I know this is going to be a really unpopular take.
I tend to be more libertarian on this. I think the government and tech should get out of the business of prioritizing and promoting a specific family structure using tax code and other benefits. Let people decide if they want to have kids and deal with the fallout accordingly.
We already have people we can't adequately support now but you have the government and tech companies incentivizing people financially to have families even when they can't afford it.
IMO it is selfish to force other people to finance your family even when there is already plenty of resources to pay for your own family.
These "benefits" the families are getting leave very little resources for the most vulnerable people in society.
I just think it's generally selfish and irresponsible to have kids if you need the government structures to finance your lifestyle through the tax code and other government institutions.
I see people making far and away more money than me but they pay a lower tax rate than me because they have kids and I don't. That's not only selfish on their part but also unfair.
If the US had an adequate social safety net that includes UBI, Housing and Healthcare this might all be moot.
To me this makes far more sense than a indiscriminate defunding. It’s what I’ve been advocating for. Defunding the police by itself doesn’t solve the problem. Firing crooked cops does to some extent.
And in the case where crooked cops have infiltrated the department to the point where it's effectively impossible to fire just the crooked ones, shut it down and start over. Or do something better and call it "police" so that the pearl clutching causes less nerve damage.
I think this is a great point. We could be opening pandora's box here from a number of perspectives including the security aspect of things. This issue of app stores is not as cut and dry as people are making it out to be.
Secondly, you can "side load" iOS apps as well. You just have to go through a process of jailbreaking your iPhone which is not illegal but it may void the warranty.
When you buy the iPhone you are also buying into the platform. If having multiple options for app stores is a necessity for you then an iPhone is the wrong device to purchase. Buy something else. There is nothing wrong with voting with your wallet as there are other phones on the market for people to buy.
This isn't really an option if you actually want iOS apps. It's an all-or-nothing play by Apple: accept all our rules, including the ones that greatly limit you, or get none of the benefits of iOS, including the large collection of high-quality apps. And the option of jailbreaking really isn't an option either. Apple does its best to prevent jailbreaking: they'd stop it outright if they could. This is their way of keeping that market unpleasant, small, and marginal.
The argument is that that approach is anti-competitive and unfair, especially since Apple itself gets a large cut of app sales.
I'm not coming down hard on either side, just yet. But I don't like the feel of this sort of lock-in, and almost no one would question the use of a term like "lock-in." Some lock-in is surely legal, even if almost always unpleasant. But it's only a hop, skip and a jump to full-fledged antitrust.
You go to Target looking to buy a Walmart-brand bottle of bleach. Is that anti-competitive?
Heading out but you pick up a few PC games. By the way, Target was paid to put those up on the shelf.
Grab a Sony Playstation gift card. They get a percentage of that as well.
At checkout, you sign up of the Target bank card save 10%. They get a nice initial chunk from that and the bank running that card pays a monthly percent to Target for sending them over their customer.
(don't look into the publishing companies' tactics cause that will send you over the edge)
I have no problem with people jail breaking their devices, which they own. In fact I did exactly that on several phones and an iPod touch back in the day when I handed down some of my devices to relatives in China.
I quite like this study on de-escalation online. I myself have learned to not care about whether or not people forgave me for being wrong or instead just assume they forgave me for being wrong. If I think I am actually wrong i'll say it and then ignore any further replies to the post. In the case that I simply do not agree that I'm wrong, I do not apologize. I "pithily" re-iterate my opinion/disagreement/argument and why, then ignore any further responses. Keeping track of everyone else's petty beefs with me online is not worth the effort. shrug
As a side note: I do not believe in grudges. So..I do not stay mad.
As a POC, it bothers me that someone from the "corporate(or educated) class" of POCs always coming in to criticize those POC who have a legitimate concern about some injustice they are seeing. In this case Timmits concern is entirely valid and does not have a solution currently other than do not use ML for some applications. We benefit from Timmit and others voicing these valid concerns. Engineers always want to base everything on the data to take themselves out of what is being asked of them. It is not always possible to reduce problems to "the data". POC in particular should not be quiet when it comes to some of the issues around the questionable use of ML in relation to race and issues that are ultimately surrounding race.
My main gripe about FICO is that they are not transparent about the methodology and the ways in which you could appeal a decision are murky at best and are difficult and take months to fix in many cases. I prefer full transparency as to what the rules are and the algorithms used for the purposes of credit so we as a society can decide rather than private businesses deciding for us what our social credit and other forms of credit is. Why shouldn't I be allowed to improve my credit and why shouldn't that process be completely transparent?
How does one determine who's lazy and under performing and not? There is not a good qualitative way to evaluate this. Most of the time it just boils down to do you like the person or not.
Secondly, how do you address the racism in Unions even now? Within the last year multiple African American Union workers were complaining about racism within the Union and they were largely ignored by the Union.
I remember when I used to work at XYZ Company I would have to wait for weeks to have a union employee move my stuff from desk to desk (even a desk that was 1 desk over) when I could've done it myself in minutes. Why do I need a Union worker for something I can do myself? Why does a company need to spend $600 for something I can do myself in less than an hour for free.
Maybe in the US journalism and entertainment fields people can get off more easily with a Union as their jobs are somewhat shielded from the threat of offshoring. That is not the case in engineering and manufacturing. Unions are not for every industry and these things should be done at the Local, State and Federal level so everyone can benefit. The government is supposed to be counter balance to business. The government is outsourcing their job to Unions.
> How does one determine who's lazy and under performing and not? There is not a good qualitative way to evaluate this. Most of the time it just boils down to do you like the person or not.
Um, no. There is a massive difference between "lazy" and "I don't like them". I may not like them because they're lazy, but they are not at all the same thing. The problem is, if you're trying to get rid of a lazy employee, and they have a union (or any other lawyer) trying to protect them, then the lawyer wants to paint "lazy" as being as non-objective as possible, so it becomes something they can't be fired for.
I know I'll get downvoted but most of the time in my experience the people aren't actually lazy or underperforming. It's just that their manager doesn't like them. I'm going by what I've seen. TBQH! Usually if people are bored or lazy for too long they quit anyway.
I tend to be more libertarian on this. I think the government and tech should get out of the business of prioritizing and promoting a specific family structure using tax code and other benefits. Let people decide if they want to have kids and deal with the fallout accordingly.
We already have people we can't adequately support now but you have the government and tech companies incentivizing people financially to have families even when they can't afford it.
IMO it is selfish to force other people to finance your family even when there is already plenty of resources to pay for your own family.
These "benefits" the families are getting leave very little resources for the most vulnerable people in society.
I just think it's generally selfish and irresponsible to have kids if you need the government structures to finance your lifestyle through the tax code and other government institutions.
I see people making far and away more money than me but they pay a lower tax rate than me because they have kids and I don't. That's not only selfish on their part but also unfair.
If the US had an adequate social safety net that includes UBI, Housing and Healthcare this might all be moot.