wilsonnb2

"Amateur runners" is an extremely broad collection of people. Everyone from someone training for their first charity 5K to those who run multiple marathons a year can fall into this category.

Some amateur runners definitely spend $250 on shoes, either because they have so much money that $250 is basically the same as $70 to them or because they are very serious amateurs.

Headline: "Apple fans are returning their new MacBook Pros that cost a minimum of $2,800 because they can't reach the advertised speeds"

Actual data: two Reddit comments that say they're going to return their MacBooks

What's wrong with the headline "Youtuber finds New MacBook Pros Not Performing as Advertised" or "Youtuber finds Cooling Issues with High Performance MacBook"?

It's basically useless to read headlines from most online news sources these days.

Unless someone is forcing your kid to eat food with sugar in it, it's not a good comparison.

Your neighbors don't really have a choice as to whether or not they enjoy "hearing its V8 roar from inside the house through several walls/doors" or breathe the extra pollution that some (but not all) large trucks create.

> When your kid spikes a fever at 1am and you have no car and you need to go buy some children’s ibuprofen, what are you going to do? I can run to my local 24/7 grocer or Walmart and be back in 10 minutes flat.

I'm sure your neighbors will love being woken up in the middle of the night. Perhaps some of them would be glad to live in a society where there are reasonable limits on what situations other people can force you into for their own pleasure.

Please note that this comment isn't really directed at you specifically - you might not have close neighbors or they might be truck enthusiasts as well. It's directed at all owners of obnoxiously loud trucks who don't care how it affects other people, which may or may not be you.

I'm not the person you're responding to but I share that person's sentiment.

Some people don't like other people. Regardless of whether my neighbors are nice people who have an excess of delicious baked goods or meth addicts, I don't want to interact with them and I have no obligation to them just because of our proximity.

It's perfectly okay to not like being around people, especially people with obnoxious behaviors (whether they are because of a mental illness or otherwise) or people that smell bad.

Calling it a "codified Consumer Bill of Rights" makes it sound like you want it to be a law, but the second half of your statement makes it sound like you want it to be like the "certified humane" label on the eggs that I buy.

I have no problem with it being an optional label, but I see no reason it should be enforced legally.

Why do you think some societies are objectively more just, and what definition are you using for "just"?

Even that thread itself was the "No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame." thread of the future.

It's an interesting phenomenon that in the age of the internet there are easily accessible public records of how hard it is to tell what is going to be a big deal.

https://slashdot.org/story/01/10/23/1816257/apple-releases-i...

I don't think all parties of a chat need to consent for that information to be shared, aside from specific cases like doctor-patient and lawyer-client.

> The goal of the quiz is not to dump your less healthy friends, but to identify the people in your life who score the highest and to spend more time with them.

I really don't like the idea of trying to rank my friends like this. Not everything in the world needs to be quantified.

How exactly are you calculating that your desktop+laptop is cheaper than the MBP?

64GB of ram apparently sells for around $600 right now, plus $500 for each 1080, plus $700 for a 16 core threadripper (I'm not sure what 32 core processor you're using or if you're using multiple processors, but the next gen threadripper will be 32 and cost about this much), plus $1000 for the base model Dell XPS 13 9370 puts you at a total of $3300 before we even get to the motherboard, case, monitors, keyboard, mouse, power supply, storage, laptop upgrades, etc. This also assumes that you built the desktop yourself while valuing the time you spent researching and building at $0.

Anyways, saying that your setup cost less than a MBP seems pretty ridiculous even if it is technically accurate when you only consider the "max" price of a MacBook pro.

They just need a cable that goes from their device to a USB-C port. That's it. Most of the time, the device in question has a USB B port on it so all they need to do is buy a USB B to USB C cable and they're good to go.

Sure, sometimes they need to plug in a dongle and will need an adapter until USB C dongles become commonplace but that is hardly an issue at all.

Uhm, no, you're just supposed to spend the $19 on a USB C -> Lightning cable to connect them.

The wifi thing is just convenient for many people. If it's not good enough or "pro enough" for you, there is still a cable that you can use.

I don't really see the problem here. Assuming I buy the base model MacBook Pro and the cheapest iPhone 8, I've just spent $2000 dollars and I don't see how I can justify complaining that I need to spend an extra 1% on a cable to connect them.

The primitive technology guy doesn't stream, though, as far as I know. He just makes videos.

Putin's wealth can't be accurately measured by anyone except Putin himself and presumably his financial advisers. It's all just speculation.

That is an interesting way to compare wealth between time periods but I'm not sure it's the most valid method.

OneNote works pretty well.

> But the software that enables the semi-autonomous driving is free to download. Hotz says this allows him to sidestep the regulatory issue, though it’s unclear whether NHTSA would agree. “We aren’t selling any products that control a car,” he says. “We are giving away free software, and software is speech.” (A spokesperson for NHTSA did not respond to a request for comment.)

Sounds like they're just using open source to avoid liability and side step regulators. I love open source, but I do not think it's being used for benevolent reasons here.

I'd like to see a source for your claim that most Americans live in cities. As far as I know, the census does not differentiate between suburban and urban areas so we don't have any "official" numbers on how many Americans live in suburban areas. They are just lumped into the urban population.

I believe its called dvd.com (A netflix company) now, even though the domain name is dvd.netflix.com

It's not like saying that. This is literally Google donating money to charity. That's the definition of being charitable.

Even so, many would agree that Facebook and Google are charitable for giving their products away for free even if they extract value from them in other ways.

> intention is everything

I'm sure the people that received Google's millions of dollars would disagree with that statement.

> If these companies truly cared for the people they are helping, they wouldn't even bother with the PR side of it at all.

Why? Does getting good PR from helping someone diminish the help that said person receives?

> if they intend to aid their own purposes, that is what will see the most benefit from their efforts.

I have not once disagreed with this statement - companies primary goal is to make a profit. However, they also provide a tremendous amount of help to those who need it and I don't think people should dismiss that so easily.

> They don't seem to be helping the little people like that Tanzanian hospital the way the developers did who found a free software solution.

It's easier for us to grasp a situation in which a few developers help out a few people who need it. It's not easy for us to parse "$150 million in charitable donations" in the same way, but I assure you there are thousands of "helping the little guy" stories you can craft out of $150 million.

> A viewpoint: charity is power. These companies have control over where this money goes, and are likely to spend more on things that make them look good, or provide long term benefit to the company over things that don't.

They are more likely to spend it on things that make them look good, which has absolutely nothing to do with my point that these companies are helping people, even if their primary goal is not to help people.

> Another approach might be to take the charity money away from the companies, and have those funds distributed to worthy causes by a democratically appointed body instead: giving the money to causes that benefit everyone, not just the company's PR department. You could call this system 'taxation'.

All of these companies are taxed, according to the rules set by the democratically appointed body you mention. I don't understand why you included this part of your comment.

> This problem could have been fixed years ago (and perhaps should never even have happened), but the people who decide when these big social problems get fixed is no longer the people (almost all of whom think it's an unacceptable travesty, especially in a rich, developed nation), but the billionaire class, who require something back in return.

Just so I have this straight - you're saying the reason that the people of Flint haven't had their water problems fixed yet is because the billionaire class only cares about getting something in return from such an action?

I'd like you to tell me what exactly you think should have been done in Flint and how the billionaire class subverted the will of the American people by not doing it.

In many cases, the reason they need constant growth is because they're not profitable. They're just burning through cash in an attempt to become profitable in the future, which requires growth.

A huge part of the problem is that social media is built of bite size chunks that fit into small amounts of time much better than long form pieces.

Yeah I definitely played Pokemon in all of those places at least as far back as 2003 (when I was in the third grade).

In my opinion, deleting them from the phone isn't very helpful when the web browser can be used to access them. Can't delete that from the phone (at least, I don't think you can).

> For entrepreneurs, the monopolistic stranglehold these companies have, make them impossible to beat with a better product. The best possible outcome is acquisition. You may join, but never beat them.

Isn't this exactly what everyone said about IBM until Microsoft came along, and then what everyone said about Microsoft until Google/Apple/Facebook/Amazon came along?

Why is this time different?

It seems obvious that government regulation is the answer to me. That's how we got rid of child labor, created a minimum wage, and enshrined the 40 hour work week as standard in the US.

That said, decades of social pressure led up to those laws being passed. It's not enough to sit idly by and let Congress solve these problems on their own.

What's another example? This one strikes me as unique because ARM just sells their IP.

Sure, our mothers probably haven't heard of ARM but that's more like saying they haven't heard of x86. Our mothers have almost definitely heard of Samsung and Apple, both of whom manufacture a large number of ARM chips.

There's even a decent chance they've heard of a company like Qualcomm that's not as well known as Apple or Samsung.

In 2016, Google donated $167 million in cash and $1 billion in their own products to charitable causes.

Microsoft - $135 million in cash, $922 million in product

Cisco - $41 million in cash, $245 million in product

AT&T - $112 million in cash, $7 million in product

Verizon - $56 million in cash, $32 million in product

While these companies are around primarily to make a profit, I'm sure that their $460 million dollars in cash donations sure helped a lot of people. Not to mention all the jobs they create (also helping people), the wealth they generate for their shareholders (also helping people), and the individual charitable donations of those shareholders.

http://www.businessinsider.com/most-generous-companies-in-am...