throwaway4715

Parent might be flagged because Facebook didn't censor anything. Twitter did.

Facebook is NOT blocking the Post from posting. They are limiting sharing. This headline is a good example of way it may have been the right move. Misinformation spreads fast.

The ones that want that already do.

"But it isn't nice to doxx the killers" is not the argument I was expecting.

How does one ensure "stability" without getting involved in politics?

There are many reasons someone may wish to remain anonymous on the internet. Sorry if my anonymity triggers you.

I didn't say you were against diversity, I said you created an inverse relationship between diversity and harmony. You could have had that whole discussion about optimizing for harmony without discussing diversity at all (there are many things that might affect your harmony including curriculum changes or standardized testing). The fact that you placed diversity in opposition to harmony is why I said what I said.

Perhaps it's just the fact that you're not a native english speaker, but the fact that you're now making assumptions about economics (who said anything about that?) and brought up diversity in the context of a comment about "undesirables" affecting your kids lead me to believe that you just don't like diversity.

You stated you're "not trying to bring race/culture into it" then explicitly created an inverse relationship between diversity and harmony.

Perhaps a country as diverse as america is a poor choice for you.

So you're saying that homeschooled kids have the same variance in outcomes as kids that go to school?

People say having internal debate is a disadvantage, but all the companies that are famous for having it make more money than everyone else.

SV companies sell candidates on changing the world and disrupting the status quo. They literally target and recruit the type of people who would want to discuss politics at work.

Facebook

I'm really struggling to see how younger Americans joining different social networks, which all have the same effects, is a signal that they've learned their lesson?

It's interesting that this is about big data generally and people are reading it as "Facebook".

Many people enjoy living in cities and do not want to move to the suburbs.

If you think there are a lot of bad managers now wait until they're explicitly paid less and aren't accountable for their team's impact (what happens when you shift all accountability of technical strategy to TL).

In my experience the 16" MBP is just bad. This is my first Apple laptop and it's pretty, but that's about it. Despite having a serious horsepower (on paper) the fan runs constantly while doing basic tasks, I get tons of beachballs, and my wireless mouse has to plugged into a specific port or it's janky as hell. It's not intuitive (for me) or performant. It's not even a good linux stand in.

My takeaway from this whole experience is that computer people will give up practicality for fashion just as much as anyone else.

This strategy has made Apple very successful

If only you'd made a meaningful comment.

Sounds like you have a persecution complex because your positions aren't well liked.

I'd suggest you look at the data around who and what is popular on Facebook. It supports none of what you've written. Sometimes it's not the kids who are wrong...

After.

"It's because the people around you suck." Isn't that the core problem with all social media? If people didn't suck we wouldn't be having this discussion about facebook.

Multiple things can be true. 1) It was incredibly stupid for anyone to use suppressing unions as an example. 2) Employers should have control over the content on their internal systems (people get fired for things they say over email/Slack/etc. all the time). 3) This headline is some serious click bait.

How does Duck Duck Go make money? I clicked around their site for a while, but didn't find anything.

I'm really reaching to understand how you could interpret my comment that way. I'm equating judging large swaths of people in the way the parent does as equivalent to society assuming black people "deserve" what they get.

I really hope you don't work with any non-white or Jewish people.

All these people who bought iphones for the curated app store talking about how Twitter shouldn't be allowed to curate their product. Perhaps Twitter is big _because_ it curates its product. That's what people want.

The threat to force private entities to toe the line is the only speech issue here. If you think people want unedited speech then I believe Gab could use some of your money.

Have you read a newspaper comment section recently? Lots and lots of shouting going on between readers.

The employer deciding what they're willing to pay employees is eminently reasonable. Most of these companies are NOT going remote first, they're just _allowing_ remote work.

Sure. If you're working from home your work site is where you live.

Nah. Pay is, and will continue to be, based on market rate. If they offer you 150k in Georgia and that's near top of market for your skill level, even though if you were in SV you'd make 250k, then you're still being paid well. No discrimination. If they offered a black person 150k and a white person 250k for the same job in the same place, that's discrimination.

As far as I know, ALL big tech cos have paid differently based on where you live since forever. If you work for Google Pittsburgh you make less than Seattle/Bay/NYC, if you work for <FAANG> London office you make less than American hubs. I don't know why people are surprised that that applies to remote workers as well.