinated bagels would rock...
Can that be an excuse to stop any industry? Might as well stop selling phones, books, shoes, clothes and... really any industry. I'm sure they can all be traced back to "slave labor" somewhere.
Because making everything about race is how we fight racism... somehow...
Arguments are made along the lines of "don't like the app store? make a web app"... but because of the restrictions, you are limited to a second-rate Webkit base web browser with limitations on bluetooth, game controller support, etc.
Not only are the profiting an obscene amount for services available elsewhere (And arguably better services across the board for stuff like payment options, ad options, browser options, email client options, etc) but they are doing so BECAUSE the better options are restricted or limited on their platform.
This would be like if Microsoft not only forced you to have IE6 installed... but then forced you to have other browsers simply be an IE6 reskin, forced other companies to not advertise about alternatives and then took a 30% cut of all things installed on Windows.
The level of profit goes beyond simply making 30%... it's making 30% after limiting viable options and then saying "we offer this stuff because it's better than the alternative".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory
"Taleb's "black swan theory" refers only to unexpected events of large magnitude and consequence and their dominant role in history. Such events, considered extreme outliers, collectively play vastly larger roles than regular occurrences.[2]:xxi"
This discovery (unexpected behavior of matter) seems like it'll have a surprising and large magnitude.
2nd paragraph of article, first sentence: "This defect is like a black swan—something special going on that isn't typical,"
So how is this an actual black swan - a bird with wings... and not a "black swan" - an unkown unknown (as described eslewhere)?
Unlike Palestine.
WHY they made the decisions is a rabbit hole... but the facts are simple.
This ain't "grandma went to the hospital and got sent back to the nursing home" and it was never about that.
Hospitals were over stressed so they sent sick people to nursing homes.
https://apnews.com/article/new-york-andrew-cuomo-us-news-cor...
"More than 9,000 recovering coronavirus patients in New York state were released from hospitals into nursing homes early in the pandemic under a controversial directive that was scrapped amid criticism it accelerated outbreaks, according to new records obtained by The Associated Press."
Notice: Not "9000 NH patients sent back from the hospital". 9000 individuals NOT nursing home patients sent to NHs
New York, AGAINST CDC guidelines, forced NHs to house sick people that weren't prepared to handle them - and THOUSANDS of old people died because they then got sick from the influx of COVID patients.
You have some seriously confused notion of what happened in New York (and, I think, similar happened in Texas - I may be wrong on that).
If New York ONLY ignored the problem that'd be one thing... but they actively made decisions that led to a large number of deaths - and more importantly those decisions were AGAINST the CDC guidelines.
If you want to reach millions of customers, you are restricted to the Apple Payment options... even when better options exist. Same for Ad and other subpar options.
Why? Because they are better options? No... because Apple FORCES you to use those options.
"but you don't have to develop for Apple" is a copout that ignores the anti-competitive and monopolistic behavior Apple is using to force people into subpar options for a 30% gateway tax.
Similarly, others can't put good browsers onto Apple because of restrictions... why? because webkit is the REQUIRED base... despite the fact that its restrictions mean you can't use webapps as real alternatives because of limitations with controllers, bluetooth, etc.
Google can make better alternatives to Safari? Firefox can? Microsoft can? doesn't matter... Apple FORCES you to use their subpar options because if there was real competition, they wouldn't get a 30% tax.
Spread that decision to email clients and all other corners of the Apple "ecosystem" and you have a company using monopolistic practices to limit competition to increase prices.
"but don't do business on their platform" doesn't change the fact that they are using monopolistic practices to fleece their customers.
I don't like EA and think they are an equally horrible company - and should be judged equally poorly for many bad practices... but EA (and netflix, steam, etc) should have the ability to not use Apples gated options and not pay for a service that isn't worth 30% - especially when they can host their own payment and ad services.
Stop with the bad arguments to defend a company using monopolistic practices to fleece their customers.
I say this as an iPhone owner and a programmer.
Apples OS is decent and their options are "solid"... but for each of their offerings, there are better options and their options aren't worth the 30% tax.
Tons of companies have better payment options and should be allowed to use them without anti-competitive restrictions placed by Apple.
My main assertion is the stronger the push to end inequality, the more it does the opposite... the strongest pushes like Communism and Socialism are easily viewable through historical examples - or using present examples (IE: Venezuela). Yet pushes to use "Social Democracy" to enact the changes have the same, albeit slower, effect of not working or causing horrible effects (IE: growing inequality).
"here's the first line: can't eliminate disease"
likewise, if you want to walk that metaphore... we are approaching a time where diseases are increasing resistant to medicine and we are making things worse by creating worse diseases (IE: MRSA and antibiotic resistant "super" strains). We work to "cure diseases", have short term successes and, ultimately, make things worse.
you can look at countries like Sweden that are held up as examples of how it should be done... and see an increase in inequality across the board.
"make things better" I'm all for working towards better... but sweeping changes generally don't work because of unintended consequences (IE: Globalization and higher taxes closing small businesses and hurting competition and rising prices and etc)
Maybe I could be more clear... but I stand by my belief that the harder someone pushes for "equality" or "equity"... the more unequal and inequitable the results are.
https://nordregio.org/nordregio-magazine/issues/state-of-the...
"From having the second-lowest level of inequality in 2000, by 2017, Sweden had the highest level of income inequality in the Nordic Region. The overall income inequality between households in the same municipality was also higher in Sweden than in the other Nordic countries."
https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.1093/a...
"From an all-time low around 1980, income inequality substantially increased, reflecting a strong rise in top incomes and income from capital, more recently also a widening gap between bottom and middle incomes. Behind this are the dual income tax system, established in the early 1990s, the introduction of earned income tax credits, and a diminished coverage of social insurance programmes, which widened the income gap between employed and non-employed during the 2000s. The benefit and tax systems became less redistributive and thereby contributed to increased income inequalities"
"new deal reduced" and didn't remove. Inequality has grown steadily with a wider range of "all boats rise unequally".
"Why reduce" the goals aren't in question... simply the results. You can say you want to reduce inequality... but if the end result is more inequality and more suffering? then your stated goals don't match reality.
"inequality reduces social cohesion, promotes corruption, reduces democracy" all things that happen in the march towards "equality" and "equity".
"few wealthy" the problem is, again, the results... the harder the push for "equity" the more likely its everyone who suffers - not just the "few rich made poorer".
And the harder its pushed for "equality", the more it turns into bad times.
"binary" I never said it was... I said increasing efforts generally trend towards increasingly bad consequences - and we are talking about pushes to end "inequality" in this chain of conversation... the harder the pushes, the worse the outcomes.
At no point in any society has inequality been removed.
I don't speak for white people any more than a Mexican speaks for all Mexicans or a gay person speaks for all gay people.
One mans opinion is just that... unless he has more evidence than his "well connected" words.
Why? because there's uneven skills, uneven effort, uneven luck, uneven work ethic, etc, etc, etc.
As long as humans are involved... in all human history, in all societies, in all things there has been inequality and no effort so far has had any affect on it.
In fact, most efforts have made it worse across the board. Socialism and communism are failed experiments with a 100 years of history as proof.
Going to be a great world where success like that is "punished" in the name of "equality" or "equity"
JS is like PHP... only a popular language because it's been around a long time and it's easy to get started. Otherwise, there are SOOO many better programming language out that the ONLY reason JS still has traction is it became the "default" web language.