wernercd

No wall for Americans yet they pay for walls in other countries. Trump is a racist for saying don't immigrate here illegally? Harris is ignored for worse. Democrats demand infrastructure and oppose obstruction... yet did nothing when Trump wanted it and obstructed him at every step.

The list goes on and on... Biden isn't odd... he's a hypocrite. He's a democrat. But I repeat myself.

if this isn't collusion and racketeering, then what is?

The number of restrictions on top of Apples cut is what makes the difference. The mafia wishes they could enforce the same restrictions. Apple makes them look reasonable.

Anyone who pushes Web Apps as a viable option is being disingenuous about what it provides or purposely ignorant.

Using the web apps as a defense only shows that you won't admit to the massive problems with it - from bluetooth restrictions to lack of hardware level driver support.

That isn't a realistic option... it's a deflection from the subpar user experience Apple supports to enforce their mafia level protection racket.

https://www.theverge.com/2021/5/6/22421912/iphone-web-app-pw...

Anyone who pushes Web Apps as a viable option is being disingenuous about what it provides or purposely ignorant.

If I say something you disagree with... I'm not violating a "Non-Aggression Principle" - unless you think that opinions make you weak (I believe diverse thought makes you stronger - can't get new ideas without communication).

And if you think communication REALLY is "aggression"... how do you pair the fact that you "forcing" your opinion on me about my opinion on advertising goes against your own principle? Isn't it kinda... a hypocritical blackhole of an opinion?

Sharing info isn't itself immoral... it's LITERALLY the bedrock of civilization, free will, free speech, self defense, etc - all start with communication. The right to say stuff others don't like or even GASP saying stuff that make them uncomfortable - like pointing out your paradoxical opinion. (HOW you share CAN be immoral... but not sharing/communication itself)

Advertising, at it's core, is sharing information. Without freedom to communicate? without the ability to share ideas? We'd be afraid of fire. we would be monkeys in caves...

Interesting opinion... have any facts to back up such an opinion? What's immoral about... spreading information about you and your business?

There are immoral ways to go about advertising, without doubt. But advertising itself is immoral?

This is the same problem with something like WoW classic... you can get the game that existed 15 years ago. But even if it is the exact same game, the world itself isn't. Online walkthroughs, videos, modding knowledge, theory crafting, etc. Those things are much more fleshed out today so even if the system didn't change 1 bit, WoW Original vs WoW Classic are really two separate games.

Likewise... if you dropped Google Original down today? I'd love to see how fast it would get owned by these sorts of operations that have had a decade+ of practice in skills like CEO that didn't exist in 2010.

You had more relevant results? That wouldn't change because companies live and die off of SEO now and didn't then. Highlighted ads are such a small thing on the website when compared to getting a full front page of the same Stack Overflow answers in 20 different websites that all have SO cloned and reskinned.

Amjad... is that you?

> I worked for Replit in Summer 2019

Also from the article, regarding Riju commits:

> 2020-06-05 df9ba38 Initial commit

"I can understand" to a degree. That's what time-limited non-competes are for. I think a lot depends on what he signed as he was hired and/or leaving Repl.it - was there a "you can't work for a competitor for x years" type document? Was there something worse?

And that's not talking about the fact that some states bar non-competes and it was over a year after he left repl.it, what's the odds his non-compete was for that long?

We obviously have one side of the story - and we know how he said/she said stories end up - but from what's being told, it seems like he's been away for long enough that non-compete to be flimsy at best and unenforceable at worst.

I grew up with help (food stamps, dried milk and government cheese and all that) and think it is needed... to an extent... but I also think that the incentives create a "wall" that's hard to get over where as you make more money, you make little more and lose a LOT of "benefits". You have to go from, say, $20k/year to 50k/year go not "lose" by working more - and that's a HUGE hump that a large number of people look at and say "Why?".

But I digress.

I'll make similar statements in different threads and get up voted or downvoted at seemingly random. The internet gods just aren't happy with me today.

You may not call it "religion"... but deep held beliefs of the Only True Way come out and I'm not sure what else it should be called.

I worked fast food, Walmart, etc. I was worth minimum wage. I got an education, developed skills that are hard to find and become worth more.

My other posts point out that my phrasing was wrong (people are hung up on the word lazy) but my points remain: The US has a perverse benefit system that makes it worth more to work less before a certain point.

https://www.budget.senate.gov/newsroom/budget-background/the...

https://www.budget.senate.gov/newsroom/budget-background/the...

My point is that benefits give you, say, 65k a year in benefits... when you start working at a 20k a year job, you lose 40k in benefits.

https://www.budget.senate.gov/newsroom/budget-background/the...

> The dramatic rise in welfare spending has created a “welfare cliff.” As more people have become eligible for increasingly larger benefits, the “penalty” for working—lost benefits due to increased income—has steepened and been described by analysts as the “welfare cliff.” This has been especially true for workers near the poverty line who are eligible for multiple programs (e.g., food stamps, Medicaid, the EITC, TANF, and subsidized public housing), as workers reach a point where every additional dollar earned can result in a more than 50 percent reduction in benefits.

If you scratch out the word "lazy" and instead have me say that the government is handing out benefits that create a perverse incentive to stay unemployed/underemployed because it's literally a cut in pay to get a job for a large number of people.

> For example, the CBO study found that households with incomes just above the poverty line—or between $23,000 and $29,000 for a family of four in 2012—stand to lose 60 cents of every additional dollar to either taxes or lost federal benefits. In the face of such a high penalty, many low-income people choose either not to work or, as CBO finds, “put in fewer hours or be less productive.”

These people are trapped in a place where working for $20k a year isn't worth losing $40k a year in benefits (or more)

This is the brunt of it: It's not worth it to work when the benefits of being unemployed is more than a "low paying" job. Those low paying jobs aren't worth more (Flipping burgers can only generate so much money - same for stocking shelves and other low experience jobs).

Raises or not the fact remains its better to be unemployed than having a number of jobs. The fact that people choose to remain on benefits instead of working is only tangentially related to "laziness".

If I can be unemployed and get 50k/year in unemployment, health care, free phones, living assistance, food stamps, etc... or I can do a minimum wage job and make 30k and lose all the benefits?

The math is simple... it's more "profitable" to be unemployed for most people.

My original post may be phrased wrongly - people seem to be hung up on the world "lazy". It could be phrased differently but the fact remains that the US "benefits" system is broken and is a large part of the problem. We need help but we shouldn't have such large portions of the population enslaved to "handouts" with a massive benefits wall in the way of personal freedom.

https://www.budget.senate.gov/newsroom/budget-background/the...

> The ‘Welfare Cliff’: How The Benefit Scale Discourages Work

> ...

> The dramatic rise in welfare spending has created a “welfare cliff.” As more people have become eligible for increasingly larger benefits, the “penalty” for working—lost benefits due to increased income—has steepened and been described by analysts as the “welfare cliff.” This has been especially true for workers near the poverty line who are eligible for multiple programs (e.g., food stamps, Medicaid, the EITC, TANF, and subsidized public housing), as workers reach a point where every additional dollar earned can result in a more than 50 percent reduction in benefits.

> ...

> For example, the CBO study found that households with incomes just above the poverty line—or between $23,000 and $29,000 for a family of four in 2012—stand to lose 60 cents of every additional dollar to either taxes or lost federal benefits. In the face of such a high penalty, many low-income people choose either not to work or, as CBO finds, “put in fewer hours or be less productive.”

When you get hundreds a week to not work, why is it any wonder that people choose not to work? When you start working at a $10/hour job and lose $20/benefits for being poor because you pass a threshold, is it any wonder people can't get off of government "assistance"? When it makes more financial sense to remain single and get benefits than it does to get married and create a stable family, is it any wonder?

The American Government is taxing the successful, rewarding the lazy and acts surprised when it has obvious effects... They are feeding the bears and making them dependent on handouts.

You don't say...

From what I see of the market, its an employees market - "there are hundreds of people waiting to replace you" doesn't mean those people are good, experience or worth what they would replace. It's EXPESNIVE to replace an employee and the prospect of doing it for 80? 100? 500? employees is something that Tim (and his management) can't ignore.

I would tell my manager if it was just me - I wouldn't send a letter to Tim ("The CEO")... but this is a weird time and there are PLENTY of stories on HN or... well everywhere... about how many employees have a taste of WFH and are considering job hunting if the options aren't acceptable after COVID.

I do agree everyone is replaceable though... but the cost would be extensive if it comes down to it and THAT many people leave.

You didn't notice hundreds of millions in damage in multiple states? I think the number may be in the billions... Court houses destroyed... people killed... ran over.. 4 years of violence. Flash mobs against people who go against the Woke tenants and Woke Crusaders to burn the heathens at the stake.

Overblown? Violence and destruction continues by "peaceful activists" as they spread Love and Tolerance by destroying those who disagree.

"Police are infallible" thanks to people willing to lie and destroy to get their ways. And while the violence escalates and police get more "infallible?"... people around the country are more unsafe than ever... the cities that are defunding police are seeing spikes in violence, murder, robberies, etc.

Because idiots focus on a couple bad apples and ignore the millions of good interactions and positive things police provide.

"too bad for them" I like how your basic premise is "they aren't violent or intolerant" yet it's fear and violence that are making "them" scared.

Too bad for them? Too bad for the hypocrites that use hate to fight hate and racism to fight racism and violence to support lies.

Personally, I don't think they'll find a way to make EVERYONE happy. Someone isn't going to get the option they want (100% wfh? work at a remote location because they don't like the main office? etc). There's no way they can.

BUT

The group speaking up CAN put more pressure to have options that will make more people happy. If hundreds of employees say "Look at the numbers and look at news stories talking about 40%+ of employees willing to leave a job without WFH and etc"...

If I say "I'm not open to 100% in the office" and Tim says no?

If 80 say it... if 2800 say it...

Tim can ignore 1 person. Can he ignore 80? 200? 2000?

If you aren't interested in leaving but you want better options then you have two things at odds with each other. You may be interested in staying but if staying means you work in a office you hate or have a commute you hate or whatever... then that's on YOU to decide what's more important - a job at apple or a job with WFH.

At the end of the conversation... the letter tells Tim (or whatever CEO gets a similar letter with more than a couple signatures) that he risks losing a sizable number of employees. That letter isn't from one person... it's from a large group of people.

It's up to Tim to decide if the risk of losing talent is worth sticking to the currently given options.

It's up to you and me if it's worth the lack of option you want to stay at the current job.

Like i said... I'd probably look for work if asked to be in the office 5 days a week due to my commute. I don't blame them for asking and given some thought I don't think a letter from a "union" or "employee group" in this circumstance is bad.

Sometimes you have to "bring out the big guns" and send a letter to the CEO... sometimes you just have to say "I want to continue to work remotely as has been proven to make me more productive." and be ready to find another job if the company doesn't meet your needs any more. Work is a two way street and Apple employees can probably find work elsewhere easily enough.

That's on a personal level though... this happens to be on a "union" level ("employee group"? not sure if that's a union per-se but it's more than just a single person). I think a union (or whatever this is) has the obligation to make these sorts of moves - so there is a difference there.

I skimmed the article before and just reread it - 80 people wrote the letter and 2800 joined a slack channel for it - so this does go beyond individuals into a more "our voices will be heard" direction.

Still need to stand up to be heard and you can do so without being a squeaky wheel :)

And you can voice your opinion and work for what you want without being a "sqeaky wheel" - which I take to have a negative connotation as a "complainy pants".

I hope we can survive as a species long enough to figure a solution.

I also tend to follow JBPetersons line of thinking in that "religion" is a result of hundreds of thousands of years of "evolution". "religions" codify, as you've said, the important parts of life (Don't steal, kill, that's not your wife, etc).

There is physical truth - an apple weighs this much, an atom has these parts, etc.

And then there is Truth - don't lie. Don't steal. Don't screw your neighbor or your neighbors wife. Those aren't "true" like the weight of an atom is true... but it is true as in life is better if you live with those "rules".

Religions give a basis of reference - and yes, that comes with some of the baggage (IE: Catholic priests, holy rollers in churches getting caught in bath houses, etc). It is hard - and at times impossible - to separate the Church from the Truth at the core.

Like you said, all religions have similar cores... but there ARE differences - Jesus was a carpenter... Muhamad was a warlord. Buddha was a scholar. Their cores are very similar but there are differences in and out of the religions.

Bit of a ramble as it's hard to pack a complicated conversation in a few paragraphs.