NicolasGorden

Define 'hospitalized'. I think two realities are being discussed under the same term.

The way I see it, hospitalized can mean: I have great insurance and I went into the hospital for treatment because I felt some symptoms. I was feeling 80% well when I went in, I was only there because the doctors wanted to be thorough and check my vitals overnight.

It can also mean: I don't have insurance and I waited until I was half past dead to go to the hospital because I have bad/no insurance. By the time I got to the hospital I couldn't even breath. I went straight to the ICU.

Both are 'hospitalized'. But I don't think the two examples represent the same reality. I'd imagine Remdesivir working very well on the first and not very well on the second due to viral load concerns mentioned in other parts of the commentary to this article.

I've been involved in the production of physical goods. You are right there's an increase in cost, although then the question becomes by how much.

There's the option to make the same packaging but one having an empty space where another has that space filled with these items.

Even if they had to make two separate boxes, I'd like to think that given Apple's volume, the additional costs in managing SKUs and packaging production wouldn't have too big of a hit on overall production costs. Especially when offsetting the decrease in cost of goods provided. I however don't know their numbers enough to knowledgeably argue this point. Though overall my point I think still stands regardless of the exact dollar amounts being discussed, I can't see those amounts being too serious an inpact on overall costs.

If it was only about environmental reasons, wouldn't they just make it optional?

As in, they could include a checkbox (that is unchecked by default) to get these items free in the checkout process. They already ask a million customization questions, why not make this one?

I'd also think that for the percentage of people who need the charger/earbuds, having to make a second purchase on amazon will overall increase the carbon footprint for that person, since two packages shipped are way more inefficient than one. This undermines their argument and seems like it makes them depend on externalities to make their ecological calculations work out.

I submitted my comments to the DHS.

I'm so grateful to the EFF for bringing these specific issues to the table. Donating to them is money well spent.

No, it's not about nipples. I know this algorithm well.

Facebook does not allow advertisers to use Zoomed in images of body parts to artificially inflate CTR and play with their ad algorithm.

The onion image that was banned has the exact contour of breasts viewed from above zoomed in.

Not only do I 100% agree with you, but I actually think there's a good probability it was done on purpose and then capitalized on brilliantly. That onion image jumps at me.

I must give them a tip of the hat, they know how to play the media game:

> "We've sold more in the last three days than in the last five years," said Mr McLean, adding they are also now listed under "sexy onions" on the company website.

I find it interesting that when I was growing up, the person who invented the typing notification feature would have presented it as an achievement.

Now these articles start with him taking the 'blame'.

It feels so... like a new world... where most people are offended and angry by every tiny little annoyance of modern life. Where being angry and pessimistic is almost fashionable. Complaining about life, feeling hopeless, prophesizing disaster and externalizing problems is something people do to 'brag'.

I feel schools should include a decent amount of volunteering with people who have real problems. Maybe that way the next generation won't be so quick to focus on the negative. We're living in the best of times by all objective measurements.

> So you do acknowledge that it is creepy and undesired, and your solution instead of not doing it is just to not mention it but do it anyway. Classy

My solution is to use standard industry practices while supporting non profits and politics that improve the overall ecosystem.

It's what adults do. But I guess attacking strangers on the internet is where true class comes from?

> We're not doing that jointly buddy. You are the one doing it and you only get away with it by trying to hide it as you mentioned just above.

The only reason I'm doing it is because it's industry standard practice and it works. You can't bring a knife to a gun fight. Acting like that can happen just shows me you aren't well engaged with the real world. Insinuating my small business clients should not segment email audiences while their competitors do it is just unrealistic and disconnected from how the world operates.

Real world people who actually care about privacy and not grandstanding or throwing rocks in an effort to virtue signal... they actually sign up at EPIC and EFF and contact senators and congressman about specific privacy legislation. At least that's what I do to improve the situation. What do you do that I should be doing to improve our situation in relationship to privacy?