I don't know if it's inconsequential. But Goldman definitely has a well deserved tarnished reputation, especially in recent news of their actions that involved the 1MDB fund.
Is it true that when the magnetic field flips suddenly, plane autopilot systems can become confused and crash out of the skies, killing millions en mass?
That would be surprising as the altitude control should be independent from the compass. I'd also wager that more than just the compass is used to determine course. Most likely a sanity check in the control software will kick in and return control to the pilot, just as if the compass(es) broke for some reason during flight.
The problem with the flips is that they go hand-in-hand with a dramatic weakening of the magnetic field until the new orientation is established. During that time solar storms are not deflected as well and vulnerable electronics will be fried.
IANAPilot, but I got curious once upon a time and studied those. Short answer: yes, they will get confused, but they won't crash out of the skies. Those systems are designed to account for certain perturbations in magnetic fields. However, there are thresholds in place to return control to the pilot if the entire system craps out at that level.
It is good that people don't care about privacy. It means they are no longer afraid of being seen, that they have nothing to hide from the world, and in a way they are moving toward a more liberating existence.
Keeping so many aspects of your life private comes with a price. There is inconvenience, there is overhead, and there is always fear that one day your private assets will be compromised and laid bare.
The less private you are, the more you have to share, and the more you have to share, the richer and more meaningful your experiences will be: with other people, and even with other businesses.
But if you are very private, you have little to share. You miss out on the social conversation of humanity, and businesses will treat you as another generic faceless entity, throwing whatever crap they can at you hoping it sticks. Why would anyone want that?
I would put a slightly different spin on this thought. Most people's problem is that no one is paying attention to them. We struggle to get people to notice us and listen to us. Even if it's only an algorithm, I think most people would think being looked at and considered is a feature not a bug.
> But if you are very private, you have little to share. You miss out on the social conversation of humanity, and businesses will treat you as another generic faceless entity, throwing whatever crap they can at you hoping it sticks.
And mass surveillance and data collection combined with blackbox machine learning techniques are somehow producing a different outcome?
I think it is very misguided to conclude that people don't need privacy from all of this. Most of what people use Facebook and friends for is private, they just haven't been seriously and obviously burned enough from the fact that a large number of corporate entities are siphoning it up.
Maybe they'll never get burned enough. Maybe it all turns out well. But concluding that no people do not need privacy as a basic psychological need is wrong. I know I do and I don't have a bad social life because of it.
Remember when putting a picture of yourself on the internet or even using your real name was controversial? The old generation warned not to do it, ever! But teens did it widely and profusely.
Now the new controversy is data. Don't ever sell your data! Don't give up your data! But teens are doing it widely and profusely.
At some point you just have to accept that new people will be born and will have new ideas and just won't give a fuck. As a business you can either sit on the sidelines and watch or capitalize on it.
Facebook will lead the way to allow for smaller players to get away with doing this as well.
>Facebook will lead the way to allow for smaller players to get away with doing this as well.
That's not how any of this works. It's hard to 'move fast and break things' when a company like Facebook has used all the loopholes and gotten caught.
Small players will never be able to replicate Facebook or their scummy tactics because at this point Facebook wants regulations. Regulations will ensure Facebook can and will continue to operate (can pay any fine) while the competition is hamstrung. If your competition is hamstrung it makes it easier to buy em up or wipe em out.
Just to come full circle Facebook purchased onvo so they could spy on users and figure out which apps they were using and how often. Facebook then used this data to buy up companies.
This is literally what every generation seems to say about the behavior and habits of the next generation. I think it's pretty clear "break down" just means changes you don't like.
You haven't gotten to the point of proving that the "teens" would be correct to disregard their privacy, or that the "old generation" would be wrong to care about it.
I don't believe the behavior you're describing actually falls along generational lines, though, rather than technical competence or awareness. It isn't only "teens" who use social media, nor is it only "old people" who are concerned about privacy. In fact, younger generations are leaving Facebook and social media because of privacy concerns and the negative effect it has on their lives.
Your arguments here are stereotypical ageism and lack enough nuance to be convincing.
When I began programming, I was forced to use vim and hated it, I didn't understand why someone would use such an "old school" text editor to write programs. I abandoned it and moved on to typical IDEs. As a young programmer, it's difficult to see the value.
But many years later I discovered the power of vim came from customizing it to my exact preferences, and mastering all the shortcuts and its grammar. After a year's worth of effort, I began coding at the speed of thought, and programming has been much more enjoyable ever since, as time moves on I only get faster and faster. It's like cooking with a really sharp knife vs a dull one.
This somewhat depends on the technology you're using as well though. Writing Java in vim is a pain in the ass in comparison to something like IntelliJ that has auto-importing, go to definition, etc
Vim comes with the :make command which is handy for compiling projects with Makefiles. But you can also set a different value for makeprg to do whatever you want for the current file. Of course you still to set up a key binding in your VimRC:
map <F5> :make<enter>
> instead of "save, exit, ./myscript, vi myscript".
This is something I see a lot of people doing. Obviously, it is not efficient. There is no harm in having another terminal window open where you run the script. If you are using SSH, you can use tmux or screen to have several terminals in one SSH session. And lastly, if you have to edit several different files, do not exit vim to switch files. Learn to use the :e and :b commands.
(The last advice is meant for the general audience and not directly to the previous post's author)
I'm tired of this implication that the poor can never be at fault for anything, because they are so poor. It is an overly simplified sympathy that doesn't always reflect reality.
Sure, INDIVIDUALS are at fault for a variety of options, but if you're looking to blame the poor as a group for something, you're using the wrong criteria, since it's a status that has no direct mapping to choice.
> the rich, powerful and elite are also not responsible for anything either? Just individually?
The distinction is that money provides opportunities, poverty is the lack of them.
You can hold the wealthy responsible for what they do with their wealth, or what they don't do with their wealth. Because wealth is something they HAVE. The poor, on the other hand, don't HAVE anything, so you can't say they are using their lack of wealth foolishly, nor can you say they are failing to use their lack of wealth wisely.
FWIW, you could argue that they are failing to handle their economic situation as well as they could.
But even that is fraught, since, in the current economic culture, consumers are pretty much constantly being preyed on, and actively encouraged to make questionable decisions. Consider, for example, the predatory mortgage practices on the part of the banking industry during the 2000s. Or predatory lending practices on the part of the student loan and private college industries. Or payday loan companies.
(There's arguably a double standard there - if it's a person with relatively little money swindling people out of relatively small amounts of money, it's con artistry. If it's a company with lots of money swindling people out of lots of money, caveat emptor.)
No the rich and powerful have choices of how to act, while the poor have very little. Additionally, the rich and powerful are the ones who have structured the system in such a way that the proletariat have very little choice in the matter.
Within the context of this conversation, the burden of figuring that out would fall more properly on you, since you're the one invoking the existence of things the poor are at fault for in order to challenge someone else.
I think, though, that, unless you're coming up with examples that specifically demonstrate that the things the parent poster listed weren't actually victim blaming, such an exercise would be tangential to the subject at hand.
I mean, if you think that's the case, feel free to give examples. The posts here are talking about specific cases, if you disagree with them, say so.
You haven't really said anything here, just vaguly created a strawman that people are arguing "the poor can never do wrong", which was never the claim.
I asked a question, I don't think I need to provide some counter argument with it.
If I must argue something, I'd say the housing crisis example wasn't so simple as it was presented. Some people knew exactly what they were doing, albeit it turned out badly for them, but they had so little to lose they took the risk anyway and just bankrupted out. But I'm not at all interested in talking about this, my original question still stands.
Your question was clearly a rhetorical question that contained the statement "the poor are never faulted for anything", which is basically the same as the next paragraph in your original comment. That's how everyone read it and that's what people are responding to. Your "I asked a question" is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst, because it's basically saying "I was just asking questions! I didn't state anything and I hold no positions, which makes me invulnerable to criticism!".
It wasn't rhetorical and I really would have been interested in the OP's answer. Had they answered truthfully, it would have helped expanded my understanding of how some people think.
Instead I've been assaulted and my eyes blackened all for what, because I asked a question that if answered may weaken the credibility of the op's original post?
I think you need to take a step back and truly reflect to take in some of the feedback people have given you here. Egos tend to expand to protect themselves, only to a person's detriment.
Your question was not well asked. At all. It carried a ton of baggage with it, made several assumptions, and generalized a whole class of people in society and you seem to be extremely oblivious to it.
This isn't meant as an insult. I'm being harsh because this is a moment for you to learn. To get better. To take in the feedback instead of playing the victim card to protect your ego.
I hate extreme examples, but I'll use one here to make a simple point. How well do you think walking into a bar and asking the following would go over: "Hey fellas, how bad are Nazis really? And are Jewish people really that great anyway?"
And then when people give you their passionate thoughts, you just respond with "Woah woah woah, I'm just asking simple questions to expand my understanding".
If I could go back, knowing what I know now, I don't think I would have asked the question. I was a fool to think I could get any sort of simple response.
On an internet forum you have to do it differently than in person, where voice and facial expression can convey sincerity. When a topic is divisive, your question needs to come with enough information to make intent unambiguous. You need to make it impossible to interpret your question as a provocation, because otherwise people are going to take it that way.
A comment like "What are the poor legitimately at fault for then? I'm tired of this implication that the poor can never be at fault for anything, because they are so poor." not only doesn't do that, it's hard to read it any other way than as a battle stroke. And when you write "I asked a question that if answered may weaken the credibility of the op's original post", you seem to confirm that. If you're focused on undermining others' credibility, they'll inevitably focus on defending themselves rather than exchanging information.
The site guidelines address this situation: "Comments should get more civil and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive." If you'd review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take the spirit of this site more to heart, we'd appreciate it, and people would be more likely to respond to you with information rater than counterattack.
You're a fool for not thinking of the response yourself. Fault, as a concept, is a measure of means. The poor don't have the means, so they are not at fault. It's a damned tautology.
I'm going to take your statements at face value as a genuine skeptics-driven desire for further exploration.
As someone who was once "just a poor boy, from a poor family" (to quote the bards) I've seen both sides of the coin.
My mother was a clever woman - as a child, too clever for the schools she went to, constantly picking fights with the teachers. As she tells it, she would usually win (at least on an intellectual level) but invariably - nobody likes a smart-arse - she would get expelled.
So one might argue that some of the poor can be at fault for not keeping their heads down and working within the system. An instinct to rebel against the flow is bad.
In my early childhood, she was a factory worker, then she became a care assistant. Neither pays very well, but she worked nights (which pays marginally more for a significantly worse quality of life).
Of course, myself and my brother were a massive drain on her finances. She ended up as a single mother early on due to a manipulative relationship.
So one might argue that some of the poor can be at fault for having children, trusting people, trusting the wrong people, or being human beings with human families. Being human is bad.
At one point, she tried door-to-door vacuum cleaner sales. She sucked (joke intended). She couldn't bring herself to lie to people about how a vacuum could change their lives, even if it was a pretty powerful vac.
So one might argue that some of the poor can be at fault refusing to become morally corrupt to earn a liveable paycheck.
When she became a care assistant - again, night shifts, and again, reasonably low-paid work. She tried to become a car mechanic - she had the physical strength to do the task, but her patchy education meant she couldn't handle the algebra. She could multiply any two numbers in the blink of an eye, but as soon as you replace one of the numbers with letters, her eyes would glaze over and she would yearn to discuss the weather.
But to her credit, throughout her life she never once took out a credit card (that I'm aware of). She treated credit as akin to the devil. Many many others did fall in the credit trap, because society tells you that's the way to cope, that it's better than failing to pay your bills on time, and the credit checks were nowhere near as stringent. (though, equally, there was no such thing as a pay-day loan).
So one might argue that some of the poor can be at fault for working within the system. An instinct to rebel against the flow is good.
Now, she has MS. She can't see, walk, or even stand most days. The government gives her an ungenerous stipend which is enough for her, as she spent our whole childhood skipping meals to meet bills anyway, and she throws up if she has to move after eating. Of course, they still sometimes try to claim that she could work because she can move her index finger (because those jobs exist) or because on a really good day she can distinguish between two dissimilar faces.
So one might argue that some of the poor can be at fault for being poor while other poor people are becoming morally corrupt to earn a liveable paycheck.
Now go through this and identify all the places that a non-poor person actively worked to keep the poor person down:
- The school teacher who would rather expel a kid than have a genuine conversation
- The factory bosses who pay their employees peanuts so they can charge their customers pennies less
- The care homes that charge each patient more than 3000/week, yet even with more than 4 patients per carer, budget for less than 1000/carer-week (that's idealized, 1 person for 24 hours, 7 days a week)
- The person who felt they "owned" her because they were the major breadwinner
- The salespeople who create ads for credit cards or pay-day loans that will never be repaid, and the salespeople who sign users up (or these days, the developers who build the systems to sign people up)
- The government-funded nurses who have a quota of "spongers" - a monthly number of people that they have to declare as fit for work, even if they're not, even if any appeal would reject the declaration without a second look, even if the disabled person has no money left, even if it will break the person's spirit, even if it might drive them deeper into credit, into depression, into suicide, into starvation.
I could go on. And, arguably, it's not the morally corrupt non-poor person who is at fault - if they don't do their morally-corrupt job, then they become poor. But there's never anyone up the chain of command who has any moral responsibility.
It's the poor person's fault. You know. For being poor.
The number they bill you out at matters, but not for reasons you think. You do not want to work somewhere that cannot make at least twice as much money as what they pay you. Growth will be anemic, and long term job stability will be a problem. You may eventually be fired and replaced with someone cheaper. Most of your skills are commodities.
Ideally, you want to work somewhere that can make even 3 or 4 times as much money as your salary. This will ensure a healthy cash flow and gives enough headroom to hire more people, and ultimately win big contracts with big clients (millions).
If they cannot make at least 2x of your salary, they are either a new company with little to no reputation or a bad sales process.
And do not even think about striking out on your own trying to get a full $165/hr salary. For one, you will have more expenses and taxes to deal with, and two if you do not have a strong sales skillset you will struggle to bill at those rates and ultimately get starved out.
The more pertinent question in this kind of situation is to the Lead/Architect. Namely, why have you created an environment in which quality can slip like this, and what are you going to change?
Does such resolution even make sense on 15.6" screen? You won't see any pixel difference with a lower resolution most likely (unless you look at the screen from a very close range).
Actually it does. It essentially looks like print including things like readable 4pt fonts. Now do you want to burn your battery on the GPU that is needed to drive that thing at full speed? That is an interesting question. Does the lack of a backlight compensate? If I were a betting person I would guess this is the display of the new Macbook Pro.
I owe a Dell XPS 13 with 4k display running Linux. Fonts are clearly much more sharper (maybe even feel darker) and pleasant to read than 1080p or even 2k . Although, I see you point. For most practical purposes it does not make difference I think, but I really love 4k when I'm programming. These days I'm not programming much, hence switched to 1080p as little experiment (and got fed up with sloppy GNOME performance), and I would say I don't notice much for general tasks.
Yes. 2x worked perfect for me at 4k, and its the default for hidpi settings I think. When I switched to 1080p I had to manually increase font sizes (not overall scaling) because the default size wasnt sharp/readable enough. Its pretty cool 4k now works so well out-of-box on Linux. It was nightmare in 2015.
If one inconsequential event like this warrants such an extreme reaction respect will be in short supply everywhere.