nck4222

Considering Star wars media continues to print money for Disney, and core Star wars consumers were appalled at the franchise before the acquisition (prequels), that's not the best example.

In theory that sounds nice but as far as trusting a company with my privacy/data, a Chinese backed social network is probably one of the only entities I would trust less than Facebook.

This has been painfully obvious for the duration of this administration, nevermind just recently.

The danger is that at some point an administration would be so adept at this that it's not painfully obvious. In theory, at the very least the electorate is informed enough at this point that they can consider this information when voting. Admittedly, that's pretty optimistic take on the US electorate however. An educated, well informed public is necessary for a successful democracy, and America's problems with education are well documented.

I had the same thought, which made me think how little we know about the ecosystems on earth, which made me think it's even more important to protect the environment. We destroy things before we even know they exist.

In my experience most people use them interchangeably with no distinction between them. The only time I've seen anyone show disdain for one term vs another is here on HN.

I've never cared what people refer to me as, and I've never seen anyone voice a preference for it among people I've interacted with.

I call myself a Software Engineer, because pretty much every job title I've had has used that term.

>This is 100% incidental complexity.

The article talked a lot about their new dark mode feature, how they wouldn't have been able to implement it in their old tech stack, and how they were able to reduce their CSS size while adding a dark mode.

But is dark mode all that important? Even as a developer I don't care at all about FB having a dark mode, did they really need to rewrite their entire site to implement features no one cares about? Also, for a photo and video sharing site, is CSS size really important? I just loaded the page and it loaded 13.2mb worth of data while making 249 requests. Thanks for cutting down your 400kb CSS file though I guess.

That's not what the article said. It was highlighting how despite some hospitals being overrun, these field hospitals still went unused because there were no plans in place to utilize them.

We didn't flatten the curve enough to make these hospitals useless. We simply didn't use them despite needing them.

Did we read the same article? It praised the actions of building the hospitals, while stating what you said in that it shows we weren't as prepared as we should be for a pandemic.

>we kept the infections low enough that we didn't need to use it.

The article specifically said the hospitals were needed despite being unused. The problem was existing hospitals didn't have policies in place to use them, so instead doctors were treating patients in overrun hallways while these beds lay empty.

This is explored in the book Jurassic Park, but was left out of the movie.

I don't mean this to be rude, but it doesn't sound like you have much experience working at home with children around. I don't think you should be so quick to assume you know the solution to a problem/situation you have no insight in to.

Maybe what you're describing would work for some people. But to so confidently say it's a blanket solution for everyone and is not actually a problem, is frankly laughable.

Not in my case, no. They're not school aged, and are at home during the day. Elementary schools where I am run roughly 9-3 as well, except on Thursdays when they run 9-2.

Maybe I could make it work, but I would still prefer to have an office to go to most days.

Children probably. Don't get me wrong, I love being home and spending time with the family more, it's really the best part of this experience for me.

But there's no way I'd be able to be as productive as expected under normal circumstances. I'm lucky if I get 4 hours in.

> - The system must maintain an incentive to return to work. Paying people 100% of their replacement income to not work will reduce the incentive to return to work.

Is there any evidence that shows this? I would think 4 months of 100% replacement income followed by no longer receiving unemployment benefits provides plenty of incentive to return to work.

>This is a difficult topic to discuss because people reach for strawman arguments about families becoming homeless, but realistically a $60K/year equivalent income is not far from the annual median household income. People can and do find ways to live on that amount all over the country.

I mean, the median household income in 2018 was 62k, and an estimated 78% of the country lives paycheck-to-paycheck. Yeah plenty of people can survive fine on it, plenty of other middle class people would be unable to afford their mortgage on it. Forcing people to sell their houses due to job loss from a pandemic seems like a pretty morally unfair system, as well as a poor economic outlook for the country.

Isn't the point to be able to sustain someone until they can get another job? What's the point of giving someone enough money to pay their mortgage but not enough to eat, or enough to feed kids?

There's more expenses to living than mortgage and utilities. Food, health care, home repairs, funerals, car repairs, etc.