itsmenotyou

> If you're going to interject yourself, as a company, into the political arena, you have to be all in otherwise you will get called out like this eventually.

A company selectively interjecting itself into the political arena highlights its hypocrisy, but any company having a significant public impact should be getting called out regardless of their actions in other spheres. Ethics are not an opt-in.

> But both Bloomberg and the author are pursuing long term strategies.

Are they though? Where's the metric that measures credibility, or is that something that's left to human discretion? People will optimize for the metrics they're measured against, and it sounds like in this case they've chosen a metric that conflicts with the aims of a news organization.

Same here, almost exclusive FF user on OSX (Sierra) and never had any issues

That people benefited from internet shopping and delivery is not a defense of a company treating it's workers badly or evading paying taxes. Let's not pretend amazon is the only company that might have delivered those efficiencies, they were just the most successful, the most ruthless.

Obviously I can't speak for all situations but often I'll ride towards the centre or vehicular edge of the path if there is a risk of pedestrian hazards, or parked cars on the other side. People jumping out in front of you or opening car doors is all to frequent, and almost impossible to avoid, particularly in areas where cycling is not so popular.

This is a reasonable post undermined by a ridiculous last sentence. Cyclists need to obey laws but those laws should not be the same as for cars because the impacts those laws seek to prevent are not the same.

also ambiguous as had in this case suggests that might no longer be the case

Inside and Limbo do have puzzles, but they're fairly predictable, mostly just variations on things that have been seen before. They're nice diversions, and have a pleasing graphical style, but the general sentiment of your comment is pretty much correct.

What made Braid so special was that it introduced an entirely new mechanic, explored the entire possible space of puzzles for that mechanic, and explored a bunch of complimentary orthogonal mechanics at the same time.

Each person needs to set their own limits. For me this barrier was enough, but some may need more drastic barriers. I wouldn't judge people for trying to effect positive change in their life.

100% agree, even for those who are not addicts, we're not always perfectly aware of/or in control of our actions, and social media platforms are designed to take advantage of this. When I deleted facebook on my phone I'd often find myself in a quiet moment idly scrolling through my apps looking to open it again.

I get that this is an issue close to the heart of people on this site, but if you accept that this is a good law (which of course can be debated), then this is the only realistic way to introduce it. Perhaps they should have included a provision for gradually phasing out the existing cafeterias.

On a slightly off topic note, when your company gets to cafeteria size are you really a startup any more?

> How is the Play Store related to the Google Seach app or to Chrome?

- They're not, and the attempt to claim they are part of a mobile "suite" is the same sort of obfuscation Microsoft used when they argued a web browser (IE) was an essential part of a desktop OS. This ruling seems obvious to me.

That really depends on what goal you're trying to achieve. If your goals are efficient distribution of aid, or tracking city sustainability across countries, it probably doesn't matter to you what the local variations in the definition of "urban" are.

Interesting perspective. I think that seeking and naming patterns "microservices", "agile", etc. is useful. It provides something like a domain specific language that allows a higher level conversation to take place.

The problem, as your identify, is that once a pattern has been identified people too easily line up behind it and denigrate the "contrasting" pattern. The abstraction becomes opaque. We're used to simplistic narratives of good vs evil, my team vs your team, etc. and our tendency to embrace these narratives leads to dumb pointless conversations driven more be ideology than any desire to find truth.