Not only that, but having a camera with you at all times is fantastic. Besides the typical selfies with friends and random shots, it's a way to capture some proof that you gave someone money, or that your car was hit from the side. Then there's the ability to take notes without worrying about losing a pen and paper. Basically, it's a "digital recording device" that we've taken for granted.
Not only that, but a phone solves the "where am I" problem, which was such a pain when I was younger. Having to look for the nearest street signs while driving around, barely being able to read them and guessing its suffix, then searching the map index for which coordinate that street is in. Basically all problems solved by GPS. The directions feature you pointed out is basically a whole other application (replacing printing mapquest or written directions).
Doesn't that go counter to what is usually posted, about how college is a financially poor decision, whereas trades are particularly lucrative now? As far as I know, trades are still almost mostly men, so if this were true, we'd see the opposite trend.
Wikipedia notes, "The U.S. Census Bureau lists the annual real median personal income at $35,977 in 2019 with a base year of 2019 for all people over 15 years old.[3] The U.S. Census Bureau lists the annual real median earnings at $41,535 in 2020 for all workers with earnings[4] and lists the annual median earnings at $56,287 in 2020 for people who worked full-time, year round."
I'm wondering if you would define a higher than median US salary to be "surviving at best", as most CS PhD programs are at that amount plus health insurance. But certainly far from a FAANG salary, and I agree that there are disciplines usually with smaller programs that are "surviving at best."
Interesting, I'm the opposite. I'll pay with card when possible, and if it's cash only, I'll offer to Venmo or I'm leaving. I put a lot of value in being able to track my own spending, and that itself is worth more than the potential issues of using a card.
I find that hard to believe because they can verify my identify when I sign up for an online bank, or apply for an apartment, or do anything else with the same information. I'm more inclined to believe it's not a priority, and don't care about making it better because the law doesn't say how good their service has to be, just that it exists. I'll note that when I sign up with the same information to their paid service as a trial, there's never any issue with verifying my identity.
Yeah that's what I'm trying to do, to view them online. I've looked up what's going wrong, and quite a few people have this issue that they can't be verified online.
When I tried to get my annual credit report, I find that the credit agencies constantly have trouble validating my identify online even though I have one of the simplest reports. A single same address for decades, no loans, paid off every month.
They randomly will say that I can't be verified, and I need to snail mail them copies of a bunch of identifying documents to get my credit report. I imagine this is a common issue, and somehow still satisfies their requirement to offer the annual credit report online.
Maybe instead of demographic, it's about people whose public image is part of their job. Like startup executives, academics, athletes, politicians (even "low-level" politicians like city councilman), product managers, or venture capitalists. That's a lot of people who are juicier targets than someone earlier in their career, like a student, an associate, or entry-level software developer.
I feel like more restaurants have been going with cheap wheat-based ingredients and heavy batter deep frying.
The trend towards fried chicken sandwiches reduces the "meat" part of the sandwich only 50% meat. Happy hours consist of flatbreads, fries, sliders, artichoke dip (mostly oil, and chips to dip), egg rolls, bruschetta, wings with heavy breading, etc.
Basically even medium-tier restaurants are evolving into bar and diner food, and making it seem like a trendy thing.
Wasn't this the unprofessional fund on the board of CircleUp that tormented the founder so much that he wrote a long critique? (but not this VC partner specifically)
This is not passing the buck. It's acknowledging that there are many stakeholders involved in a company+platform, and that many decisions are about making tradeoffs rather than having a "right" answer.
If you always go with the populist vote, like when users rioted about the news feed when it was first introduced, https://techcrunch.com/2006/09/06/facebook-users-revolt-face... then you may be sacrificing the long-term viability of your company. This harms employees, investors, and eventually the public. Are you saying that's not even a consideration at all?
We're not talking about "Facebook exploiting the human brain to increase time on the platform". You brought up Target and shirts. So we're talking about who has more agency, users or executives, in a general manner. That consumers generally only need to concern themselves with their own ethics, versus the complex entanglement of ethics at a company, gives users more agency to make choices reflecting their ethics.
I actually feel the opposite. Consumers have the ultimate choice -- their choice is not beholden to anyone except themselves. Then they can execute their choice unilaterally.
A VP or even the CEO is beholden to shareholders, their employees, their advertisers, their own ethics, their users, various government regulations (and government interests that are not laws but what they prefer). So almost everything they do is a tradeoff.
They're just trying to justify illegal software. Like when people defended P2P file sharing as "but you can use it to download linux" or recently bitcoin as "but it's also great for transferring money internationally."
Yeah, everyone's known that platform dependence is risky, and every decade or so we "learn our lesson" but then forget the moment the next cool platform comes along if it has enough users.
So it's easy to think with a human customer service agent, all will be well. But then I think about all the customer service calls I've made or emails I've sent, and I almost wish that they did not exist so I don't get my hopes up and waste my time. Most customer service is worse than a computerized flowchart.
And even if they do understand your situation, and have authenticated you, and aren't just reading a script, then most of the time they can't offer you anything else besides what's possible on the website anyways. Sometimes we just like having someone to complain to.
Yes, exactly. Like catering, but also with the intention that maybe you're not going to eat it all at once, so something that stores well for a day or two in the fridge would be ideal.
In frugal times, going to a sit-down restaurant is insanely expensive compared to a good at-home meal. A typical sit-down restaurant is like $60 per person including tip/tax with an appetizer and drink. For that, I can eat all 20 meals for a week if I shop sales.
The first link I found on Google [https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2019/05/16/survey-shows-how-o...] says that almost half of Americans basically never dine out or do take out. Only 10% eat out in any form 4-6 times a week. So there's definitely space for something in between for the home consumer.
Good to hear. Though I find it frustrating when stores don't list prices, like the Rinella Produce website. Prices are one of the most important if not the important factor when shopping! Don't make me call to ask how much 9 mangoes cost.
As a solution, I would love to see more food supplies and restaurants selling larger bulk amounts at discount. That could bring in a new set of consumers, and reduce the number of trips/exposure.
A restaurant could sell 10 meals worth for 10 * original_price * 0.5 and make more per order plus use up more ingredients. Farms could sell cheese by 5lb packs, eggs by the dozen dozens, meat by 10lb packs, etc.
It's not worth the whole ordeal of going to a restaurant to get a small portion of food, pay the same price as a sit-down experience, and be hungry again in a few hours.
dang, did this thread get manually removed from Hacker News? It seems to have disappeared. If it was intentionally removed, I'm disappointed -- this seems like a really important discussion to have, regardless of how controversial it is.
One other side effect which is generally not discussed because it's contentious, is that a number of people who receive tips will underreport their tips. Especially those who receive cash tips. So the state and federal governments are partially subsidizing their wages too.
Because they're exaggerating to put pressure on Uber to give them a better deal. Everyone does this. Waiters, union workers, teachers, actors, firefighters, etc. Complaining makes you feel good and has a small chance of making things better for yourself. Why not do it more.
I'm not sure how you're making the distinction between customer and workers. I'm talking about graduate students here, particularly research-producing Ph.D. students.
I think we both agree that academia and businesses compete, but by humane I mean that the people producing the work are invested in by the faculty and universities. That the graduate student's life-long success is the university's success, and that the output is the scholar as much as the work they produced.
My point is simply that a corporation doesn't care for a person besides the work they do for them, which is a different culture from academia.
I guess this is one aspect of academia that seems to be more humane than corporations. Faculty advisers and universities have interests that are aligned with their graduate students. When the students do great research and win awards, the adviser and university gets credit. While there are of course horror stories when they don't get along, academia at least still believes in investing in people, and not just using them for the product of their work.
A corporation would never take a new grad, spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and years of 1:1 time to teach and mentor them, put that person's name front and center on all the products they've worked on, and celebrate when that person moves up to another company.
I'm a computer science student and none of your WTFs are WTFs to me. 1) the numbers don't matter much, they're just what they used to rank. they don't have any implicit meaning. Texas A&M is a decent CS program so not sure why you're pointing it out. 2) maybe they didn't want to rank some schools because they didn't have much data on it. plentyo f possible reasonable explanations. 3) I've never heard of SMU (is it Southern Methodist University or Southern Michigan University or something else?) and I've heard of UMBC several times before -- they have a decent computer science program in human-computer interaction and accessibility.
I completely disagree with your sentiment and think that academia should focus on novel work rather than incremental improvements. Something novel may not be better than the existing techniques right now, but what's to say they won't be better in the future? When Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, it was not better than candles because it was extremely expensive, fragile, lasted only briefly, and the light was very dim. But it was novel and with more improvements, beat the state-of-the-art.