RingwormOne

How revolutionary was this when published?

It's maintaining all the infrastructure required to manage a large dev team.

Glad he is speaking up about this. Unfortunately the business model of the companies mentioned depends on their showing you what they think will keep you engaged. They necessarily have to curate what you see.

I don't have much sympathy for the lecturer because it's probably safe to bet she has made a conscious decision to maintain her homeless lifestyle. I find it very hard to believe that someone with a PhD could not find extra work, or do something else entirely, to afford an apartment.

She presumably has other options given her education, unlike other psychologically disabled people who have no other option but to live on the street. Of course pathological stubbornness could be a disability.

I actually did read the article. The article mentions one or two examples of mentally typical people who are homeless. Ok. I've dealt with many many more than that who are most certainly not University lecturers.

What jobs are they working? How many jobs have they had in the past year? I can only speak to my own experience with the homeless I've come in contact with. Most are mentally ill or are struggling with drug addiction. Sure some of them have jobs, but jobs of the street sweeping, sign holding sort that can't afford them even the most meager housing.

This is one of those common sense things that just hasn't been done yet. No good reason why.

Email your congressman.

This is not a result of prohibitive housing prices or anything like that. Through my work in the homeless community I've seen and heard first hand that chronic homelessness is almost always a result of mental illness and/or drug use. Those two problems have always existed, but opiate abuse is much worse now than it has ever been.

Of course there are sad cases of people unable to find jobs who are otherwise 'normal', but these cases are in the minority. Many people unable to find jobs or hold down jobs beyond the most menial sort have mental illness that prevents them from doing so.

I'd like to see successful rain/night/snow/road construction/fog condition tests before I get in one

Agreed. Occam's razor is well applied here. Everyone else is investing in tech to get rich, I see no reason to suppose card carrying capitalist Saudi's wouldn't be driven by the allure of profit as well.

Well the US has around 320 million people, Asia has over 3 billion, so...

Be careful, you're rejecting the rule of law if you advocate for legal repercussions. What you judge to be immoral may not be judged to be immoral by others. When outrage of the masses is the sufficient condition for legal punishment, we have mob rule.

Apple should be held accountable by whom? The government? The consumer? Apple did not break a law, so law enforcement cannot hold them accountable. The consumer can decide not to buy Apple products though, that is a reasonable response.

But they are doing what's best for them without breaking the law. You cannot reasonably expect anything more from any actor in a society. In personal relationships we expect more (lying is legal but frowned upon), or else we break off that relationship, but the functioning of a business in society does not amount to a personal relationship.

This is why we have laws. Expecting people to be 'nice' is naive. They must be coerced.

If you choose not to buy apple products as a result of their behavior, fine. If you want to convince your friends to do the same, fine. But legal repercussions are reserved for law breaking entities. Loophole exploitation is not law breaking.

Don't fault corporations for exploiting legal loopholes to save money... They optimize what they must optimize as operating businesses, and if we the citizens want to compel them to do something we must pass the laws necessary to do so...

Stop moralizing the behavior of companies. They aren't humans.

If you choose not to buy apple products in reaction to their behavior, great. If you want to convince your friends to do the same, great. But legal repercussions are reserved for law breaking entities. Loophole exploitation is not law breaking.

What applications does decentralized consensus enable creation of, aside from cryptocurrencies, that are infeasible to make with a database?

So you care about diversity in the color of someone's skin but not in what really defines them as a person? Or you think skin color defines people? And that all white people are pretty much the same? You're showing yourself to be quite racist.

I'm glad you asked! Diversity in musical tastes, religious and political ideology and affiliation, food preference (because new cuisine is always great to discover), experiences as a result of living in a primarily rural vs urban setting, occupational diversity, etc etc. I could go on. You care about diversity in things that don't really matter. When I walk into a room full of people I don't really care about their income, or the color of their skin. I care about them as people, their interests, their unique life stories. You should stop obsessing so much about race and economic status. This is a free to use internet forum. No one is barred from joining based on their race or wealth.

Again, it seems you're assuming that just because someone is "white" and not rich/poor they're the same as other "white", not rich/poor people. That's offensive and naive.

You only care about diversity involving people from socioeconomic or racial groups associated with poverty or historical oppression.

That ignores so many other kinds of diversity in the world.

Your definition is far too exclusive and narrow minded.

And I'm happy to see someone from Iowa posting here. If someone from a different minority group posted here I would be happy as well. There are many ways to be diverse.

You're really grabbing on to race and socioeconomic status to justify ignoring the fact that that person is not representative of most of the folks here.

See? We can both play these games.

False. The lawyers are there to protect the company.