hourago

> Who is asking for foldable phones?

Corporations are valued on growth not on sales. Any idea to grow will be evaluated over just keeping a good product.

This is why companies are betting billions on crazy ideas while their products just become worse year to year.

A CEO that says, we will keep this ship floating will be fired the next day. CEOs are selected on how much grow they promise to bring and deliver to do.

Until this changes things are just going to be getting worse, more expensive and more bloated. And there is no enough competition to create a counter to it.

> I don't know why it's so important to have puritan output

"Puritan" is quite a charged word, can you give examples of what kind of content do you think the article refers to? They talk about "harmful" content, on the other side.

> Verification was bad and now it’s a joke

Verification was serviceable, now it is harmful. There is a big difference there. Even if formerly was not perfect.

> It’s silly to think that Elon isnt incredibly talented and smart in some ways.

EVERYBODY is "incredibly talented and smart in some ways".

Ironically, all these will be solved by raising everybody 3% and that's it. By trying to measure individual performance, the company is taking away time from their employees. And the ones that end up getting the rise are the best ones at doing reviews, not at doing the job.

I prefer that everybody gets the same raise, and that the company pays competitive salaries. To spend so much time justifying your own job for a company that is making a lot of profits makes little sense.

> depending on the functioning level in antiquity, I imagine.

The classical difference between them is money. When a powerful person acted "crazy" the term used was "eccentricity".

> throw new SomeUncheckedException("Something failed, idk", e)

Who does that? It looks like an anti-pattern.

> Choosing to enjoy life today instead of waiting for tomorrow for that enjoyment isn't a failure, it's a choice. It comes with risk and tradeoffs.

That dichotomy is not always true. There is a percentage of people that can enjoy their youth (travel, parties, ...) and still get a plentiful future. Other people needs to renounce to everything now just to survive to tomorrow. So, not always a choice there.

> Though there may be examples of opportunistic or anti-competitive behaviour, the effects are unlikely to have been material.

So, there is prove that it is anti-competitive behavior. There is prove that all big corporations should be split in pieces. But The Economist decides to ignore that.

The Economist is not that bad. At least, it presents the data. Big monopolies are the source of inflation, the lack of competition is the source of inflation. But it always falls short to get to any reasonable conclusion, and decides to ignore its own data. That's a shame.

You can read yesterday's discussion and full-readable article at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36585327

A lot of people angry here because they are not allowed to discriminate based in actually protected classes like gender. It seems that the hiring manager just wants to make sure that the potential employee is not going to discriminate against other employees. A very reasonable position.

I see many people arguing "to include racists is also diversity" a sentence that may be grammatically correct but it is meaningless when it comes to semantics.

> who defines inappropiate?

The country laws, the company leadership, the hiring manager. That are the people and mechanisms that define what is appropriate or not for a job. (More people and more levels of legality may be involved).

All the argument is "do not judge people by their politics", and then it dedicates a lot of words to judge people by their politics. It is not just ironic but nonsensical.

A political biased piece that tries to hide behind a wall of very faulty reasoning.

I remember this kind of news for tech like hard disks. Day to day it felt that this improvements do not matter but that 20MB hard disk became 100MB then 400MB. It was exciting to see 1GB, it seemed impossible. Now you have for granted 1,000,000MB SSD super-fast high-capacity hard disks.

I hope that batteries continue improving like this and other technologies. It is going to be like magic.

How is it different that the page linked in the article? I do not see why that page is so bad, it looks like an average page from a book with a linked index at the top.

This is the link: https://realpython.com/iterate-through-dictionary-python/

It does not look like SEO spam to me. The site seems actually nice and well produced.

I may be missing something, thou. Why is that page so bad that the author does not want it in the list of results?

By the author's metric is even worse to read a book. If you are looking for the exact answer to your exact code maybe that is the problem.

To get free training so you can solve your problem yourself and understand the overall situation seems a very good deal. The example to complain about seems very badly chosen.

I think that Google is getting worse and that advertisements in webpages should be regulated. But to complain that you are being taught to fish instead of given a fish seems too entitled.

> No, we are awash in labels already and I am sick of everything having a legal treatise attached to it. Labels just throw the problem back in the laps of consumers, an approach which clearly does not work.

Some labels are good and informative. Some labels are just a way for corporations to blame consumers for what consumers cannot do anything about.

Falsehood: - "Consumers are purchasing toxic products, so that is what we make."

Reality: - "Consumers buy what is available and they can afford."

It is funny how we want express delivery just in case we stop caring about what we are buying in a couple of days.

> In academia, it’s almost impossible to say “no” to a senior faculty.

That is so strange. In the corporate world it is always easy and straightforward to say no to higher ups. They always accept a no gracefully. /S

In my experience, the best organization are the ones that are willing to get bottom up feedback. The more feedback is accepted and acted upon, the best is the organization. None gets it 100%, most are just half good at it.

> do the right and scientific thing and ruin my future in academia, or do what my peers are doing and make senior faculty like me.

Look for a middle ground. Do not make things worse if you cannot make them better. You will get small wins and wins will become bigger with time. And remember how it felt so you do not repeat the same behavior when you are at the top.

Sometimes, there are reason why things are like they are. Try to change the system instead of change people.

> “Our own hope is that, through AI, we can eventually approximate a 1:1 teacher:student ratio for every student in CS50, as by providing them with software-based tools that, 24/7, can support their learning at a pace and in a style that works best for them individually,”

Is the goal to improve students learning or to reduce cost? The article does not even mention it. And I think that it is important to state the goal to know if the technology succeeds or fails. Too many "new technologies" are promoted by salesmen that move posts as soon as it fails and claim victory for things that nobody asked for.

> Floating rate debt holders can get burned pretty badly in an inflationary period.

So, it is the change in inflation, the raise, what makes it bad. If you ask for a loan when interest rates are at 15% your house price is going to be lower than when interest rates are at 1%.

So, you are right that "an inflationary period" as "increasing inflation" may be bad. But, maybe, the problem was that interest rates got to 1% . Such low interest make that just getting to a low 5% you are paying x5. Print more money, keep interest rates at 10% and unless they go up to 50% you are not so bad as people is nowadays.

My parents, and all their generation, purchased their apartments with inflation over 10%. The first couple of years was harsh, they had to keep things tight so their salary can cover all their needs. Four years later, their loan was just a small part of their expenses. Eight years later, their loan was less than their phone bill. Inflation has taken their debt away. How is that worse than people being indebted for decades dedicating half their earnings for housing? Maybe inflation is corrosive for investing but maybe it is not bad for the average Joe.

Inflation so low as it has been kept the past decades has created a fantastic environment for investing. But it seems that has taken away any chances for average people to make a living. Hyper-inflation is bad, but low inflation is equally bad when it helps to concentrate wealth in a few hands.

I see many people demonizing inflation because it will hurt "investments". Maybe, it is time that something else than salaries hurt for a change.

There is a small Swedish-like village in Japan:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_Hills

- https://www.swedenhills.jp/town/index.html

The main problem I see with developing for VisionOS is the lack of reach. I expect that after the initial novelty the user base will be reduced further.

The closed development ecosystem of Apple is alluring because it offers access to its iOS devices.

But what makes it worth the effort to learn a new SDK, or even buy a MacOs device to develop for it, for just a few thousands of devices?

Growth at any cost is creating a dystopian society. Tax share price increases so companies can focus again in making good products and providing good services.

To reward growth above all, and share price instead of profits does that, creates incentives to grow now at the cost of the future of the company and the trust of customers or even society.

> Virtually all companies oppose unionization.

In the USA. It is different in other countries, it could be better in the USA also.

> they will even break the law

This is probably true in the USA, as that laws seem to not be enforced. But if you enforce employee's protection laws companies will respect them.

> Following a protracted back-and-forth between both parties, the IPI partially granted Apple’s request last fall, saying that Apple could have rights relating to only some of the goods it wanted, citing a legal principle that considers generic images of common goods—like apples—to be in the public domain. In the spring, Apple launched an appeal.

And the worst part is that Apple is wasting tax-payer money around the world with this kind of mitigations. While it avoids paying taxes, illegally for sure but difficult to prove, it wastes money that could have spend in public education or health care. Apple is so big that it becomes pure cartoonish evilness without even trying. It is time to break up all these monstrosities.

Let's start selling nuclear weapons before the Russians do it! /s

Does that sound reasonable? It is a very week justification and raises the question "are we the baddies?".