HN user
Uber has a history of sketchy behavior, such as investigating journalists who have written less than complimentary stories. Uber has basically done the Exact thing Fowler is explaining before. To me, that provides a pretty convincing argument that they are more than capable, and more than willing to do it again.
It sounds like the criticism is "I hate that she might change her mind based on new evidence". I'd say its a good thing that they were willing to alter their policy based on whether it would create jobs or not.
Consider the pressure / race to the bottom this puts on the rest of the EU though. The EU has an incentive to try to keep things fair between the states (disallowing sweetheart deals to lure companies away from other members), because this sort of competition is harmful to the EU as a whole. It's not like Apple is going to stop selling to Europe; they'll be somewhere if not Ireland, and the EU benefits as a whole if Apple is not allowed to skip out on paying its share.
There's a whole article above about what laws were not followed and a solution that works for both parties: Apple pays the taxes it owes. If it is unhappy with that burden, it can leave Ireland and the EU, but I suspect that will not happen.
If your cause is to decrease advertising on the web, and these actions diminish its effectiveness and potentially lead to decreased advertising in search of a better revenue stream, well that sounds like effective activism to me.
Except they're pretty clearly private companies, not Public Goods. And as such, they can do basically whatever they want about speech on their platforms.
But the article doesn't argue for NO parking lots; it argues that FREE parking lots are the issue. The stores could stay open with paid parking, and could lower costs for non-drivers because they no longer needed to subsidize that free parking by charging everyone more.
I'm not sure how you can argue drones minimize foreign civilian casualties, given the constant reports of drones bombing weddings and social gatherings based on the location of a cell phone. That's basically just repeating direct propaganda.
I mean, Trump has also talked about banning legal muslim immigration from places like Syria; does that not count as anti-immigration?
Why can't we blame the democratic candidate, who was so unappealing to progressive voters that they preferred Nader? I would suggest it is the fault of that candidate (and his party) that they lost the election. No one is entitled to anyone else's votes, regardless of how bad the competition is. Voters have agency, and have no compulsion to vote for one specific candidate to avoid another evil one (that specific candidate still must earn those votes).
I agree with all of this. a16z and other VC's are pretty clearly on the side of capital, and don't really believe that labor provides any value. Employee's taking lower salaries and investing years of their lives don't provide any lasting value according to a16z. I just cannot believe that he would try to justify taking back fairly given compensation because an employee did not want to continue doubling down and investing more and more money and labor into a startup.
You're saying we should ignore past bad behavior because Google, Facebook, etc. are good guys now. Logically, that would lead us to excuse current bad behavior by smaller companies because everyone does it, and they'll do good once they are big enough.
Do you have a reference for that? Maybe some evidence of why you consider these numbers misleading? I worked in the tax business recently and I'd say both those numbers are actually below average for out customers (who were mostly poor or middle class).
Doing this on LinkedIn would be really bad, because that data would be out there for recruiters, and you'd lose most of your leverage when trying to negotiate at a new job.
Another take on this issue is that the FBI and NSA have a strong opposing interest. While they may not lobby in the same sense as Apple etc., they do represent law enforcement, which is an enormously powerful lobby in the US. So all those private companies are on one side, sure, but US law enforcement is on the other, and that's quite a fight (and one that law enforcement has been winning for a long time now).
To be fair, H1Bs are already only supposed to be used in the case where you can't find an American for the job, which already suggests the visa holder should have some extra special talent because they can do a job no American can.
Sadly the phone system is an enormous legacy beast, so this is a lot easier said than done.
We use Mesos/Marathon/Docker extensively at my work as well, and Marathon has definitely been the flakiest of those three.
FYI, Stash is now Bitbucket Server, and the plan as I've heard it is to work towards feature parity between the two.
But in this case, the buyer already purchased the product.
"turning off" might be accomplished by something like breaking or unplugging the mic, or hiding it in the glove box (as was listed in the article). You are giving the officers unrestricted access to these vehicles for large segments of time; there's basically no way to physically prevent them from messing with the equipment, especially if there are no consequences for doing so.
Of course, in the other direction, private spending has it's own problems. Most of the money is spent on recurring conditions where you have to take the drug forever rather than one-time cures. Additionally, things like hair loss and impotence draw far greater funding than actual life-threatening illness, because the only motive is profit.
We use Stash (and Jira and Confluence and a bunch of Agile stuff). Its... ok. Its a lot better than some of the other self-hosted repositories we tried, but there are some rough spots. Pull requests are a lot worse than Github, for example. The integration with Jira can be pretty cool though.
It doesn't really change anything in Chicago. While it might be nice to get some individual corrupt official(s) where they belong, Chicago as a whole shows no evidence that it's becoming less corrupt.
If it isn't profitable, maybe they shouldn't have signed contractual agreements and made promises to the govt related to their buildout. They've already gained large benefits from promising to build out their network; it hardly seems unfair to expect them to follow through on their end of the bargain.
You can try to be an independent state, if you'd like. Good luck against the US Government though, they have a bit of a resource advantage.
When will NATO destroy an entire nation, civilians and all? How is that a remotely reasonable response? That's like suggesting that Pakistan would be justified in nuking Washington DC because American drone strikes have killed civilians there. There's no world where its justifiable to murder a nation of civilians, ever.
To be fair, there are people out there who are pushing for surveillance and war because it is financially beneficial (see: the major rise in weapons company's stock prices since the attack). You have examples of intelligence higher-ups who leave govt work and go on to open private security consultancies where they are paid enormous sums; they reap quite a windfall for their roll in pushing surveillance. They may not be cartoon villains but its hard to argue they are trying to do whats right for the country, and coincidentally it also will make them fabulously wealthy.
So, you're suggesting that if surveillance works, then they can't act. But also if it doesn't work, they can't act. It sounds like the American people would be better served spending that money elsewhere if it can't actually buy us anything.
The companies are mostly responsible for creating them, though. No representative is out there introducing complex tax loopholes that benefit his donors without prompting. Whether or not it is immoral to use those loopholes once they exist, the process of lobbying to create specific loopholes so you don't have to pay anymore seems more clearly unethical to me. You're basically "investing" lobbying money in exchange for a huge RoI in the form of tax breaks.