taxyz23

This is why USA has First Amendment. Using the law to enforce subjective standards of niceness is the first step to political suppression.

Way too optimistic in my view.

When someone can get away with this for 8 years and no one notices you know college tuition is too high...

I work in billing software for a publicly traded software company and this is a constant temptation. I'm never gonna do it because I'm not gonna blow up my career for a relative pittance, but I can't tell you how many times I've been annoyed that I couldn't act on private information and make ~$100k or so.

These guys are like the kids who saw the Tide Pod challenges and decided to actually eat the pods. I bet insider trading is not as fun when you're unemployed and bankrupt.

And in jail.

This is very misleading particularly for those not familiar US laws. If you want to say publicly disclosed campaign contributions with no quid pro quo is bribery than say so but that's not most people's definition of bribery. Democracy requires campaigns and campaigns require money.

Highly skeptical of this take. Lots of allegations claiming various payments are really bribes When all is said and done there will be few true bribes found and those will likely be by rogue relatively lower level or little supervised employees Suspect this is a disgruntled employee with a good lawyer who dreamed up a way to squeeze Microsoft. Who doesn't hate or want to hate Microsoft ? Big companies are well aware of the massive liability and associated legal costs under US federal law for bribery (domestic and foreign) and no way are they going to conspire systemically to destroy themselves. There have already been well documented and publicized federal bribery cases against companies such as Walmart. No legal department is going to tolerate bribery

In general in US, No. Unbelievable that someone would think otherwise but understandable I guess in these times.

[1]https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/public-policy/hr-public-policy....

I really like dart actually. It's typed, close enough to JavaScript, and yet I don't think is an unholy mess ?

U2f key ? Works for me.

What about downloaded back up codes ? Phone push approval? U2f key? Authenticator app? Can't imagine complaining about being shut out if you didn't have at least one or all of these set up. Google even nags you about setting these up.

You are making too much sense.

I'm astonished that anyone would advocate for voting without some sort of Id. If you cant drink, drive or get a library card without an ID you shouldn't be able to vote. The Id laws that states do have on the books are incredibly liberal in what type of Id is acceptable to vote . Texas, a state lots of people are quick to assert has suppressive voter ID laws, doesn't even require a picture ID or original documents. In fact even a copy of a utility bill is acceptable: https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/forms/id/poster-8.5x14...

Purging voter lists is not suppression unless you view dead people or those who have moved out of the voting jurisdiction on the voting rolls as legitimate voters. No different than a company purging email or address lists of outdated names

Please provide evidence of this? Lots of evidence in the form of entitlements to those of low income to the contrary.

Actually poor people are well represented. Witness the trillions of dollars of debt the US is in, the countless duplicative entitlement programs subsidizing food, health care, housing, schooling, etc. Politicians don't get elected unless they give other people's money away to those who don't have it and the poor by definition do not have money to give away but they do vote. Sometimes like here a minor fraud prevention rule slips by like address corroboration but it quickly becomes obsolete because bureaucratic efficiency and modernism is not what government does best.

Or alternatively, it is a foreign power and for diplomatic or strategic or disinformation reasons CIA is denying it.

The virus is in dying days and we have gotten here through the free market.The past few weeks Ive known many who have gotten omicron and all have had what feels like a minor cold and recovered quickly. It was capitalism and the US that made vaccines quickly and distributed them throughout the world. Socialism could never have done rhat. The failures of socialism are proven time and again in country after country. The effort to use this crisis as an excuse to extend the reigns of government control and destroy the free market engine that has brought much good is not persuasive. The desperation is apparent.

A propagandist by his own resume. Doesn't do the cause much good. http://www.brentlaabs.com/about

Seems one more reason why Mozilla is failing? hard to get anything done without someone internally raising political.concerns. Imagine the meeting time wasted on this. Better ways to spend ccrporate time.

Or regulators could stop micromanaging tech as a way to extort fines and pander to the public. Let those who care go elsewhere or use browser tech (like Firefox containers) and client side solutions to control privacy. 95%of people could care less about tracking and find the cookie popups a PITA. Regulating these things is a slow whack-a-mole game resulting in very poor use experience.

I agree. Valuable site and nixcraft adds a ton of value to the linux community. Thank you nixcraft!

I guess I don't get it. This is based on speculative misuse - that FB may in the future deny access to Giphy to competitors. So if you own a tool that your competitors may use then that's anti-competitive? Seems like that could apply to a lot of companies. Why not wait for actual misuse and base a case on that?

Also what's so special about Giphy? Seems it could be duplicated fairly easily by any serious competitor.

And competition being defined as other social media platforms? Pretty broad definition.

Seems FB hatred is making bad law. And that bad law will bite others not just FB.

Seek counseling or talk to an HR person

Talk to an HR person ??

On Firefox for Keyboarders:

Fast Tab Switcher little used but absolute best Firefox extension for navigating tabs. It shows all tabs for all windows in one drop down accessible by a keyboard shortcut (I use ctrl-q in windows) Tabs are filtered as you type.Tabs can be quickly closed by ctrl-del in drop-down. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/fast-tab-swit...

Vimium-FF Must have for keyboard navigation. Hit escape key and every link on page is navigable by a key sequence. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/vimium-ff/

Web Search Navigator.

Easy keyboard navigation of search results. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/web-search-na...

Other people's money.

This is definitely a problem but the problem is not high deductible plans, its price transparency which distorts supply and demand and steers people to high cost emergency room medical care while unfairly shifting costs to those who choose more price transparent plans. And the article's charge calculation is dishonest, ignoring premium savings and insurance discounts in order to get a bigger headline grabbing number.

I had a high deductible plan and got snagged with a similar charge but not as large. Same deal, a walk-in by a family member to an emergency room cost over $2, 000, no treatment, simple 15 minute consult. They classified it as a level 4. I understand this is intended to offset overhead and also to discourage unnecessary walk-ins but really ? I argued with the hospital on the level 4 classification and the fact they never informed my family member how much it would cost them prior to (or even after) treatment. They would not budge and I held out until they threatened to send to collection at which point I gave in because it was easier to pay.Also I figured I saved as much on my high deductible plan and it was a lesson learned both to me and my family.

The article is not being up front with the cost calculation.

First, the family in the article likely saved thousands of dollars from their high deductible plan ( for example at the time I was saving at least $300 a month on my plan v lower deductible plan, a savings of $3600 a year in premium). I didn't see anywhere in the article where the premium savings was calculated and it certainly was not deducted from the headline number.

Second, included in the headline number is the unnegotiated undiscounted retail cost. No insured person pays that number. Buried in the article they note the true discounted cost, the "you pay" number which was negotiated by the insurance company as part of their deal with the hospital and passed on to the insured. Granted the discounted price is still outrageous, but it's much lower than the headline.

Third I believe the article fails to mention those with high deductible plans are able to put away the thousands they save on premiums (and more if they choose) in a health savings plan (similar tax advantages to a 529 for education or a 401k roth and similar investment choices of mutual funds, stocks, bonds, cash, etc. ) which is only available for those with high deductible plans and which can grow over a lifetime (this NOT forfeited each year like the medical savings accounts most people are familiar with).

In addition, most areas, and I would bet even in this rural area, there are private stand alone clinics that would have treated him for around $200 . The mistake is to walk in to a hospital emergency room for non-life or death situations, a problem that most people who are on low deductible plans do all the time, driving up artificial demand and real costs for everyone. Hospital emergency rooms are equipped with the most expensive personnel and equipment, they should not be used for non-life threatening problems.

One of the main problems with the American system ( other than government intervention which has royally misallocated resources, screwed with normal market driven supply and demand, and micromanaged health care production, supply, and delivery) is that no one knows how much it will cost given the complexity of the insurance.

Hospital emergency rooms need a simple menu-like sign at the door giving the out-of-pocket cost for common treatments and encouraging people to call their insurance company first and/or go to other clinics for non life threatening issues. The price transparency law that was passed a few years ago did little as it resulted in long lists of obscurely named procedures, usually in a pdf buried in the website.

And/or they should give a reasonable estimate to high deductibles and charge them a r$1000 or so in order to walk through the door, refunding any difference when they walk out.

In addition the low co-pay plans for emergency visits are obscuring the true cost to the hospital, encouraging unnecessary emergency room visits, and pushing these costs onto cash only and high deductible plans. High deductible plans should be encouraged legislatively, rather than demonized.

Also, instead of fighting the tendency of people to run to hospital emergency rooms, hospitals should run lower overhead, lower cost 24 hour clinics adjacent to the emergency rooms and informing people of cost/benefits of each.

While I appreciate this article pointing out the problem of emergency room costs, high deductible plans, are not the problem but one of the solutions to high medical costs. They can regularize supply and demand and increase price transparency.

I would question that assumption but regardless of relative risks, why would any thinking country want to increase the number of intoxicated drivers on the highway which decriminalization will surely do? Why legalize another vice, particularly one which causes lung damage[1], causes neurological and cognitive harm, is generally demotivating, anti-social and can lead to depression [2] ? You don't see this in China. [3]While the west sits back and smokes their weed China will only be too happy to kick its butt economically, militarily, and technolgically. What a sad and wasteful future we deliberately build.

[1]https://www.lung.org/quit-smoking/smoking-facts/health-effec... [2] https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/smoking-too-much-... [3] https://sensiseeds.com/en/blog/countries/cannabis-in-china-l...

This 1000%. Decriminalization will of course increase use.

If basically everyone follows, then why require it and shut off or slow down future innovation? Regulations like this are nearly always obsolete by the time they are implemented.

Perhaps I misread his sentiment but the Catholic call outs are hard to justify otherwise. I don't know Mr. Barnhisel's religion but it's not at all a good assumption that since he teaches at a Catholic college that he is in fact Catholic, or if Catholic identifying, is faithful to its essential teachings. . Many if not most professors in large US Catholic colleges are not Catholic. Hires are made without regard to religion particularly outside of the theology and philosophy departments. And why not ? Most major US Catholic colleges have long-ago (at least since 1960s) abandoned any attempt to teach, explain, defend, or even in some cases, tolerate Catholicism, nor the practice of its theological or moral teachings except in a cafeteria style manner to support left-wing causes which may or may not be in line with Catholic teaching. [1][2]

[1]https://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527023047912045764...

[2]https://www.city-journal.org/html/taking-catholic-out-cathol...