Makes sense. IMO contractors are supposed to be companies. Such as https://avantsoft.com.br that you hire for specific things and that can abstract the actual employee management, etc from the company that hires.
It seems the authors did not find evidence of a "pink tax":
"Finally, while our findings do NOT support the existence of a pink tax as conceived by regulators, a more expansive definition of the pink tax could include differences in markups across men’s and women’s products."
"...our finding that women’s personal care products are not systematically more expensive than substantially similar men’s products calls into question the role of government intervention to reduce the pink tax."
The study advocates against Minnesota's plan to go zero carbon by 2040 without massively building out nuclear power plants and hydroelectric power. It says that without nuclear and/or hydroelectric, the plan would cost Minnesota $313 billion.
3. Add tests. Start by easy ones (new features) to get team used to writing them. Then important flows. If your team doesn’t have the bandwidth hire a contractor. Ex: https://avantsoft.com.br
4. Choose a part of the code the warrants being the first to refactor. Balance easiness with importance.
5. Define a better structure/architecture for it.
6. Refactor.
7. Repeat from 4 as many times as needed.
Also, consider micro-services on new features… may be an alternative to full rewrite.
The big question to me is: At what level of the tech stack should moderation happen?
Should it be done by the ISP? By the IaaS? By the software provider? By developers?
Ideally, moderation would occur at just one level. That way, there are less avenues for abuse to occur. Leaving moderation rules vague may lead to some services that could be beneficial (whistleblowers, etc) to be easily taken down.
Spam that could overload a system would need to handled higher in the tech stack. But some content moderation could at the level of the individual user, who could filter what he wants to see based on his own preferences.
The internet is still, fundamentally, a decentralized network of peers. As long as that continues to be true, it continues to be the case that any two companies could fail to reach agreement to do business.
The fact that KF is so beyond the pale that it can't appear to find any stable business partners is more a condemnation of KF than the system.
I don't think it's fair to say that. Individual businesses aren't evaluating KF themselves and independently coming to the same conclusion. Otherwise, it would be highly coincidental that they all randomly reached this conclusion within a few days of each other, when there hasn't been any significant recent shift in content on KF.
> it would be highly coincidental that they all randomly reached this conclusion within a few days of each other
Oh, no doubt that a massive online campaign surfaced the question of whether KF needed to be evaluated.
The fact that they've all come to the same conclusion is because of KF's content, not because individual service providers are not independent. The common thread is the site under evaluation, and the site is that bad.
Ok fair point that their evaluations and conclusions could all still be independent, but simply triggered by the twitter campaign.
But from all that's been written on the topic, there's been very few concrete examples put forward of dangerous content on KF. It seems to me more likely that businesses have simply seen that the twitter campaign reached a critical mass and made the simple decision to cut them off to reduce reputation risk without doing much of an investigation themselves.
Interesting study. Just reading outputs from GPT3 or other models makes it seem almost lifelike. Sometimes it is easy to forget it is just a well fit function with a lot of parameters.
Slack has an interesting model where the license count charged to the company only includes active users which is a subset of those that are registered.
"Productivity porn is anything that after having been consumed makes you feel like you were productive when in reality you didn’t actually do anything." - Interesting definition.
It turned out he had set another setting incorrectly which was causing the appointment never to be valid.
But the rarity of the date let me wonder in the wrong direction for a while...