throwaway90999
Google does not open source the VAST majority of their code -- it remains tightly restricted. Surely agree this is an accurate statement?
Your feigned ignorance is disingenuous. An enormous legal battle over the platform took place within the past decade.
We are very lucky that the outcome was favorable and that the platform has been able to continue to improve.
You are certainly aware that the vast majority of code is under strict restrictions and will be leveraged for competitive/controlling purposes rather than being shared. Employees wishing to freely contribute code in these domains will have their requests denied.
We've both been employed by large SV companies; we both know how this works. The majority of software will be used in an attempt to control the market.
More than 10%?
More than 1%?
Linux is still not a significant player on desktops. Microsoft is still completely dominating that space.
Apple and Google do not contribute code freely, nor do they contribute a significant amount of their code. The contributions are limited to areas in which an advantage exists. One only has to look at the machinations present in other development platforms to realize the threat. Consider what's happened with Java in recent years. Or look to Swift. Or to the entire Microsoft ecosystem which was built in part on a foundation of open source. BSD licensed code permeates the Windows environment; to ask "what's the concern" belies a rather stunning ignorance of Microsoft's behavior over the three prior decades.
This doesn't paint an accurate picture. Google isn't deploying Fiber out of any notion of selflessness. This is a competitive play, and a very good one at that.
You say selfless ideals, I say this is exactly how "the market" and "competition" are commonly understood to function -- in the absence of corruption, regulatory capture and state granted monopolies.
We do have those. In this case the common library is called "libc." In this case (and in a few others) the Go team decided to intentionally avoid providing an interface to this function.
The good news is it would take just a few minutes to add support for go to call strftime directly from libc.
But this isn't an utterly imaginably spectacular device. It's merely a run of the mill consumer-grade portable computer according to modern standards.
Your rent would be insignificant compared to, for example, the cost of a truly spectacular computer by modern standards, such as a modern search engine cluster with a price tag of perhaps a half billion dollars not counting ongoing opex.
The differentiator you're probably thinking of is whether the worker chooses which hours they work. If the worker decides independently how much they will work and at what times then the IRS doesn't tend to consider the relationship employment -- regardless of how much time is put in. This is precisely how these driving services operate.
If the employer is scheduling a fixed schedule, say 9-5 M-F, then the IRS considers it an employment arrangement. Regardless of the number of hours worked. But that is not at all how these services operate.
But the more general answer to your question: When supply outstrips demand the only reasonable response is to build more housing.
Complaining that driving jobs have low value isn't constructive. The value of those jobs will approach zero soon due to technology. Instead, address the economic imbalance and let supply meet the demand.
If I can commute across the bay so can everyone else.
Acknowledging that you will need to fire some portion of those you hire is an adult approach to the issue. Likewise from an employee's perspective. It's not a big deal to plan for things possibly not working out.
That is why I was careful to specify traditional satellite internet services. It appears the distinction was lost.
I have a few friends who I worked with at a large company, the kind with a large bureaucratic, broken management system that shuffles around incompetence without ever purging it. They went on to work at Netflix and they tell me how much they love it. They no longer have to deal with terminally incompetent divisions. They're top performers; there's no fear. If Netflix were stupid enough to fire them they'd instantly be buried in new opportunity. Of course, Netflix isn't that stupid.
Consider the economic incentives: A strong will-fire policy is a great negative incentive to prevent incompetent hires in the first place. It's not so scary if you're competent and capable -- and that's precisely the kind of people a company will want to hire..
Kyllo was about thermal imaging but the opinion is quite clear. There's a much, much stronger case for thermal imaging equipment than there is for a device which probes via radio waves.
Over half of all quoted gun deaths are suicides. [edit: removed mention of suicide survivability as I don't have a reference handy. But remember: The most likely person to shoot you is yourself.]
Let's remove suicide from the discussion and talk about violence. The primary driver for violence is socioeconomic. The US has a huge wealth and education disparity problem, exacerbated by a drug war which focuses primarily on the lower economic classes. Most political rhetoric surrounding gun violence focuses on denying lower-class individuals access to firearms and is inexorably linked to institutionalized racism [ cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_night_special#Economic... ]
What these stats don't show is the EXTREME socioeconomic skew involved in violent crime. If we look at gun deaths by wealth quadrile we find that the upper 40% have very, very few gun deaths -- on par with the nicer areas in Europe. Our inflated gun death statistics come almost entirely from the lower 40%. That is, gun deaths are emblematic of America's class divide.
The right to self defense is a convenient target for politicians to score easy wins. Constructively addressing the USA's violence problem is a very different issue and frankly is almost entirely unrelated to firearm legislation.
For example, much as you describe, I scaled back my high school senior year to less than a half day in order to make time for community college courses. If I did not partially pull myself out of high school I would not have had enough time to pursue my education.
Looking back decades later I am pleased with my choice.
If you're really interested in history take a college level course. Grade and high school history subjects often contain absurdly simplified material -- sometimes to the point of incorrectness. One can miss high school history entirely and end up better informed.
Both options have the same result: no bugfix. However option #2 is a lot more transparent. Part of that transparency is your being aware that Google simply does not care.
Certainly we can find other philosophical approaches which are more reasonable.
You could argue that caging an orangutan in particular is not important, however you could just as easily argue that the world might manage if we all stopped growing potatoes.