pharrlax
And yet it's his face splashed over the "SEXUAL HARASSMENT SCANDAL" headlines, siphoning energy and criticism from the actual monsters, because he is a TV star so his being mentioned is more sensational.
Dave McClure is basically being given a slap on the wrist for obviously firing-worthy offenses. Would that happen if a celebrity wasn't taking the brunt of the press?
Don't get me wrong. The other stories are really, really bad. Insanely evil, even. But the idea that Sacca's extremely minor dick move almost a decade ago deserves to be lumped in with the monstrous stories of serial stalking and sexual battery is pretty ludicrous. Makes me think the writer just wanted to shoehorn in a TV star to inflate the piece's reach.
The problem in the U.S. is that we have this bizarre system where hospitals charge exorbitant prices and then insurers haggle them down to something halfway sane. So when you're paying for "insurance" you're (ideally) getting both catastrophic coverage (i.e. actual insurance) as well as access to a cartel that negotiates prices down from impossible heights on your behalf -- even for routine care.
Since most people who regularly access medical care do so through these cartels, care providers have no incentive to make care more affordable than what they can get away with -- and insurers have no incentive to allow the price to drop either, since people being able to afford care outside the cartels would ultimately undercut their profits.
This system is fundamentally unworkable. There's really no way to detangle the perverse incentives here in a way that will bring prices down to a level comparable with single payer healthcare.
At a 17% rate, I would have paid $11,500 already, and would be on track to pay $22,950 more if I stay at my current job for 1.5 more years with no salary increases (I expect salary increases).
There were some students in my cohort who reverted back to their previous careers after bootcamp, but most became developers. I would bet the Holberton plan is far, far, far more lucrative than an upfront fee, as long as they are discerning in who they accept.
Corporations literally exist only to protect and grow their bottom line, and are engineered to reflexively throw everything else under the bus--employees, the environment, the general public, reason itself--to defend that goal.
Their statements will never come out and admit this, however, because it compromises that goal. Thus literally, literally everything corporations say in an official capacity is a lie, almost without exception. The subtext is always "we are doing this primarily because we believe it will help us make more money".
The best we can do in a capitalist society is create smart regulations that channel that inevitably self-serving motive to align as closely with what's good for society at large as possible.
US voters are impotent. Millions are about to be kicked off Medicare and Medicaid because of the signature of a man who repeatedly pledged over and over again that he would not ever cut them. Politics has become a metagame of tribal signaling with only a tenuous connection to actual policy.
It's more likely that his weight set point has been lowered, and now his hormonal hunger indicators are defending that set point.
He needs to power through it and eat more, even though it's going to feel like he's uncomfortably full all the time. I went through the same thing. It's all mental. It has nothing to do with the digestive system.
Another phenomenon I've been seeing more of is a company that gets in early to a niche gaining control of the subreddit around that niche, tilting the scales in their favor.
Two examples I can think of are /r/nootropics, whose mod team is led by the owner of nootropics supplier Ceretropic, and /r/amazonmerch, whose sole mod is the owner of MerchInformer, a SaaS Amazon Merch research product.
They're each careful to never moderate in an overtly heavy-handed way that would cause a user revolt, but nonetheless, their companies are mentioned in the each subreddit far more often than their competitors. It's an inherent conflict of interest, and one that will only worsen as these niches grow in popularity.
If anything, there is now no end to the threads that can be pulled in pursuit of curiosity now that so much information is instantly accessible.
A handful tried and failed to get development jobs, and went back to their old career, or pivoted more or less laterally to a tech-adjacent field that pays less than development. I can tell you that 100% of the people who failed to get development jobs were people who, during the bootcamp, visibly put in the bare minimum of effort to skate by.
Not well-read on the case law here, but are you sure signing a non-binding pledge qualifies under this section? I would assume it underwent basic vetting by constitutional law experts.
Obviously there are disadvantages as well, but it's a tradeoff, and if executed correctly it's one that, as fewer people turn off JS and browsers become better at running web apps, is increasingly becoming worth the complexity for certain use cases.
Now bundling it with the rest of your JS, that's indeed a mistake.
Of course ISPs offer a "capability" to do things like electronic publishing. I'm using that capability to do it right now! The word "capability" implies a handoff to third parties where the actual publishing occurs; it doesn't imply that ISPs offer publishing tools themselves.
As comments on this piece note, this question has already been tested at the Supreme Court, which has found it ambiguous enough to grant the FCC the discretion to classify ISPs under Title I or Title II, so this line of argument is not only specious but irrelevant. Net neutrality won't be saved on a technicality; it'll only be saved if enough people are convinced on the merits and make a big enough stink about it.
I'm quite sure I've received value from browsing ad-supported news outlets and using other ad-supported online services, so speak for yourself.
Furthermore, even though no one likes to admit they're positively persuaded by ads, it's universally true. How many times have you seen an ad for a movie and then gone to look up its reviews and considered watching it that weekend? Ads are just a way for companies to get the word out about their products / services, and sometimes they're legitimately useful.
The Trump administration might be prone to racist paranoia panics but I don't see what objective this ban accomplishes unless there's some sort of legitimate intel.
It's not a laptop, because it's missing crucial laptop features (ability to do work on it). And it's not a phone because it's missing crucial phone features (portability and calls).
So when mine broke, I just didn't feel it was worth replacing. I've lost no value from not having an iPad, because everything it did could also be done on something else I own.
Yep. What developer types don't like to admit is that for the average user, who doesn't use the features excluded by the walled garden anyway, the tradeoff is well worth the security gains.
Though I'm guessing it gets a lot more accurate when it can take and average multiple shots.