> When you flood two generations with easy college money and
Would that be why they are drowning in higher education debt?
Such failures in logic occur when you try to express a systematic social problem (erosion of labour rights and lack of unionisation in higher education institutions among adjuncts and graduate students) to individualist argumentation ("it's their fault for being exploited").
> Seems like lots of FUD; how do Firefox Hello, Pocket and Geolocation "leak data about you" if you don't explicitly use them? How do DRM and Reader mode leak data at all?
You really don't expect much from your browser at this point any more, do you?
I want a browser that connects only to the website I asked it to display and let me configure how any (ANY) third party connection will be handled.
> a bad hire in a company where letting people go in general is a non-starter
This is your chance to institute good on-the-job training facilities.
"Bad hire" is a "hire" who requires more training than others (in whatever area they may lack, including human interaction). If you can manage to provide that person with effective training that salvages their status, then you had effectively created a training program that everyone else in the company can now take advantage of.
If you can't, well, it will turn out that the company lacks a vision vis-a-vis training. That is what makes a "bad hire" an "omg unsalvageable bad hire, run for the hills!" (i.e. it's a mark against the company, ot against the hire.)
His situation was akin to you waking up one day and finding, out of nowhere, a letter in the mail telling you to come in for a 6-month jail time.
I assume that would not be a happy and acceptable morning for you, would it?
A geek was making scientific research publicly and digitally accessible. Try to personally connect to that by telling yourself how similar that is to you doing your own hobby i your spare time. Your argument says you'd be happy to have 6 months in jail for doing your own thing. (Taking such a deal requires pleading guilty to a crime.)
> I'm sure being a CEO is a busy job, so I understand.
Why would you understand?
It is a simple feat to respond. At the very least, he could have forwarded your email to someone, CC'd you on it, and said "Hey X, please look into this case for me."
No response to an email is above all disrespectful, regardless of how busy he might be. It also implies that he is giving away his email address as a PR move.
These pieces of information that keep dropping on HN is going to make me move my business away from Stripe too.
Stripe, why would you screw yourself so badly when you could easily have been the only viable option by simply not behaving like PayPal?..
> This article is so poorly written it is embarassing.
I found no glaring grammar mistakes in the article, reading it 12 minutes after your comment.
> "races the question" ... "euphemism"
These typo / words are not in the article.
> it buries what I hope is its main point--that Facebook should be more transparent--at the bottom of the article.
That is called the conclusion, whereas in the body the author is supposed to present substantiating information, which is what s/he did.
> But Facebook is quite transparent about government censorship, even in the United States
1. Did you check the links on India and Turkey? Facebook released "some information" (which is terrifying if you consider what Facebook collects) about 3470+ accounts. Now, if you consider that some of these accounts are organizations and not individuals, they may have actually released the information regarding tens of thousands of people. Do you know what happens to these people once they are identified? Informal governmental blacklisting, for example, is very common in Turkey if you are critical of government discourses. Who are these users? Why was their information released? How much of it was released? What was the government's reason? Was it investigated by Facebook? And above all, why was it released AT ALL, since Facebook is not bound by these countries' laws when it comes to such practices.
2. When it comes to the US, they just provide a few more breadcrumbs and nothing more.
Search Warrant: About what??? Against whom???
Subpoena: About what??? Against whom???
Emergency Disclosures: About what??? Against whom??? What was the emergency???
Court Order: Where are the case numbers???
Court Order (Other): Where are the case numbers???
Pen Register/Trap and Trace: Who ordered this? Why? Who authorized their order? Was it legitimate? Who investigated that legitimacy within Facebook? Why was it complied with? Why was it ordered?
Title III: About what??? Where are the case numbers???
Is this what you call sufficient transparency for a (effectively) multinational corporation that handles a incredible amount of Personally Identifying Information?
> From what I can see it is much more transparent (and much more active) than Twitter, which for some reason the article praises.
The criteria of "It's better than competitor X" is not a criteria; it's a comparison.
> It seems only to be castigating Facebook for "censoring" inmates.
That is a specific example where EFF has data and uses that data to refute Facebook's position on data that is obscured by Facebook. Their data comes from "information we have received through public records requests filed in several states."
> It is reasonable for Facebook to have terms of service which disallow third party access to user profiles,
How do you define "3rd party"?
> to suspend profiles of users which violate the ToS,
This requires proof. What is Facebook's process in proving "guilt"?
> and to have a reporting page specific to a class of user which is likely to violate an individual term.
How do you define "likely"? What is the mechanism by which Facebook's definition is not clouded by the same prejudice (and against a umber of groups) that clouds yours against incarcerated people?
> It is also reasonable for Facebook not to report this data as it is essentially private information about the inmates and their use of Facebook.
This is an offtopic non-argument. The linked article does not request that people be individually identified in these reports. Even FOIA has a clause against the release of PII.
> Facebook has more responsibility to protecting its inmate users than it does to reporting that information to the rest of us.
Your argument here is "Facebook is protecting its inmate users by booting them." To quote the article, "Facebook has been suspending the accounts of inmates for at least four years at the behest of prison officials [through] an easy and confidential [i.e. the identity of the official is not released to the public] “Inmate Takedown”..."
If this is a form of protection afforded incarcerated users, than I truly wish it were afforded to all Facebook users... The resulting euphoria would be worth watching.
> Words cannot hold guns, knives, or other weapons. Yes, they can be unpleasant. Yes, they can be upsetting. Yes, people who have been abused can be triggered.
He is from a country with a history where minorities such as Alevis and Armenians are commonly (and increasing) subjected to non-physical intimidation techniques, such as having red X arrows drawn on their doors or being tagged as "minority" in public sphere (i.e. government) communiques.
I am going to go so far as suggesting that he either knew what he was doing or should have understood the reaction he was getting once it started pouring down from the students. Intimidation is a fucked up thing to experience for those who have a history of experiencing that intimidation followed by a massacre soon thereafter.
The administrators, bah. Those exist to prevent lawsuits, not to protect the students, as they have demonstrated time and again, so what they did is besides the point.
> Criticizing it for any of those things is a demonstration that you do not understand how science is supposed to function.
Good luck criticizing science when you forbade yourself to criticize pretty much all study shortcomings using those all-encompassing guidelines that all point to a single conclusion, i.e. "Don't criticize me, I'm just a prediction bro".
> the cognitive dissonance of being extremely inefficient with time and productivity [all the while] with being a poor country dependent on corporate corruption to keep [the] economy from collapsing
> Our biggest gripe is that at least 50% of the applicants never follow our instructions on how to apply correctly. We put very specific steps on how to apply and want it followed (i.e. subject line, cover letter, links to portfolio, PDF resume).
You need to consider the ROI for the applicant before saying "OMG follow instructions."
Too many of your fellow employers ignore applicants (ROI = none), even those they interviewed. No "we received the application," no "here's where you seem to lack," no "here's where you seem to be strong." Even introductory classes with 300-400 students in them provide more feedback to their constituents than employers to candidates.
Hence many of your applicants decrease their investment as much as possible.
I do not have 30-40 minutes to twist and turn words in order for them to fit to your specific job description to let you know that I know the shit out of [insert skill]. Not because I don't care about you but because I already assume, looking at previous experiences, that you don't care about me (both as a candidate and as an employee).
It is your job to accurately spot potential and current skills from a resume and respond to the applicant with a request for more information. (In situations where you do not have a separate HR department for recruitment, then do ask for all information outright, but don't be surprised and judgemental when you do not receive it. If the candidate is of interest, reply back and ask for more information again.)
I heard of these issues too, on Reddit. After my experience with their support people, I decided that the issues were either an active social media PR campaign against them by one of the other vendors or regular mishaps of the support department or a combination of both.
I have been (and still am) using a Pangolin Performance for a few years.
I like:
- All versions of Debian and Ubuntu work flawlessly (no pre-purchase research necessary)
- Sturdy (knock on wood)
- Easy to take apart (for cleaning or upgrades)
- Nice screen
- Keyboard with numeric keypad
I dislike:
- Very rarely (once in a month[1]), the touchpad acquires consciousness.
I am neutral:
- It's not silent but I did not expect silence when I purchased it with the latest i7 at the time.
-----
The Gazelle looks very much like what I have. I like it :) The price is fair too. Btw, I didn't know it came with a Matte option.
-----
Disclaimer: I'm a happy (would-be repeat) customer and have no ties to system76.
-----
[1] I contacted system76 support and they told me that either they could send me a replacement touchpad (to replace it myself) or I could ship it back to them for repairs under warranty. I decided not to bother with either.
Would that be why they are drowning in higher education debt?
Such failures in logic occur when you try to express a systematic social problem (erosion of labour rights and lack of unionisation in higher education institutions among adjuncts and graduate students) to individualist argumentation ("it's their fault for being exploited").