dan-0

In the same way as walking. Stick to well trafficed places you know and your risk drops significantly.

Ah, that makes sense.

My time as a digital forensic investigator was short and over a decade ago now, but it was standard where I was to put each phone in a faraday bag to help reduce concerns around remote wiping capabilities.

What's odd to me in this article is it doesn't seem like faraday bags are being used. I'd assume concerns over this type of thing are greater than ever now.

I called out my high value solely because I fall into the "privileged propagandist" rhetoric the comment I responded to and some other siblings are pushing.

Yes, the notion you need 300k to be comfortable anywhere is absurd, but just because someone makes more doesn't mean their desire to achieve a better quality of life is any less valid than anyone else. Do people with higher salaries need more? No. But why assume that just because an individual or group of people want a better quality of life they're "privileged?"

FTR, 100k as a average base salary is pretty low for tech in NYC. When the other 90k is bonus and RSUs that probably vest over 4 years, the stock has fluctuated 50%, and this being the journalism space, I wouldn't expect to see the full value. They have every right to try to negotiate better quality of life improvements out of NYT, especially for something as low impact on revenue as pet bereavement, as ridiculous as that is. I feel a lot of these comments don't understand tech compensation, where sometimes companies can't meet market value in cash so resort to all kinds of quirky benefits to attract/retain skilled workers. That is exactly where I see such a crazy request coming from when a company pushes back against giving more than a 2% annual raise.

Sorry, I don't see a valid point in any of these salary arguments. In fact, they're down right insulting and ignorant.

I did strenuous manual labor for next to nothing once upon a time. After about 8 years of that, on top of regular 60 hour work weeks, I spent almost every waking moment of 4-5 years to learn and better myself with about every sacrifice you could imagine short of divorce. I'm now making significantly more and working much less with an extremely happy family.

I'm not some trust fund kid. I have a high school education. My father worked 3-5 jobs to provide for my family growing up. So if you haven't picked it up, I know what the other side looks like.

I work in tech now, I wouldn't even reply to a recruiter presenting a 190k job offer if it meant living in New York. I can get more working remote. It's not because I'm spoiled, it's not because I make bad financial decisions, it's because I know my value and won't compromise and I sure won't reduce my family's quality of life because some multi million dollar company wants to short change me.

I get paid fairly for my experience and what I bring to the table, I make sure of that. If my employer isn't matching what I know I can get on the market, I will first negotiate (which is right where the NYT Tech workers are at), then leave for greener pastures if that falls through. I can do that because I worked hard to bring more value to myself in an in demand field.

I'm sorry if you're making a lower salary, but that doesn't mean everyone should just take what they're given. That's how people are exploited.

These arguments aren't just wrong. They are backwards and self limiting.

The opposite side of this is unpredictable or unintended behavior from too much moisture, which in my experience has been an acknowledgement with touch screens for quite some time.

As touch screens for applications started to become common, this naturally filtered into tactical and service work fields. There is an advantage in this as it allows a more compact interface that can change more easily based on what the user needs. However the down side is, in harsh fast paced environments where the user may be moving quickly and sweating, it's much harder to register intended user feedback to the interface.

The problem is not just if touch screens should be used, but also how they should be implemented. Especially on the side of general consumer electronics, like mobile phones, iOS and Android have built in interfaces for accessibility. In some cases you can get built in accessibility out of the box with very little effort, but the reality is, it takes a decent effort in most cases to get it right and users who need this behavior are not a heavy majority. This results in a deprioritization of accessibility in many mobile applications.

This gets much worse with more hardware centric devices like thermostats, ovens, refrigerators, etc which have a higher tendency to have user interfaces developed in house and lacking any accessibility. Compounding this problem, with the popularity of touch screen interfaces, and post COVID supply chain problems, many users who needed accessible functionally were (maybe still are) left without many options, likely either having to pay a heavy premium for something with usable accessibility features, but probably more realistically, just taking what they can get.

Modern technology makes accessibility easier than ever now, and enables accessibility in places that didn't previously exist, but the lack of willingness to implement accessible features on the part of some corporations is not just providing terrible accessibility, it's taking accessibility away from places where it previously existed.

Back to the flea market example, if that's the only market available, you can either abide by their policies or not, if not you can't sell.

The fact that Apple has made itself the only market available is what makes it anti-competitive. Even then you could argue that's what you bought on to when you opted into their currated ecosystem.

Apple and Google's customer reach is a direct result of them footing the effort to create a store and relationship with OEMs and currating the store in a way that works for the customers that use it.

If Google hadn't tightened the rope on the Play Store polices, it'd be a mess, just like it used to be and like some 3rd party stores are, not user friendly and full of low quality or malicious apps.

This doesn't change the core of the argument. Companies and customers have their free will. If a company doesn't serve quality products in their store, customers will leave, if they make their store too painful for other companies to host in, so will they. If you agree to a contract and don't follow that contract and get booted, that's in your.

If you want reach into Apple's customers, you have to buy in to the whole deal, doesn't make them right for being the only store for their ecosystem, but doesn't make you right for giving them the bird and crying foul when you violate the policies agreed upon.

I won't buy the argument for Android you're throwing out there. Publish to another store of you don't like the Play Store, I do. Google's store is their customers, and their customers to make policies to protect from bad apps. If another store was better, people would use it readily, and they have the open option to. That's why FDroid exists, don't like closed software, well it doesn't exist there, and the customer made that wants it uses it.

Bottom line, you sign a contract and agree to the policies, don't cry foul when you get bit for violating it, like anything else. You put yourself and your company at risk by not reading and understanding what you agreed to.

I agree to a degree, in that the policies are a lot to take in.

When your work poses a risk to the bottom line of another company, they have every right to be protective and implement the policies they feel will bring in more customers and money. If the store policies are too much for you to understand, that's on you for blindly adding to the risk of that company.

I'm speaking specifically from the Android side of things. People want to be on the Play Store and not FDroid or the many others because that's where the customers are, but you're free to use another store or distribute directly, which is not the case for iOS, particularly outside Europe. I do believe Apple is anti competitive in the US due to this, but it doesn't change the fact that you're your own victim for wanting to be in their store and not following the contact you agreed to. They take in the risk of hosting your app, you take on the risk and pain of dealing with their store policies.

It's no different than having a stall at a flea market, if they say you can have a stall, but have policies against selling certain items, and you sell them anyways, you can get the boot. If someone falsely accuses you of doing so and they suspend your stall while they investigate, then you come back the next week under a different name, don't be surprised about the result when they recognize you.

The process should be more accommodating of these situations, but if you're a developer you should know the policies and limitations of your deployment environment. If you don't and get bit by a policy violation, I feel bad for you, but it is still on you to know and your failure to own it.

Development isn't just slamming in code because Product wants a feature.

This is exactly what Google has been trying to clean up. The Play Store is much cleaner and safer now than it was 10 years ago.

Unfortunately small companies and independent devs take the brunt of the downside as their ability to get timely support is almost non existent. Big companies often have a Google rep they can reach back to.

> That is the most human behavior imaginable. Something bad happens to you, it's now an emergency, so you try every avenue to address it simultaneously.

I don't know the Apple ecosystem much, but on Android, it's very well known that this is a quick way to get completely banned from the Play Store. I would imagine it's the same.on iOS.

I don't like that this is the way it's handled, but don't disagree with it either or it'd be a fast path to bypassing quality and compliance checks in the app stores.

Even if Apple was to globally allow 3rd party app stores, 3rd party stores would hit this problem at scale eventually.

That's not it, not what I said, and not what I meant. I didn't say anything about shooting in the dark.

You're not hunting deer in the dark. You're getting to your blind before sunrise or you could be recovering your deer in the dark from a day time shot.

I mean, yeah, but have you ever tried to follow a blood trail through thick brush in the dark?

I'm not fully disagreeing, but there's a distinction to be made. I can find my blind, my car, and maybe a carcass on a pristine forest floor on some pretty dark nights, but if that thing jumped into some greenbrier or other brush, good luck. It's hard enough seeing them in that stuff during the day, I've had multiple occasions where I walked by a thicket in the day only to see deer flush out after I'm past it.

Also, some people just can't see in the dark well, regardless of how well they see in the day.

It really is a complex subject with a lot of considerations going down to even very small geographic areas in some cases. Part of it is to avoid over hunting, part safety, part sportsmanship, part for state revenue, and part for whatever crazy law got lobbied (ie in Virginia in some places you couldn't, even still I think, hunt fox with a gun because horseback fox hunters lobbied local governments against it, or maybe less crazy in a historical context, blue laws still apply some places).

For over hunting you have concerns over what sex or age a deer may be, time of day (more vulnerable at night), time of year (you don't want to kill a doe while it's pregnant or taking care of a fawn), and of course total count/limit.

For safety. Night hunting can be pretty risky, some locales don't allow rifles due to how far the round can travel, some require a certain distance from homes, etc.

For sportsmanship and ethics, things get a little more weird, because you're potentially pitting morals against each other. It's it ok to spotlight and take down 10 deer at a time? Maybe if you purely hunt for food for your family and this was the one time of year you planned to do it, but that'd get taken advantage of quick broadly. Even weapons are hotly debated in the hunting community, bow and arrow seems fair due to having to be real close, but your chance of missing or worse, only wounding the animal, is significantly higher.

I could go on for a while on all the above, but from my understanding, your premise is generally the original intent of conservation laws. They were to create a baseline of how many deer are taken a year. What happens though is people find loopholes they exploit, leading to overly broad, complex, and sometimes conflicting laws created to counter the problem.

What's wild about this case is Pennsylvania seems to want to make it hard to recover a potentially suffering animal, where many states have laws to protect you in recovery of the deer so it doesn't die suffering or needlessly go to waste. Many states make the distinction between recovery and hunting and have laws that apply to each separately. Pennsylvania in this case seems draconian and counter intuitive, which is frankly unsurprising from what little I knew about their hunting laws before.

It's not wrong, but it's also a bit more nuanced if you're unfamiliar. Many state wildlife departments use this money to put it back into public parks and protecting more at risk wildlife. There are some species that continue to live purely because of these structures.