I own part of Google. I can't take it home with me. I don't even know what that would mean.
> If I own it, I can get a permit to build on it.
It is indeed possible to get a permit to build on/use public grounds.
> If I own it, I can refuse to allow everyone else to use it.
You can vote for representation that could in theory restrict access to just you. The other owners probably wouldn't agree to it, though. There are a lot of owners who want open access.
I think you're confusing things here. You seem to be talking about having full ownership of something, as if partial ownership isn't a thing.
sidfthec is a little confused, but they've got the spirit. Here is the key: the public owns it. Not any individual member of the public.
The public doesn't have a home, but if it did, it already took the national parks there. The public can get a permit to build there. The public can refuse to allow anyone else to use it. Remember: members of the public are not the public. "Anyone else" here actually includes members of the public (ie: you and I).
The issue is this shouldn’t have happened in the first place. We as a society should have learned from, at least, the debacle that was leaded gasoline and its impact on populations over generations.
I'm not sure what you mean. What would the alternative world look like in this case? Less safe / a lack of tires until we confirm every chemical used isn't dangerous? I don't think that's a good trade off. We still don't have good alternatives in 2023, let alone in the last 100 years.
And DDT, and mercury thermometers, and Teflon, and the list goes on...
It's a fundamental fact: introducing anything new to an environment disrupts the status quo. In a living environment, that means health problems for living things. You either stop creating synthetic materials or you have unforeseen consequences. You can mandate more research and more rigorous standards, but that has diminishing returns. Some things will slip past.
Doomy? The tone seems balanced and pragmatic to me. Nothing in the article implies an existential threat or takes a doomer perspective. The subject is depressing, but if that bothers you, you should probably skip environmental news altogether.
> What's the issue? It sounds like things are working as intended.
Studying and reporting about pollution is part of how things work as intended.
Maybe you sincerely expected something different when you clicked the link, but it comes off like you're seeking out this material and then complaining that it exists.
I'm not saying it's an issue with the research. It's very likely the researchers thought of this.
It IS an issue with the article linked here, since it does not explain the research and causes readers to walk away believing there were only 1280 people.
I know some folks that do this and indeed I do hate it. But not because I'm a slave to my device. I hate the buzzing because you should just put it on silent if you don't care about the notifications. It's pretty annoying to have to hear a buzz or ringer in an otherwise quiet room, and it gets to the hate level when you clearly don't even need it on.
It annoys me either way. Just put your phone on silent (unless you have certain contacts that need to get through in an emergency).
It's especially annoying when you don't look at your phone because you're just making noise for no reason. It's on the same level as playing music through your phone on the subway with no regard for those around you.
I know someone who will sit there for an hour texting people and each text that comes in rings the phone. They're literally staring at their phone and think that they need the ringer on.
but since our phones are ad-delivery platforms, they only give you the minimum amount of flexibility to solve it. So that person is helpless trying to choose between not knowing when somebody texts or having the phone ring all the time. It's not their fault that they don't have any reasonable option.
That's exactly it. The companies behind the devices have a negative incentive to solve the annoyance issue for you, since your annoyance (attention) is their flow of income.
Like why do I need to be repeat notified if someone texts me 3 times quickly in a row? We ought to have some kind of an agent system that can handle these things somewhat intelligently. Apple is doing a little better in this regard, but I can't help but feel that in the OSS world we would have had a bunch of solutions to this by now. In a fragmented fashion with terrible usability, of course.
My favorite bit of Apple user experience is when I get a text and don't read it immediately. My phone will buzz me again two minutes later to really reinforce the urgency.
> but since our phones are ad-delivery platforms, they only give you the minimum amount of flexibility to solve it.
Three actions (volume button, tap, tap) on my Android to turn my phone from ringer on to silent isn't that bad. And even though I don't have an iOS device, I'd hardly say they're built to be ad-delivery platforms. iOS isn't really in the ad business as much.
My biggest problem is forgetting to un-silence it. I'll literally go days and miss tons of important calls/texts before I remember to check. I used to do that all the time but stopped after missing a some very important calls.
It's annoying, period. You're forcing me to listen to your life events in an annoyingly prodding manner.
However, I can tolerate it if there's reasoning. If you simply don't care and let a device make incessant irritating noises, now you're just being annoying.
what sort of frequency are we talking here? Because the frequency that my kids get annoyed by it is maybe once a week. Most of the time my phone is in my pocket and nobody else even knows it's buzzing. The kids only know when I have the phone in my hand and they are nearby, or if they are looking at my phone (which is rare). I don't think it warrants a solution like silencing, which mainly serves to ensure I miss everything until days later when I remember to turn it back to vibrate.
Putting the annoyance aside for a second, I think this is partly a difference of viewpoints when it comes to what constitutes being a "slave to your device" as you say.
Having the phone on vibrate or the ringer on all the time feels like being way more attached to your phone than having it on silent. Vibrate/ring means the phone gets your attention immediately all of the time. Silent means I decide when I give the phone attention.
Back to the annoyance, I know two people who like to think they're not attached to their device and leave it at home when they're out. But then when I'm visiting and they're out running an errand or something, their phones ding and ding and ding and there's nothing to do about it (since I'm not going to silence their phone for them...). I have lots of stories like this.
Of course, this all stems on me being baffled that someone would go days without checking their phone.
> I know two people who like to think they're not attached to their device and leave it at home when they're out.
This baffles me. Like, 80% of the reason I even have a phone is to be able to communicate/look up needed information when I'm away from home. It's when I don't leave my house for a few days that I might find I missed a bunch of important messages.
> Back to the annoyance, I know two people who like to think they're not attached to their device and leave it at home when they're out. But then when I'm visiting and they're out running an errand or something, their phones ding and ding and ding and there's nothing to do about it (since I'm not going to silence their phone for them...). I have lots of stories like this.
This would heavily annoy me too and is absolutely deserving of criticism. However I think that is a very different problem than having a phone that vibrates in your pocket that somebody occasionally feels because they're sitting next to you or holding your phone (my kids sometimes take pictures for example). The two might seem somewhat similar at a high-level, but the fact that one includes the phone being on the person and the other does not, that seems like a huge difference to me.
Could have just been someone going around with a bomb sniffing dog while they were assessing the package. I'm guessing they weren't searching everyone's hotel rooms afterwards...
> Numerous agencies have been documented using this sort of dishonest and dubious tactics, so I do not think that possibility could be dismissed at the start.
The wording of this is similar to conspiracy theorists that spout off lots of theories with little to no evidence or logic.
1. Is there any evidence that the "local police and fire department" were searching anything that would normally require a warrant, besides the suspicious package? Surely Caesers would give a good amount of access without the charade if the police said they suspected something, and be able to do the search in a quieter way (which would mean it's less likely to tip off anyone who they'd be looking for).
2. Is there evidence of agencies (in this case, local Las Vegas FD and PD) planting fake bombs in the past to avoid getting a warrant?
You should need a lot more evidence to think that it was planted by police. So many more scenarios are more likely.
Same goes for a bomb though... it's Vegas, far more likely the owner of the bag was drunk, stoned and or otherwise distracted and forgot it than it being a bomb.
I've been at big tech companies for most of my career and I've never seen anyone deny the existence of a technical bug. I've seen plenty of teams mark a bug as lower priority and never fix it because other things are higher priority. But denying that the bug exists, especially after a detailed explanation? That doesn't resonate with my experiences.
It used to be writing the outputs from the C/C++ preprocessor (.i files) to disk took forever (5+ minutes IIRC) with Microsoft's compilers. I asked one of the lead compiler developers why, and he waved me away saying it was just really complicated. Around that time a bunch of tools existed for GCC that worked with .i files, but none existed in the Microsoft ecosystem likely because writing .i files was so slow.
I was on the compiler test team at the time and we did lots of stuff with .i files, our tests were distributed across a large cluster of test machines (see my post about that https://meanderingthoughts.hashnode.dev/how-microsoft-tested...) so it wasn't a big deal, but it still annoyed me.
One day I decided to find out what was going on, so I loaded up process monitor while outputting a .i file and watched what was happening. Much to my surprise, only 1 byte was being written at a time! No wonder writes were taking forever.
A quick dive into the source code revealed a comment above the file write call that read to the effect
// to work around a bug in windows 98
So anyway I opened a bug against the compiler saying we should probably fix that. :)
But that's not the type of story that's being claimed from the person I responded to.
Of course the lead developer waved you off. You wondered why things took forever, and the lead developer knew it was a complicated system and figured it wasn't worth their time investigating. It happened to be incorrect, but the lead developer wasn't in denial. They just filtered the issue out because they can't afford to go down every rabbit-hole they come across. I'm sure once you found the actual bug, it was later fixed.
The person I was responding to seems to think a large number of people are in denial when a bug is filed against them. That doesn't make sense, and isn't something I see. It'd be as if when you pointed out the actual bug, the lead developer continued to say it wasn't actually a bug (which is of course ridiculous and I bet didn't happen).
You are ascribing an absurdly maximalist viewpoint to me, one that would be obviously wrong at its face.
I know it's not so confusing as to get that sort of interpretation, because of the score on the comment, and comments like the above that explain to you how this happens.
As a result, I don't feel comfortable providing more detail publicly about my situation. That far off the mark tends to indicate an aggressive rather than curious interlocutor.
I am comfortable building on their example. The particulars of the issue are quite similar in a very helpful way.
I did the investigation, did a fix, worked it up to my manager and my managers manager. Elated, we work diligently for a couple weeks to document concisely, 3 page tech doc, briefest code deltas possible, one page + slides withs simple diagrams.
It gets bogged down at managers managers coleads submanager for the platform team implicated. They basically say "reading the single byte at a time means its provably serial and thus has no concurrency bugs.", as indicated in my original comment.
It's not an example at all. It's just as baffling to use it as an example when there are much better sources.
Pre-Elon, you have financial statements showing the strength of the company. Profitable before Covid before they hired a massive number of people (like a lot of companies during covid) and then dropped below profitability. It's very possible that a smaller layoff and a focus on fundamentals could have brought them back to profitability.
Elon has admitted that they've lost around 50% in ad revenue since the takeover and that they're not cash-flow positive. Reports are saying 59%-70%. I'm inclined to believe that Elon is under reporting to the public (based on his history of exaggerating/under-reporting/lying about this kind of stuff). Either way, it's clear Twitter is in a much weaker position now than pre-takeover.
The irony being that he presumably wants more information on the mailing list to keep a good archive, while not giving enough information for people to understand that and follow the advice later.
Yes we do (if you're a US citizen). You even get to vote for the "board of directors" so to speak (the legislative/executive branches of the US gov).
As for your other example, I can own quite a bit of a company and still get denied access to their offices and computer systems.