>Especially to the level of sacrifice they were willing to take for the cause.
We have no idea that they were sacrificing anything personally. The packages Microsoft offered for people who separated may have been much more generous than what they were currently sitting on. Sure, Altman is a good leader, but Microsoft also has deep pockets. When you see some of the top brass at the company already make the move and you know they're willing to pay to bring you over as well, we're not talking about a huge risk here. If anything, staying with what at the time looked like a sinking ship might have been a much larger sacrifice.
That's not true, Capital would still accumulate returns higher than the cost of inventory plus wages, the return would just be the same 'everywhere', and you'd have a perfect market alpha for all stocks, whether it be 1, 2, 5, or 10%. Even perfectly rational markets do not establish socialism overnight. Now maybe you could argue under a Marxist lens that exploitation would be more 'visible', causing socialism to arrive out of social rebellion faster, but that's really besides the point.
What would cease to exist would simply be speculation and arbitrage. Since all prices are perfect, you simply wouldn't be able to make more (or even less, for that matter) money than the return on capital everyone gets by buying and selling shares quickly.
I don't think it's so much about the timidity of the driver, it's the effect on driving slow has on people behind you. Driving below the speed limit increases the amount of drivers who need to do overtaking, which are moments substantially more dangerous than just driving straight. If it weren't for forcing other people to overtake I don't think we'd really care, even if it was a sign of timidity.
Very common to see older people drive slow on the highway because going 100KM/h seems scary to them. This is, of course, absurd, since driving 80KM/hs on a 100KM/h road causes way more moments for bad things to happen because you're forcing everyone to merge into the speed lane, including trucks with bigger blind spots, rather then only the drivers choosing to go above the speed limit. If you do this you should absolutely be fined, and that's not because it's a good metric for timidity (which I agree can be bad for drivers in general), but rather that the action itself causes harm.
> Driving below the speed limit increases the amount of drivers who need to do overtaking,
Nobody "needs" to overtake or is "forced" to doing something dangerous outside safe margins. Seriously, this is blame shifting when somebody does something stupid. When you do, it's 100% on you.
100km/h on a highway with everybody otherwise going 130km/h is rare. This is about a 65mph road (100km/h?) where somebody goes 95km/h and everybody behind them goes berserk. That's an attitude that needs to change, not by the 95km/h driver, but by everybody behind. Going 100km/h is not a right, does not force you to do stupid overtaking maneuvers and the time you lose by going 95km/h is negligible. At least it's substantially less than you'd expect, since there are many other factors that slow you down on a journey. You rarely drive for 3 hours straight, no interruptions, no other traffic on the road. Even if you did, doing 100km/h instead of 95km/h would get you there by 9 minutes earlier. That's the upper limit here, but you are likely going to save less than 5 min. After 3 hours.
We (for some measure of we, but at least the US and most Commonwealth countries) have laws against this. It's called "Impeding the Flow of Traffic". As far as it matters, you are absolutely and directly wrong about your statement here. It's the 95km/h driver that needs to change.
You seem to have an agenda in your comments here, and in some of them I think you have a point, in this one you are overplaying your hand.
50mph on a 65mph road may be "impeding the flow of traffic". 63mph certainly isn't.
I'm a bit confused regarding your insinuation of an "agenda" in my comments? I've been in enough situations where somebody behind me or others on the road was endangering everybody just because the car in front of them wasn't going the $safe_margin_above that they were expecting of everybody. So they go like 3ft behind them and put pressure and stress on people. It's a dangerous mentality that can get people killed. It's not the "slow person" (going at 63mph) that's the danger in that scenario.
I personally find GPs agenda of promoting patience, common sense, and safety on the roads to be both dangerous and offensive. That kind of mentality is only a hop and skip away from becoming a deranged anti-car environmentalist.
This is actually true, but I still use PayPal probably 10-20 times a year and I haven't logged into their site for probably 2-3 years, at least whenever I last had to update my payment cards.
The site is suboptimal, it's probably not a great company and I have no idea if they're charging me anything - but the one-tap purchase system just works, and that's all I need. There are other great options in Klarna and similar, but even they give me too many options to coax me into paying later so I inadvertently pay fees. PayPal literally just withdraws from whichever card has sufficient funds at the time, has worked exactly as stated for over a decade, so I really have no incentive to investigate alternatives (especially for sites where my PayPal is already setup, like Steam).
Not to discredit the rest of what you're saying, because it is true the EU has jurisdiction and that anti-trust is a lost art in many places in the world. Still, saying Google Ireland 'alone' is a bit funny when Google (like all multinationals) is known to take advantage of Ireland's tax laws to funnel as much of their EU business through.
Whatever money Google is making in Ireland isn't just what they're making from the Irish market, it's also from whatever they're making everywhere else in the EU who's origins are ambiguous enough to not be attached to any single country.
You can't have it both ways though. You don't get to take advantage of Irish law to reduce your tax/costs, but then also say that Ireland (and the EU) has no jurisdiction over you.
This is completely false, I stated very clearly that they have jurisidiction regardless and that anti-trust is fine. I was just pointing out that it's pretty unfair to use the size of Google Ireland as if it's "just another EU country" when it accounts for basically all EU-based revenue.
€50bln is still a huge amount, but based on the phrasing of that comment you'd assume we were talking about figures well over €1t!
You should check out the thread, lots of people throwing themselves in front of the firing line because I guess they think that messing with Google will somehow translate to messing with their own startups or whatever.
well, that still means they have to follow Irish law. Just like shipping companies register their ships in other countries, that means they have to follow their laws too.
yes, but that's not the point of GP comment. Saying "Ireland alone has $50B turnover" might make someone think: "Wow, if they make so much money from such a small country, then how much do they make in the entire Europe?". And the answer to that is: $50B. There's not a single euro-cent is earned in Europe that does not go through Ireland.
Eh, we can’t really complain. The international capitalist system owes Ireland a bit more; its predecessor, colonialism, screwed Ireland over for generations.
But the point is that Ireland does not really benefit from this money - it is only an accounting trick. Google funnels money through Ireland, but does not employ many people in Ireland, and does not pay much taxes there. In the end, the living standard of typical Irishman is closer to countries with $40-45k GDP, such as Italy or France, than to countries with $100k GDP, such as Norway or Switzerland.
Which means one employee per $6 millions of revenue. Which is exactly what I’m talking about: their actual presence in Ireland is much smaller than you would expect from revenue number alone, which again supports my claim about “accounting trick”
Because big companies are funneling money through Ireland, they usually need some corporate presence there. Because they already have a small office there, and there's a large English speaking population, when they want a bigger office in Europe, Ireland is a likely choice.
If they weren't already in the country for accounting purposes, they might choose different locations for offices.
That's just because he's using the word 'intelligence' here in place of the word 'competence', but that might just be because it's the verbiage competent people often use about themselves. This is a fair correction, but other than that he's obviously correct, being a talented software engineer doesn't give you any ability to understand the nuances of neurochemistry.
> being a talented software engineer doesn't give you any ability to understand the nuances of neurochemistry.
This is a bit of a non-sequitur based on what you said before.
Being competent or a talented software engineer is correlated with being an intelligent person, which in turn is correlated with the ability to understand the nuances of [insert topic here].
That doesn't mean that being a talented software engineer necessarily gives you the ability to understand the nuances of neurochemistry, but it is suggestive that it does, if the engineer has an interest in neurochemistry.
Also, being an intelligent person doesn't necessarily mean that you are competent or have expertise in a certain area, sure, but that is not a "logical fallacy" as the GP was saying, nor has much to do with intelligence as he seemed to be arguing (or at least, "fluid intelligence", as it is often understood).
If he simply meant "being competent or an expert in a certain area" doesn't automatically mean that you are competent or an expert in another area, then sure, I agree, and it's true that many comments on Hacker News exhibit this pattern, and this observation is often justified.
But let's not also conveniently ignore the opposite pattern, where a (presumably intelligent) person that doesn't work in a certain field can also provide much better insights than many people with many years of expertise in that same field (especially in things like, say, interpreting scientific papers, which can be legitimately hard to do correctly, for many reasons).
I don't know if you've ever noticed this, but a significant percentage of people of almost every field, even with many years of expertise, is pretty damn incompetent... you just have to step outside your bubble if you don't think so.
This includes software engineering, BTW. There are many software engineers with years of experience who don't even know what a bug tracking system or what a source code management tool are (although, not all of them are incompetent, strictly speaking). That should tell you something.
Handled under the hood by Next 13. To be honest, they probably could have done something to make that a bit more obvious when looking at the code - it probably wouldn't hurt to throw in a simple 'cache' keyword or something.
They say there's a new `cache` function in React and they have patched `fetch` to use it by default (for GET requests).
Does this include a solution to the N+1 queries issue (container element requests a list of items, then item elements each request their details)? I see you can do pre-fetching, perhaps those can be batched.
EDIT: Found an example that uses DataLoader by "caching the cache". The src/api.ts module exports a cached DataLoader for characters, and src/components/CharacterAvatar.tsx imports and calls it during render simply like this:
This argument is used intensively in my country to argue that we have no reason to do anything, as our population of 5 million has no impact on the world. That's fine argument to go down if you want, but then you'll also have to concede that democracy is pointless and you shouldn't partake in it either, given how little impact you have.
As for the US military polluting too much, that's a political issue and the US citizens obligation to fix. If you don't think you should do something because someone else is worse, I'll remind you that there's almost always a bigger fish. The US military pollution itself is a mere fraction of what China's power grid is using, so why should they bother to change anything until China improves it's own power production either?
You initialized this thread by talking about real numbers and not per capita. US military emissions is what, 1-2% of the US' total emissions? So even if you were to change something about the US' per capita emissions, removing their military entirely would barely move the needle. Why then is it the existence of this military in particular that's the reason your country doesn't need to change?
I get that you don't want to do anything, but you can just choose to do that, you know? You don't need to justify it at all, you have every right to simply do as you wish, at least for the moment.
So that means that my small country of 10 million people is completely free to burn diesel and gasoline and coal as it wishes, but anyone living in China must be severely restricted to only use renewables just because they happen to live in a country with a large population, despite the fact that who put all the current carbon in the atmosphere which is causing the crisis were the small European countries like my own, over more than a century, together with the big brother the USA and its oil thirsty economies? Even today we're still the largest emitters, but feel arrogant enough to tell developing countries they must contribute as much as we do to fix our own freaking mess?! This dumb ass view of the world needs to stop.
Correct. Green logic is unfair. In order to "prevent the climate crisis" you have to make sure the people of India and China do not reach the same standard of living as those in the West, you have to keep them in the mud. And Belgium can have all the smokestacks it wants. It doesn't matter.
For the environment this is obviously true, but you change the total by treating everyone equally and expecting them to make the same per capita movements. It's not equitable that wealthy small nations have an infinite excuse to do nothing because they can't pollute as much as China if they tried. The citizens of China and India should have to suffer carbon cuts alone because they happen to look like the worst perpetrators when you blob together pollution by countries?
> why should they bother to change anything until China improves it's own power production either?
That one is easy: because the USA (and Europe) have been the ones who pumped nearly all of the carbon that's screwing us up now for the last 100 years or so. If you take the accumulated amount of carbon emissions, I am sure you'll arrive at the conclusion that China must not be blamed for the current crisis (you can only accuse China of not helping solve the mess caused by others - which is valid but something else altogether).
Not to mention that, on a per-capita basis which is what matters when you want to blame people for using too much carbon, China is still much lower than the USA... in fact the USA is off the charts per-capita compared to even the most modern other economies.
OK, so compare the US military to the US power grid then. It's much smaller, why should the military itself change? It's a nonsense argument used to redirect responsibility.
If you don't want to do anything then don't, as far as I care that's entirely within your rights, just don't justify it by pointing to other people or organizations that are worse then you, because they can inevitably do the same to someone else. I really don't care about people doing nothing to solve an issue, but I certainly won't play defence for people who do nothing about the problem while feeling good about because they pinned it all on someone else. Either work on the problem or move on to something else, listening to you whine about how terrible other people you have no impact on are isn't doing anything for anyone.
Yes that's true, literally all representative democracies are the same and no political progress has been made anywhere in the world the past few decades. We have seen no advances in equitable social democracies, and gay people are just as oppressed as they've ever been. Access to gender reassignment surgery and abortions? Oh, we've never heard of that. Just don't do anything, it's fine, you literally don't matter!
Whether gay people are opressed or not has little or nothing to do with the success or failure of representative democracy.
There have been entire eras without democracy when being gay was acceptable or even consider just fine (at different city-states in ancient Greece for one). And there have been democracies were gays have been repressed.
All the examples you gave are about small minorities too, which is not the thing that democracy focuses on in the first place. Those more about changing cultural norms and morals, which can then be encoded into policy, with or without a democratic vote. The same things can happen under any sham democracy or even dictatorship. In the latter it can also just be a official decree. For example, as for "access to gender reassignment surgery" you know that has been a thing in Iran for decades, for example, right?
A lot of these policy changes can also be used as a cultural side show (the "culture wars") to mask the lack of democratic policy in areas that affect everybody, and were those in power have actual interests, such as the economy, foreign policy, surveillance, police brutality, jobs, and so on.
>A lot of these policy changes can also be used as a cultural side show (the "culture wars") to mask the lack of democratic policy in areas that affect everybody, and were those in power have actual interests, such as the economy, foreign policy, surveillance, police brutality, jobs, and so on.
I agree with you here. But do you really want to reach for the economy and police systems to justify how ineffective representative democracies have been since their mass adoption over a century ago?
I think the boost to the economy was orthogonal to them being democracies or no - and has more to do with the industrial revolution and other technological advances (most of which happened before democracy or with "democracy" with voting confined to rich land-owning men - no women, and no poor/middle class folks allowed, no POC either of course).
And in many ways we're in a more police-heavy system today than over a century ago.
I have this discussion nearly daily when talking with Android users. The iPhone is not a modular unit that can be tampered with at all, but despite even being a software developer, I do not actually care about my phone being modular. I want it to work and I want it to work well across the entire platform. Not only does iOS severely limit your options for changing your phone's UX, something a lot of people lament about quite often, but they also have rigorous design-guides that push every developer in the eco-system to have it look the same way. Something as simple as the date/timepickers that Apple removed in iOS 14 can't be changed by the user, but Apple does their hardest to make sure everyone makes it look the way they've set it up, and for my purposes I legitimately prefer that over deciding it myself but having the apps on the platform ultimately use either or willy-nilly.
There definitely are issues with Apple, but the user not having full access to changing their device isn't really one, and that's coming from someone who most definitely has the know how to do pretty much anything and still remain safe, I'd dread to see users be stuck having full root access to their phones without even knowing what the fuck that means.
There absolutely needs to be options for those that want to be able to hack away at their phone to their hearts content, but it doesn't need to be every phone, and Apple aren't criminals just because they don't offer that possibility and users happen to want their phones anyway.
Please don't give me root access to my iPhone, I do not care about it, I have no need for it, and I do not want it.
> The iPhone is not a modular unit that can be tampered with at all, but despite even being a software developer, I do not actually care about my phone being modular. I want it to work and I want it to work well across the entire platform.
I'm precisely in this boat. I enjoy playing with electronics, but I want my microwave to just work. I also enjoy fiddling around with PCs with total freedom, but I want my phone to just work.
I am also a developer, I love tinkering, but my router and especially my phone, I want it to just work. I need my phone, if I could tinker with my phone it would be broken half the time!
Haha yes, I used to do all the WRT54G stuff and tended to have bugs and an overheated router. I also used to tinker a bunch with jailbroken iPhones and rooted Android phones. I'll never have anything against that, but now I personally want an option that just works!
I actually have 3, two iPhones and one Android, and 3 iPads.
Once I gave up on private cross-device sync on iOS without iCloud (a bummer, to be sure), I started using the iPads as single-purpose devices instead of wanting every file on every screen all of the time. One is just for hacking (editors/ssh/browser), one is loaded with books and maps, one is for a special project.
The phones are split between primary/production, emergency backup (n+1), and hacking/testing/fun. I’ll probably end up with a fourth phone at some point (hacking * two platforms).
I’m all for people wanting rootmode, I just don’t want more freedom and choice on my device, I see no need for it and I like the way Apple can streamline everything by forcing everyone to interact with their device on their terms.
And obviously I realize that this doesn’t go for everyone, and that’s completely okay. I just don’t think Apple should be forced to make their phones into full-on computers just because some people say they want the choice, when you could just as easily get a phone. If most customers really wanted to root iPhones Apple would probably have implemented it by now. I don’t believe for a second that Apple’s desire to unilateraly control their ecosystem trumps shareholder greed, why would it?
Not all phones are for everyone and I think that’s OK. More options and more modular devices means everyone will setup and use their device differently, like with a computer, this is fine for many, but I think it would adversly affect the streamlined nature of iOS (even if it is ‘just an option’), so I’m still against it.
in a vacuum, there's really nothing wrong with apple's choices regarding iOS. as far as I can tell, most iOS users really do appreciate how the whole system is locked down, or at least don't understand why they should care.
what sucks is that in the big picture, there's really no viable option for someone who cares about security/privacy and is willing to pay for a premium device, but wants full access to their phone occasionally. the security update situation on android is still a mess except for the pixel line (which usually has subpar hardware) and a handful of other flagship devices. even if you're willing to pony up, you're still buying into an ecosystem that's designed to exfiltrate data from your device. it's frustrating because the iphone is so close to having everything I want from a device. if I could just have the ability to temporarily elevate privileges, even from some obnoxiously buried menu deep in the settings (or bootloader), I would buy one in a heartbeat.
> I just don’t want more freedom and choice on my device
Then don't turn on root mode? Is that really such a large infringement on you? The fact that there might be an option in your phone, to turn on root mode, and the mere fact that this switch exists somehow mind controls you and makes you turn it on?
If an easy switch in the phone exists that says "Allow competing app stores to be installed", why can't you simply not switch that on?
My previous bank forced installation of a rootkit in Windows and Mac, and required full permissions in Android just to open. Their website didn't even work in Linux because they didn't make a Rootkit.
I didn't really have an option at the time: this was before my government made a law allowing you to use any bank, so I needed the bank to access my salary.
I'm all for freedom of fully owning your own device, but the reality is that software developers and software companies will abuse this freedom.
You're not wrong. I also understand the viewpoint stemming from that truth that having the option is not worth the extra features. I still think the trade off is worth it.
Just like while we have people tricked into buying apple gift cards for scammers we still don't decide to ban those cards because they do offer utility.
The number of steps and warnings required to unlock the bootloader on an Android device is so large that I have never heard of anybody being tricked into it. On the other hand, iOS is so rife with rootable vulnerabilities that it's becoming too cheap to meter.
I really think we should rename "root mode" to "DANGER 90000 VOLTS AHEAD" or something similar.
Root mode _is_ that dangerous. You wouldn't want to allow astronauts "root access" to their starship launcher; you don't want car drivers to have "root access" to tinker with the brakes in their car. You don't want patients on ventilators to have "root access". You don't want non-doctors to access their health data without a doctor's to walk them through it. Certain pieces of data left to mere mortals can have devastating consequences.
It's not a question of "don't turn on root mode". Or saying "don't re-jigger the brakes".
People (tech experts or otherwise) should not be allowed to mess with systems that can literally end their life by exploding in their pockets! That's how dangerous it is!
Sure, some of the consequences are that you can't tinker with your UI. But honestly, that's a reasonable price to pay because the software that controls the behavior of these systems can cause real-world damage, if not configured properly.
Heck, we've seen this in the recent 40 years. The whole freaking Metric vs Imperial system disagreement has caused unintentional rocketship explosions. Imagine, if some inane argument between a couple of high-schoolers or teenagers led to the same type of bug killing them because their phone exploded. All because someone with root access misconfigures a constants plist file to prove a point!
> should not be allowed to mess with systems that can literally end their life by exploding in their pockets!
This is non-sense fearmongering.
Giving people the ability to install fortnite, on an official fortnite app store, is not going to cause people to die from phone explosion
It is just not going to happen. Fortnite is not going to blow you up.
The reason why I know this to be the case, is that half the US smartphone market, allows people to side load APKs, and install fortnite that way, and people aren't being blown up because they had fortnite on their phone.
They do not have the ability to install it through a competing Epic Games app store.
Allowing people to install fortnite, through an Epic Games app store, that is not approved by Apple, is not going to cause people's phone to blow up.
> not the ability to install Fortnite
In my post, I specifically said "on an official fortnite app store", but it seems like you ignored that for some reason.
That is what I am referring to. If you agree with me, that:
"Giving people the ability to install fortnite, on an official fortnite app store, is not going to cause people to die from phone explosion"
Is the case, then cool. You agree that there is not going to be a blowing up phone problem, if Epic Games, has an app store on people phones, that is run by Epic Games, and not Apple.
We have no idea that they were sacrificing anything personally. The packages Microsoft offered for people who separated may have been much more generous than what they were currently sitting on. Sure, Altman is a good leader, but Microsoft also has deep pockets. When you see some of the top brass at the company already make the move and you know they're willing to pay to bring you over as well, we're not talking about a huge risk here. If anything, staying with what at the time looked like a sinking ship might have been a much larger sacrifice.