Regulations shouldn’t have to change with every new fintech innovation, and the IRS already has the necessary laws in place to catch and prosecute abuse of unpredicted loophole technicalities as tax fraud with intent. We’re better off applying a general tax to “gross revenue not paid as wages” and directing it to a universal basic income fund. The purchase price is gross revenue, and the less they pay out as employee wages, the more the (not subject to deductions) tax charge becomes. Sure, they might still fuck over workers, but at least the workers could afford to quit (thanks, UBI) — and VCs would face the choice of taking half the payment and fucking over workers, or taking the same size payment while not fucking over workers. They may be selfish, but they’re not so self-destructive as to choose the former out of spite: it would utterly destroy their ability to hire brilliance in the future, especially once people can afford to say no.
> Regulations shouldn’t have to change with every new fintech innovation…
Hard disagree given that a lot of fintech innovation is increasingly devious ways to circumvent the spirit and the letter of the law
> … and VCs would face the choice of taking half the payment and fucking over workers, or taking the same size payment while not fucking over workers. They may be selfish, but there not so self-destructive as to choose the former out of spite
Also hard disagree. The VC and investor people I’ve met and work with seemed to have a cultural aversion to labor being anywhere near the same level of compensation or power as them. I would fully expect them to take a deal that fucked over the employees if they got paid the same either way.
You’d have to tune your suggested system so that not fucking over the employees was heavily incentivized
Works for me! I do tend to be more optimistic than most. I would scale it so that the tax scale is applied with an exponential factor that concentrates the impact on high-revenue businesses while protecting low-revenue ones. (And I suppose as a bonus it would provide a financial counter-incentive against merged conglomerates, too.)
This comment is not cool, and is not welcome on HN.
You had a history of guidelines-breaking comments and moderator warnings up until a few years ago, and we've not seen any comments from you until the past month or so, and now you're back into those bad old patterns. You are of course welcome to participate here. But this is only a place where people want to participate because we have clear guidelines, and most people take care to observe them. Please do your part to raise standards here rather than dragging them downward.
It doesn’t have to be “grotesque” to be in breach of the guidelines. The guidelines ask us to be kind, to avoid swipes and sneers, and to converse curiously.
If it was a one off we’d be content to leave it flagged and move on but we’re talking about a pattern from years ago that seems to be resuming, and we need you to end that pattern now, thanks.
The only list is your list of past comments which is there for anyone to see. There’s no need to evoke spooky atmospherics when you can just observe the guidelines that apply equally to everyone. It’s not hard to be a positive contributor here.
In the context of FOSS adherents in general, the belief is that a rising tide lifts all boats: that the work of one dedicated open source hobbyist auditing CGM code for flaws would benefit all CGM users one way or another, if I apply that general principle here as a specific example. However, the characteristic of shoddy UX is loosely correlated with how much the developer(s) choose to (and can afford to) spend developing their work, not with whether the work is open or closed source. The exact balance shifts over time based on cultural-economic shifts in both developer capability (“what’s a folder? does left-click mean I have to use my left hand?”) and in free time energy (“I did so many hours at work to afford rent/food next week that I have no energy left to care about PRs”).
In any case, I agree that the post falls quite flat at being effective advocacy here; to me, not because it clamors for “terrible UX”, but because it fails to make a case that the author’s desired FOSS outcome holds any value at all for those who don’t know or care about source code. It’s certainly a horror story but I’m quite inured to horror as a sales tactic, and that’s where it drops the ball.
This was the latest in a pattern of safety issues at the industrial site:
> Bryan County EMS records show in a 16-month period there were 53 calls for services at the site, including over a dozen for traumatic injuries
Which, lacking any other contextual clues, notably lessens the chances of this being directed malice by the worker, given an average time of 1.3 weeks between calls for over a year.
Pleased email the mods when brigading is suspected; they have steps they can take in response, and explicitly ask us to do so when we suspect it’s occurring.
No: the threat model as stated is referring to, in restated terms, “China could silently occupy DJI headquarters and control US-deployed DJI drones into quasi-military strikes using firmware updates, remote controls, or other such mechanisms.” Same theory as Huawei 5G routers could be remotely wiretapped in various ways, etc.
(It’s important to distinguish it from the “buy drone-as-weapon at US retail, use drone inside US” threat model, but beyond telling them apart, I have no position prepared on the relevance of either model.)
With the way DJI drone updates are deployed, that isn’t actually that far fetched, technically. Assuming the targeted event was known in advance in time/space.
It would likely be an obvious act of war, but technically it wouldn’t be that hard to pull off.
Because drones without explosives strapped to them are so effective.. not to mention they spend 99.9% of the time in storage with battery disconnected, so easy to make a bunch of them attack at the same time (because once people know the drones are malicious it’s game over for the attackers).
“No smartphone” is a boundary, and U.S. parents are often raised not to set boundaries under threat of mental, emotional, and/or physical abuse. So it makes perfect sense that we have now-parents completely unable to define and discuss boundaries with their children. Far better to capitulate in the face of an uncertain and not life-threatening risk than to allow their child to ever think that boundaries are healthy, etc. For the unfamiliar, here is a good starting point for understanding the generational cognitive dissonance in play: https://www.issendai.com/psychology/estrangement/contradicto...
It's starting to change in places, including in the US.
The reality is it's not the smartphone, but the slot machine type software running on it.
There's more than enough science that placing this kind of content in front of humans before their prefrontal cortex is fully formed at age 25-26 leads them to leaning on the pre-frontal context of the adults around them, and missing that, whatever they're spending the most time with that's then possibly raising them.
Screens at lower resolutions and quality didn't seem to be as much of an issue compared to the hyper saturated motion with sound effects that are consciously chosen to keep eyeballs.
Like anything, digital can be used for good, or bad, and in lieu of good, the other can to happen and become more of a default.
I agree but it is much harder to stop people from building slot machines than to stop children from using them. Even easier than telling people to stop using them.
And hey, maybe if we actually take some autonomy and remove that market from actors who don't want to build the things the market is requesting then they'll actually build the things the market is requesting... it's easy to say we want something but no one listens when we still buy the thing we say we hate. Maybe it's addiction but it's still hard to fight against. (Though we could still do better by accommodating those who are trying to break the network effects. You can complain how hard it is to get off Facebook but if you're not going to make the minuscule extra effort to accommodate those who do leave then how can you expect the ground to be laid for you to?)
At the end of the day though, with kids, the OP's argument fails because it either assumes smartphones are an inevitability or that the benefits outweigh the costs. It's a bad argument.
Even the most Laissez-faire of parenting has boundaries; no reasonable adult is allowing their teenager to experiment with heroin or giving their 12 year old permission to drive their car down the freeway. The problem is that smartphone access isn't seen in the same category of danger that recreational opiates and unlicensed driving are in.
> “Reasonable” is a lynchpin bearing an awful lot of load here.
No it's not. I could imagine sentences where it would be, but not this sentence. Here, watch me replace the word:
"99% of adults are not allowing their teenager to to experiment with heroin or giving their 12 year old permission to drive their car down the freeway."
Even if most people aren't ""reasonable"", they are whatever adjective that sentence describes.
“Over half of U.S. adults surveyed said that it’s very inappropriate, somewhat appropriate, or were uncertain whether it’s appropriate for their child to set boundaries for their interactions” is a reasonable-sounding statement, too; it’s plausible, applies to children of all ages (below or beyond age 25!), and is demonstrably an aspect of culture represented by media and other ephemera.
The position itself is, of course, completely unreasonable — boundaries are never inappropriate to consider (and to contrast with the parent’s boundaries about immediate versus deferred conversations in unsafe circumstances, the child’s age and cognitive ability to assess risk, and so on), no matter how uncomfortable it is to teach a child about boundaries by honoring one they’ve presented one! — but that intolerance is presented in such a reasonable guise, with a tone of majority support to quash any brief qualms, that it causes many to overlook its true nature.
That sentence was the only part of the argument using the idea of something being "reasonable".
Whether you agree or disagree with their general stance, the word "reasonable" isn't load bearing.
In particular they didn't say that limiting cell phones was reasonable, or requires parents to be reasonable. They just wanted an example of parents enforcing boundaries.
The only load-bearing part of that sentence is the idea that parents do enforce those boundaries. Which they do. It's irrelevant if they are doing it because they're "reasonable".
TL;DR: I do know what the discussion is about. But your comment wasn't about the general discussion, it was about the quality of a specific point, and I'm defending that specific point.
It's a pretty generalized phenomena too. Few people actually think about the assumptions their arguments rely upon. It makes actual discussions difficult to have and leads to more arguing than problem solving
Someone installed one of these at a shop in SFbay a couple years ago and I tracked it down, took an SPL recording snapshot, and emailed the city to report a violation of noise laws with the proof. The noisemaker was physically uninstalled after a few weeks and did not return. So, presumably Home Depot is violating LA Noise Ordinance, and could reasonably be expected to accrue fines or even forced to cease operating their retail business on that property, given a properly filed code violation report; and, since any persistent sound levels necessary to cause discomfort are almost certainly an OSHA violation, a side copy to the relevant Home Depot worker unions in LA/Cali/US might produce a rather significant result as well.
reply