NSFW subs are exactly where my mind went as well, but monetizing some of that content could prove legally fraught. Instead, I'd wager the scope narrows a bit to a very specific OnlyFans type of model. Weren't they already looking at paid awards that provide a cash reward to the recipient? Sure sounds like a tipping model to me 🤔
vinniep
joined 2 years ago
The best case would be to protect everyone’s privacy, not just the children OR teens
The difference is that an adult can consent to having their data collected by these companies, making the investigation and enforcement a more nuanced endeavor. A child cannot, so it all becomes far more straight forward and easier to go after the offending companies.
There's nothing magical about the 15th reboot - Crowdstrike runs an update check during the boot process, and depending on your setup and network speeds, it can often take multiple reboots for that update to get picked up and applied. If it fails to apply the update before the boot cycle hits the point that crashes, you just have to try again.
One thing that can help, if anyone reads this and is having this problem, is to hard wire the machine to the network. Wifi is enabled later in the startup sequence which leaves little (or no) time for the update to get picked up an applied before the boot crashes. The wired network stack starts up much earlier in the cycle and will maximize the odds of the fix getting applied in time.
I had to dig up some other sources for info, but this is the case. The new plant has nothing to do with coal, but it is being built to replace the power production and local power related jobs in that area.
Sources:
serving a warrant for a felon wanted for possessing a firearm
Opinions of law enforcement at large aside, they were engaged in activities that precisely align with keeping the community safe.
The article is critical of GitLabs model, not celebrating it.
What GitLab does is far more open than what you'll see elsewhere, but the formula is actually pretty near to what most companies do already: Have pay bands for positions, and then a modifier based on the region, level factors, and some other inputs. Normally this produces a range, not a straight number, and then negotiations take place within that band (which is also why this information and formula is not typically shared).
As for the idea of paying a flat salary for a position regardless of where the person works, that is simply a non-starter for most companies, and essentially creates a race to the bottom to locate the region of the world that will produce qualified workers for the lowest possible salary possible. We as a society have no problem seeing fast fashion or other manufacturing that do this as being exploitive and evil, and this model is exactly the kind of thinking that drives that behavior. If we stop caring about where a person lives and instead look only at salary vs production, we will only ever hire in the absolute lowest cost of living places in the world capable of producing acceptable workers.
We need to look at this from another angle as well - Companies are buying labor, much in the same way that they buy raw materials, property, or utilities. When buying any of these inputs to your business, how do you decide how much to pay? Certainly you do not sit down in a board room and agree on a number and then go out into the world with that number and attempt to purchase what you need. You start by looking at what the going market rate for those inputs are. People, like materials, have some wiggle room in those numbers, and sometimes paying a little more will get you better quality or more reliability, so you will need to make decisions there to determine where on the spectrum you wish to fall, but never would you pay significantly more than market rate, nor would you be able to pay significantly below.
I see this kind of discussion constantly in the last few years, and often in terms of tying inflation to annual salary increases. "If inflation was 10%, why is my annual raise only 5%?" - because overall inflation was 10%, but the inflation in the cost for a person that can do your job was only 5%. It's truly and honestly that simple. You are a commodity item that goes to the highest bidder - act like it.
That's what confused me about this too.
Abortion is a loser for the GOP. With the passage of this ballot issue, they could take their loss, played the "aw shucks" for their base, and moved on to other issues in 2024. Instead, they're giving the Ohio Dems their talking points for them and doubling down on a platform that's been killing them every time citizens cast ballots.
Getting people sorted into servers that are going to be able to handle the load, or even better getting them to host their own servers is going to be the way to go.
That part still worries me a smidge, and it's somewhat related to my other concern about funding/scaling. As more of the general public discover and move over, the % of the general population willing and able to host their own instance is going to steadily decrease. Not saying that we're all gonna die or anything, but it's going to be a shift and we'll have to continue to adapt.
That feeling makes sense, but I think everyone knows that the Fediverse wasn't created specifically to give them a landing in this event, just like Reddit wasn't created to catch the Digg refugees, etc. More of a "next phase in the evolution of this concept", and while it took a catastrophe, they're ready to consider that it's time to move on now.
The trick is going to be walking that line between preserving what made the Fediverse great and not alienating the newcomers. I think there's room for everyone, though, and really the big advantage of the Fediverse - we don't have to agree to co-exist, and can even co-existing completely separately if needed.
I think everyone jumping on this and trying to argue that Apple is so very wrong in this assertion that people will get bombarded with malicious garbage is coming at this from the wrong angle. The part that I think we should be pushing back on in the argument that, in order to protect them from themselves, we should allow Apple to restrict them unilaterally.
People, in general, make just awful decisions in terms of security and quality of the apps they download. We've seen it since the very first app store and it continues today. "But Android apps can be side loaded and it's not that bad" Yes, it is that bad. The fact that you, someone that is more informed and experienced than the average, can navigate this successfully and safely is not an indicator of the general population.
Ultimately, the argument that people will mess this up is objectively true. The place we should push back is the argument that we should allow Apple to protect us from ourselves.
If Apple believes they can cultivate a safer and higher quality app store, they should take that message to the people. Convince them that if they stay in Apple's app store ecosystem, they will be happier and safer. If you can't convince them, though, the law should not allow you to force them into compliance. If we have a variety of marketplaces, they will need to differentiate themselves from one another somehow. That's most likely going to be on price, but we could also have someone step up to make a market focused on security, privacy, or some other value proposition.
"It won't expose people to bad apps" is just the wrong argument. We should instead just say "Yeah. And?" The freedom to make that decision, and possibly make those mistakes, isn't the problem - it's the point