That is a very strong assertion. Please provide the WTO ordinances in question and/or case law. Unfounded assertions do not add to the discussion.
Do you seriously believe Apple would have gone this malicious compliance route rather than pursuing WTO grievances through their army of lobbyists if they thought that had half a chance of succeeding?
Are all the display options using PWM now? I’ve been staying with the XR because the XS caused headaches for me. Curious if they’ve gotten their frequency up to a bearable level.
The assertion that other countries should simply abandon their sovereign regulators' powers is baseless hubris. The fact that the US seems happy to allow corporate titans to reach ever new sizes does not mean anyone else is on board.
If the US wants their regulators' decisions to carry weight in another country, they can pay for the privilege via trade agreements, same as it ever was.
I don't think the actual technical "how" is of much importance so the article doesn't spend much time on it. They communicated effectively, and more important openly, over company boundaries. Many tools would have worked for that.
This is about "how" they banded together to reduce their disadvantage compared to the big cloud providers that had advance warning and insider knowledge/access to the vendors long before the rumors started.
Correct. It's the ability to share documents and conversation snippets provided by vendors, as well as curating and summarizing the significant amount of information available.
I've never seen an exploit that involves microcode updates, compiler fixes, kernel patches, and KVM/Xen updates all together. The number of moving parts is staggering.
Being able to filter and summarize that across company boundaries has helped me both understand and more effectively work to mitigate this problem.
1) Your comment added nothing, but then this wasn't a high-value thread anyway.
2) Any pronoun in that case would be superfluous. "Holy crap! Congratulations!" would be far more intuitive to native english speakers. Choosing to add a gendered pronoun without knowing the correct gender is just... odd. That's exactly the type of situation most would avoid where possible: you omit gendered pronouns unless you know.
> Effective September 1, 2017, Dropbox Pro, Plus, and Business users will no longer be able to render HTML content, and the Public folder and its sharing functionality will be disabled.
It's not incorrect if it is only true for a (in this case, large) subset of people.
The now changed title completely misses the point of this submission, and is not more correct or less editorialized than the original one. I would prefer if it were restored, the "today" could get removed to cover that it will happen later for Pro Accounts. If memory serves me right it would be something like "Dropbox disables Public folder". That is what happens.
I agree. I would recommend "(2012, 2017)" to succinctly clarify that this is somehow relevant to right now and that further investigation is needed.
Note: I have flagged the parent comment so that it shows up for the moderators (and also upvoted it to counteract the impact of flagging). So, nobody else needs to flag it - if too many people do so it might go [dead].
I'm talking about the article title as shown here. If it said "Dropbox accounts created after Oct. 2012 won't have a public folder (2012; 2017)" or perhaps "... (2017)" then readers would be able to go "okay, what's this, it has this year in it, what gives" and click it. You're only able to know about Sep 1st once you actually open the article, which in its current form seems to talk about an event from 5 years ago.
You're building a strawman. No one is calling for "a Utopia-esque society where there is perfect freedom of choice [and] perfectly equal distributions of any sort."
One does not need to call for that in order to find the current representation of women in engineering/CS lower than desirable.
Continuing on the theme of using the sources presented in this thread: do you find it more likely that Google's worldwide tech workforce is 83% male because A) there is "no causal influence, insidious or otherwise" and there is perfect freedom of choice or because B) there are systemic factors at play?
Not sure I am in a position to say it is or is not a straw man argument since I am the one who made it...but it is more or less a fairly well known "classical liberal"/libertarian[1] position:
oh please, google did their own study. They want to hire more females than any company but the conclusion was that there aren't enough women in the engineering pipeline.
So yea, the more likely reason is
C) Women don't want to become engineers as much as men do, for whatever (social/biological/cultural) reason
Given a multitude of other results showing that equalizing for pipeline problems shows women competing equally with men, the more likely reason is that women are being filtered out of the pipeline by sexism, not some mysterious "maybe they just don't want to" handwaving.
Oh and your claim that they're being filtered out by sexism doesn't qualify as handwaving?
Look, if women are being unfairly excluded from the pipeline then fight THAT. Don't blame Google or Facebook or X company for hiring the best they can. They have "diversity consultants" on their payroll for christs sake. This isn't an issue that is gonna magically be solved in a few years. Making the "pipeline" more diverse takes years of investment and education and encouragement. What I take an issue is with people blaming these companies when they're actually doing a reasonable job of trying to become more diverse. As if these companies are the ones really holding people back. and if only they could overcome their biases they'd have a perfect diversity ratio overnight.
We have voluminous statistical evidence that women are judged more harshly than men in all phases of hiring when the only differentiator is being perceived as a woman. That's not handwaving, that's decades of study. Handwaving is "for whatever (social/biological/cultural) reason".
We know there's a pipeline problem, and we are fighting that. We don't think it's going to be solved overnight either, and critically, not just by addressing the pipeline because, as numerous stories from the tech industry have made clear recently, even when qualified women make it through that anemic pipeline, they still face individual and institutional sexism. Or have you forgotten that one of Uber's recent departures left Google after an internal sexual harassment scandal that was quietly handled?
" the more likely reason is that women are being filtered out of the pipeline by sexism, not some mysterious "maybe they just don't want to" handwaving."
So you're alleging that Google is judging women more harshly than men, "at all phases of hiring".
And they hate being doctors too. Except they don't. And deconstruction of what was a frankly pervasive culture of sexism in medicine and law has resulted in much higher participation of the second sex in these fields.
Is your claim that the pipeline is not completely fugged? Because there are very clear numbers indicating that it is, starting very early, at the K-12 level.
Or is it merely that the pipeline being fugged doesn't mean that everything else is fine and dandy? I'd agree with that, hell yeah, and that claim matches the actual content of those links quite well. But I don't think it in any way suggests that the problem is a myth.
I also don't think the pipeline is unfixable, but that's both my day job and another rant for another day.
Sorry, in retrospect that was very unclear. I agree with your second statement. There are definitely fewer women and people of color even applying for STEM jobs, although there are so many other factors such as quality of education, harassment, visibility of role models, etc that I think calling it "the pipeline problem" is an oversimplification.
What I think the original comment I replied to was saying though (and what most people in the industry with hiring power that I've talked to about this have said) is that "the pipeline problem" is the main thing preventing them from hiring a diverse team. That's bullshit though; there have been a million and one studies showing implicit biases in the hiring process, for one. We definitely need to improve the pipeline — the "pipeline problem myth" I'm referring to is that that's the extent of the problem.
But... your previous post specifically says "China is willing to kidnap people out of Thailand" and goes on to say "I really hope the U.S. never comes close to this".
Can you explain how exactly the U.S. has yet to "come close to" your list? Your post created the very "us vs them" separation you now claim to disagree with. The child post was fairly clearly just answering that statement
And while we're talking deflection, you are the one who took a thread about the US border and its impact on travellers and made it about civil rights abuses by the rest of the world. Yes, they are all important; no, it is usually not possible to solve them all at once.
I think the implication is that he sees the things the US currently does as less bad than his own list. I'm not weighing in on the validity of his assessment, but I'm pretty sure that's what he meant.
> Can you explain how exactly the U.S. has yet to "come close to" your list?
Show me a similar incident to the Chinese booksellers thing in America. Or anyone being killed because they represented the political opposition. Miles away.
But that's not even my point. My point is: read the links listed; I'm not traveling to those countries; I hope the world becomes less crazy. That's all!
> And while we're talking deflection, you are the one who took a thread about the US border and its impact on travellers and made it about civil rights abuses by the rest of the world
Huh? I posted some links above. People should read them and make up their own mind, in addition to the OP. It's not a "one or the other" kind of thing, not sure why it would be.
Do you seriously believe Apple would have gone this malicious compliance route rather than pursuing WTO grievances through their army of lobbyists if they thought that had half a chance of succeeding?