No one is being restricted from bargaining collectively. They’re just being given the choice to opt out. Unions just get upset because they lose their monopoly status to police workers voices who disagree with their position and politics.
Right to work is pro employee. If unions want membership they shouldn’t be able to coerce it. They should have to earn it and compete for it. If a union can’t survive based on voluntary membership then that tells you something.
Having a lower tax rate is different than paying less tax. Not saying there isn’t something wrong with a lower tax rate, but it’s disingenuous to frame it this way.
Uber Engineering, SF and Sunnyvale, remote until July but on-site After. We’re hiring mobile, backend, and data eng for the Product Intelligence and Experimentation Teams. Want to build services in the 100k*n QPS, near real-time systems processing petabytes of data, powering human and machine decision in our marketplaces? Apply here or email me at lduncan at Uber
Uber Engineering, SF and Sunnyvale, remote until July but on-site After. We’re hiring mobile, backend, and data eng for the Product Intelligence and Experimentation Teams. Want to build services in the 100k*n QPS, near real-time systems processing petabytes of data, powering human and machine decision in our marketplaces? Apply here or email me at lduncan at Uber
The challenge with this framing is that you're equating social media to newspapers which provide editorialization. IIRC, one of the core distinctions that allow many tech companies to avoid liability for consumer generated content is not having an editorial role. If they embrace being media companies and editors I believe different regulations will apply to tech companies than currently do.
Why does an App Store have any say in the content of an online community? I’m sure there is plenty of content on Reddit that Cupertino censors may not like. Can / do they apply similar pressures to other social media companies with iOS apps?
Wow it’s really creepy that there is a subscribe button that is prefilled with my email address. I realize that sub stack has this information, because I’ve subscribed to other newsletters, but I don’t associate myself with having an account with substack or with that any of my personal information or credentials should somehow cross the barrier between newsletters. Also, I’m just super paranoid I might accidentally click subscribe while scrolling.
That said, if your choice is more general, statistical learning vs deep learning, I’m sure at this point you can find more approachable deep learning primers. This book just isn’t it IMHO.
This is one of my all time favorite technical books. I wrote a review of sorts a few years back[0]. It doesn’t cover any deep learning topics, which perhaps dates it at this point, but it gives solid fundamentals on a breadth of techniques common in industry. This is always in my recommendation list for folks making the transition from more systems or product engineering to ML.
Matt Levine talks a lot about insider trading, and the emphasis he always puts on it is about theft. Insider trading, in the US, isn’t about trading on uncommon knowledge or inferences. That’s actually many professional traders job: information arbitrage. It’s about trading on information that is owned by your employer. Your responsibility as an employee or executive is to the company and using inside corporate information for personal gain rather than corporate gain is a form of theft. Here’s his piece on the distinction between thinking about insider trading as being about fairness vs theft.
I posted this in the previous HN convo but reposting:
And this is just state surveillance. There’s a guy who’s building a private surveillance network in San Francisco, with the buy in of the District Attorney and local police departments, and a goal of complete surveillance of city streets.
I’m sure the true answer is ambiguous, but “personal data” by that definition seems to imply almost any form of account creation. For sure, that seems to imply you can’t use email addresses as identifiers. Maybe it implies that so long as the data isn’t de facto joinable with side data (phone numbers, email addresses) it may be ok.