sidfthec

> I can take it home with me.

I own part of Google. I can't take it home with me. I don't even know what that would mean.

> If I own it, I can get a permit to build on it.

It is indeed possible to get a permit to build on/use public grounds.

> If I own it, I can refuse to allow everyone else to use it.

You can vote for representation that could in theory restrict access to just you. The other owners probably wouldn't agree to it, though. There are a lot of owners who want open access.

I think you're confusing things here. You seem to be talking about having full ownership of something, as if partial ownership isn't a thing.

> I don't own the USPS nor do I own the national parks.

Yes we do (if you're a US citizen). You even get to vote for the "board of directors" so to speak (the legislative/executive branches of the US gov).

As for your other example, I can own quite a bit of a company and still get denied access to their offices and computer systems.

I'm not sure what you mean. What would the alternative world look like in this case? Less safe / a lack of tires until we confirm every chemical used isn't dangerous? I don't think that's a good trade off. We still don't have good alternatives in 2023, let alone in the last 100 years.

Strange tone to the article. Very adversarial and doomy.

Sounds like 6PPD is essentially required for modern tires. People are researching alternatives but haven't scaled any yet.

Other emissions from modern tires are also bad. People are researching alternatives but haven't scaled any yet.

Regulatory agencies are pushing to speed this up.

What's the issue? It sounds like things are working as intended.

> I did not read the original paper, so maybe they accounted for this

Then why say it's an issue?

Putting the annoyance aside for a second, I think this is partly a difference of viewpoints when it comes to what constitutes being a "slave to your device" as you say.

Having the phone on vibrate or the ringer on all the time feels like being way more attached to your phone than having it on silent. Vibrate/ring means the phone gets your attention immediately all of the time. Silent means I decide when I give the phone attention.

Back to the annoyance, I know two people who like to think they're not attached to their device and leave it at home when they're out. But then when I'm visiting and they're out running an errand or something, their phones ding and ding and ding and there's nothing to do about it (since I'm not going to silence their phone for them...). I have lots of stories like this.

Of course, this all stems on me being baffled that someone would go days without checking their phone.

> but since our phones are ad-delivery platforms, they only give you the minimum amount of flexibility to solve it.

Three actions (volume button, tap, tap) on my Android to turn my phone from ringer on to silent isn't that bad. And even though I don't have an iOS device, I'd hardly say they're built to be ad-delivery platforms. iOS isn't really in the ad business as much.

It annoys me either way. Just put your phone on silent (unless you have certain contacts that need to get through in an emergency).

It's especially annoying when you don't look at your phone because you're just making noise for no reason. It's on the same level as playing music through your phone on the subway with no regard for those around you.

I know someone who will sit there for an hour texting people and each text that comes in rings the phone. They're literally staring at their phone and think that they need the ringer on.

I know some folks that do this and indeed I do hate it. But not because I'm a slave to my device. I hate the buzzing because you should just put it on silent if you don't care about the notifications. It's pretty annoying to have to hear a buzz or ringer in an otherwise quiet room, and it gets to the hate level when you clearly don't even need it on.

Could have just been someone going around with a bomb sniffing dog while they were assessing the package. I'm guessing they weren't searching everyone's hotel rooms afterwards...

> Numerous agencies have been documented using this sort of dishonest and dubious tactics, so I do not think that possibility could be dismissed at the start.

The wording of this is similar to conspiracy theorists that spout off lots of theories with little to no evidence or logic.

1. Is there any evidence that the "local police and fire department" were searching anything that would normally require a warrant, besides the suspicious package? Surely Caesers would give a good amount of access without the charade if the police said they suspected something, and be able to do the search in a quieter way (which would mean it's less likely to tip off anyone who they'd be looking for).

2. Is there evidence of agencies (in this case, local Las Vegas FD and PD) planting fake bombs in the past to avoid getting a warrant?

You should need a lot more evidence to think that it was planted by police. So many more scenarios are more likely.

But that's not the type of story that's being claimed from the person I responded to.

Of course the lead developer waved you off. You wondered why things took forever, and the lead developer knew it was a complicated system and figured it wasn't worth their time investigating. It happened to be incorrect, but the lead developer wasn't in denial. They just filtered the issue out because they can't afford to go down every rabbit-hole they come across. I'm sure once you found the actual bug, it was later fixed.

The person I was responding to seems to think a large number of people are in denial when a bug is filed against them. That doesn't make sense, and isn't something I see. It'd be as if when you pointed out the actual bug, the lead developer continued to say it wasn't actually a bug (which is of course ridiculous and I bet didn't happen).

What FAANG have you seen this at?

I've been at big tech companies for most of my career and I've never seen anyone deny the existence of a technical bug. I've seen plenty of teams mark a bug as lower priority and never fix it because other things are higher priority. But denying that the bug exists, especially after a detailed explanation? That doesn't resonate with my experiences.

It's not an example at all. It's just as baffling to use it as an example when there are much better sources.

Pre-Elon, you have financial statements showing the strength of the company. Profitable before Covid before they hired a massive number of people (like a lot of companies during covid) and then dropped below profitability. It's very possible that a smaller layoff and a focus on fundamentals could have brought them back to profitability.

Elon has admitted that they've lost around 50% in ad revenue since the takeover and that they're not cash-flow positive. Reports are saying 59%-70%. I'm inclined to believe that Elon is under reporting to the public (based on his history of exaggerating/under-reporting/lying about this kind of stuff). Either way, it's clear Twitter is in a much weaker position now than pre-takeover.

> Aliens have super sophisticated tech that is hardy enough to travel millions of light years through space but it crashes so easy on earth?

Selection bias. We don't know how many crafts fail to make it to Earth. Maybe the trip is extremely dangerous and only a percentage actually make it.

And/or, like most air & space travel, takeoff and landing are the most dangerous parts.

Also, we have a very good handle on air travel, but planes still crash sometimes.

(I don't actually believe we have ET crafts coming to earth, but it's fun thinking it through).