It sounds like your CTO took the opposite message of the book. Well the modern interpretation anyway. But can't really argue with not rewriting working code, even the Oracle licensing is probably is probably nothing in terms of cost. Might wanna update to a supported version though.
Yeah this all just seems objectively worse for end users, like me, who are spoiled with cheap reliable and completely isolated from the internet devices.
Okay but you do understand that what you're suggesting costs the full salary a woman (because of course it would never be men asked give up their careers) could earn for the family and the economic gains that come with it. Back of the napkin calculation is three trillion dollars of value lost annually. And that's before the knock-on effects of such a massive recession. Household income will drop by 30-40% across the board because you're daft if you think men will be getting a raise. So there goes the demand side too.
Then there's the small issue that women's liberation happened and there's no reason to believe it wouldn't happen again given the conditions would be the exact same. Women won't be put back into financial captivity without a fight. In some ways I understand why men idealize this era of the past, but women were not having a good time.
It doesn't cost the fully salary of the woman, it redirects it to something that can't be captured by large scale economics. Which, if you're trying to break the backs of the uber wealthy, is an excellent way to do it.
> Women won't be put back into financial captivity without a fight
This, along with the language of the supposedly "pro-male" camp ("why shackle yourself to someone who will just rough you over for most of your paycheck later and leave") are both approaching marriage wrong. If you're trying to achieve a good that cannot be had individually (a happy marriage) then both sides have to freely give 100% of what the shared good requires. Marriage cannot work as a Mexican standoff between two parties who are trying to take as much as possible from it without giving anything in return.
Dangerous? Yes. It's the most dangerous thing you can ever do, to take yourself in your own hands and offer yourself to another.
You go first then. It can be a you cut I choose type thing with gender roles.
Because let me tell you dude I and every other woman is picking the men's package in this deal. You go ahead and be a 50's housewife if you think it's so good. We've had the option to choose if we want that terrible life for 40+ years now and "fuck no" won in a landslide.
Do you know how depressing it is to find out that both my mom and my mother-in-law squirreled away money in a secret bank account just so they could have the tiniest bit of financial independence separate from their husbands. And keep in mind these are men who they both love dearly and are still married to to this day.
Hold on - you're conflating "traditional housewife with zero financial independence" with "choosing to be the primary caregiver for your own kids." Those are not the same thing.
The fact that your mom and MIL needed secret bank accounts isn't an argument against raising your own children - it's an argument for financial transparency and shared accounts in modern marriages. And yeah, we should absolutely have that.
But here's what you're missing: plenty of women (and men!) are choosing to be primary caregivers today because we have the choice now. It's not 1950 - it's 2025. Nobody's talking about giving up bank accounts or financial independence. We're talking about prioritizing raising your own kids over outsourcing it, when that's financially possible.
It's hard as hell, it's undervalued, and it's not for everyone. But acting like everyone who makes that choice is deluded? That's just as dismissive as the people who think all women should be doing it.
The conclusion is that adding women to the workforce competed with men’s wages at least as much as it did add to the economy. Taking women out of the workforce to do family and domestic tasks will be supportive of male wages, counteracting the effect you mention.
The other way to interpret GP is that we could implement long-term government-funded parental leave, especially if (!) the cost was comparable to universal child care. This could go to either parent, not necessarily the mother.
I mean, that is an advantage to people who push for that. That way the woman is made completely dependent on man and cant leave no matter how bad the situation gets. If you want men to be head of households then lack of female employment is an advantage.
Of course men to get simultaneously resentful over having to work while women done and spend their money each time they buy something, are not super thankful all of the time cause people are not, but that is not concern to those people either.
Protect from what? Themselves and other men? Why do they have to provide while women are being made helpless and dependent?
> Things worked this way for thousands upon thousands of years and led to our species being amazingly resilient
It led to high domestic violence against women. Even normalized one where being the wife was considered just being a man. These are very much correlated with lack of opportunities for women to get earn and live independently. Too many men were using the "protection" as an excuse for being the primary danger in their women's lives.
Bud, "your" people are "getting replaced" because they’re not fucking enough. Pounding your chest about "low-IQ" immigrants and masculinity won't help: they still won't fuck until they feel they can afford the lifestyle they want, regardless of who you feel the "burden of proof" is on. Enjoy seeing -- gasp!! -- a whole lot more brown faces with scary names in the future. (As always, the kids will be alright, regardless of whatever scornful glances they might catch from insecure adult "men".)
Want to raise the next generation of humans in a healthy, humanistic way? Then you go fucking do it, Mr. Big Man. Otherwise, let us do the sensible thing of having universal child care and go back to your racist rat hole.
Someday your woke kids will read your comment and will be mortified.
I didn't take that message away from the blog at all. They seem perfectly content to be an 18+ app but are musing on the fact that, functionality wise, it doesn't actually have any sexual content. Just the vague suggestion that you might choose to log that information in there.
An IRL analogy is probably stores that are happy to let children shop in the vicinity of sexually suggestive items such as condoms, lube, and intimate apparel—you can get these at grocery stores even.
In all honesty, I think the front of a condom box which says "for contraception plus STI protection" is less sexually suggestive than an app that has a "Spice Library" where the user can tag activities with tags such as "Anal," "Oral," or "Intercourse."
How about a different angle then since you seem to be of the opinion that words related to sex can't be in the vicinity of children. Book stores. There aren't age ratings for books and a 8 year old is not only free to wander around by themselves near all the smut—from missionary to rape to drugged group sex with hockey boy dragon princes—but they would be allowed to buy them too. The only 'protection' from this happening is the fact that kids aren't actually interested in this kind of stuff.
So it gets to the heart of what these age ratings are really for and what kind of things do we actually not want kids around. And it seems like the line is drawn at sexually explicit imagery. And so app stores in a way are kind of unique in that they apply age restrictions much more liberally than the wider world around them.
Seems like people should be of whatever age we consider mature before they start capturing intimate data about themselves on random platforms. If we don’t think you’re able to understand the risks of pursuing your reproductive impulses, do we think you can measure the risks of sharing data about those impulses on a platform you don’t control?
Local data or not, if I were the steward of a marketplace I’d use that position to create this kind of teaching moment for pre-developed consumers. If young people had been warned since the mid 2000s of how much of their intimacy they were handing over to Meta, ByteDance, etc. before they started, the world would certainly be better off.
Agreed. But giving adults free will is a principle of the market, so if attempting to prevent the most vulnerable consumers is the best we can get from a compromise, I’m for it
It is, quite literally, a diary for your sexual activity
Condoms, lubes, and intimate apparel are not threats to children. If you found children buying condoms, lubes, or intimate apparel at unusually high rates, that would be very alarming. But, normally, they are purchasing these products for very lazy adults.
There is 0 use case for a person under the age of majority to use this application. It is only usable by a person being abused.
Precisely 0 adults have charged children with the mission of f... blogging sexual activity.
> If you found children buying condoms, lubes, or intimate apparel at unusually high rates, that would be very alarming. But, normally, they are purchasing these products for very lazy adults.
“Children buying condoms or lube at unusually high rates” is a funny phrase because I don’t think I’ve ever seen a child buy either of those things. What is the threshold between usual and unusual for these purchases in hard terms?
You've never seen a kid buy condoms because mom and dad are lazy?
I aspire to your lifestyle ;)
kids buy condoms for the same reasons kids used to buy cigarettes or beer. It would be super weird to see the same neighborhood kid buy condoms every week, but it's not particularly alarming on a one-time basis.
Maybe I am just very old, and I should be alarmed by a one-time purchase. I am relating the basic guidelines from my own youth.
It is plainly a bad idea by any standard to provide an application for teenagers to keep diaries of their sexual abuse.
> You've never seen a kid buy condoms because mom and dad are lazy?
Not that I can think of, and I’ve worked retail. I’m assuming that ‘lazy parents’ have been buying condoms and lube online for a long time now given the selection and price points available. Like you can get a hundred pack for ~$20 which is way cheaper than what you’d get at a gas station.
Wait until you see how many condoms you can buy off Amazon with a $20 Visa card. It even ships in an unmarked cardboard box, the West will fall any minute now.
> Apple demonstrated to the world that it can be extremely fast and sip power.
Kinda. Apple silicon sips power when it isn't being used, but under a heavy gaming load it's pretty comparable to AMD. People report 2 hours of battery life playing cyberpunk on Macs, which matches the steam deck. It's only in lighter games where Apple pulls ahead significantly, and that really has nothing to do with it being ARM.
Sure, but Apple isn't selling their silicon to anyone else and Valve, successful as they are, don't have Apples money and economy-of-scale to throw at designing their own state-of-the-art CPU/GPU cores and building them on TSMCs state-of-the-art processes. Valve will have to roll with whatever is available on the open market, and if that happens to suck compared to Apples stuff then tough shit.
I'm definitely dreaming but I think it could be a win-win situation if Apple decided to licence its chips to Valve: the resulting handheld and VR headsets would be power/efficiency monsters and PC devs would finally have a good reason to target ARM, which could finally bring native PC gaming to MACs.
This doesn't feel like anything Apple has done in modern times. The last thing I remember them licensing was the iPod+HP from 2004-2005. Apple barely does enterprise support; they're very focused on selling their products to consumers and I don't think they're at all interested in selling CPUs to others.
Apple waffles and sometimes talks about gaming on Macs, but they lack the commitment that is needed. A lot of people like to buy a game and continue playing it for years, even after the developer went on to something else; or to buy years old games on sale. But you can't expect to run a mac os app compiled three to five years ago that is media and gpu heavy intensive on today's mac os. There will have been mandatory developer updates and it won't work.
Win32 is the only stable desktop ABI... and games need a stable ABI.
The Nintendo Switch already provides >160 million reasons for gamedevs to care about native ARM support, but that hasn't moved the needle for the Mac. Being ARM-based is the least of its problems, the problem is that it's a relatively tiny potential market owned by a company which is actively hostile to the needs of game developers.
The switch is underpowered to the point that most A(AA) games cannot run on it without a ton of effort and compromise, an M chip powered device would be a different story. But anyway it's never going to happen, just daydreaming about a perfect gaming setup...
Valve isn't in the position to make their own best-in-class ARM chips like Apple is. They'd have to find a vendor which can sell them the chip they need.
Which SoC on the market do you think fits the bill?
Of course, you should instead believe your own anecdotal evidence that marks a tally every time you hear about a crime, which if you watch local news is always, but doesn't mark a tally every time there isn't a crime.
Fun fact that's totally not related, did you know
that people who listen to true crime podcasts are more likely to believe a crime could happen to their families and are also more likely to install higher levels of security on their house?
Does there become a point where reporting on this kind of stuff is just feeding the trolls? Ars is both giving them the reaction they want and platforming their nonsense.
The government put up a poster that says vaccines bad very autism and maybe the right response is to just ignore it. This admin seems to be fueled by outrage and very loud showy public displays of basically nothing when you get down to it. Cool story RFK, anyway moving on.
You’ll have to let me know when that has ever really happened. I can’t recall a single government in my lifetime that didn’t push some remarkably stupid and irresponsible nonsense.
People my age probably remember the classic 90s “food pyramid” in school and on the back of sugared cereal boxes — it pushed empty carbs as the the foundation of a healthy diet.
There's a difference between doing something well meant, failing, and improving -vs- going back to theories already proven wrong and harmful. There's a reason we don't have the food pyramid - we're learning.
You don't think that the current crop of vaccine-skeptics are mostly well-intentioned and that the movement will ultimately fade-away decades down the line?
It seems identical to me: soft corruption and bad science shaping government policy. Annoying and bad, but also hopefully temporary (but may do damage in the meantime). I agree that it happens with all governments. Has everyone forgotten the sea of bad science that was COVID policy? Thank god they arrested that paddle-boarder!
Covid policy was bad mostly because it was driven by economic interests, not because of "bad science."
The only major scientific lapses I can think of in the US were the initial insistence that masks don't work and that the virus isn't airborne. The mask issue was influenced by the fact that they wanted to conserve masks for healthcare workers. I strongly suspect the airborne issue was heavily influenced by no one wanting to deal with the consequences: that stronger measures would be needed to reduce the spread of the virus.
"Your Honor, I really meant well when I aimed the gun and pulled the trigger! Sure, everyone told me it would go off and kill someone, but can't you see that my intentions were pure?"
> You don't think that the current crop of vaccine-skeptics are mostly well-intentioned
Well intentioned but wrong is only when you have incomplete information. Once your theory has been disproven multiple times and you still ignore it, that's not well intentioned anymore. That's just lying to yourself and others at that point.
Humanity is messy. There are very many things that I think have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but are still, somehow, up for debate.
The answer can’t be absolutism in any direction. No one, no group, and no ideology has a monopoly on truth.
No system or ideology is perfectly correct — or even reliably correct in the long run, if you make the error of building an ideology around it that assumes it will be correct. You create the conditions of its own fallibility.
The next government will make stupid decisions, be wrong, and promote falsehoods. We probably won’t even know all of them at the time.
They’ll be both corrupt and good intentioned, depending on the subject, who is involved, and why.
This current government at least admits the possibility of debate. That’s a fair sight better than most of what I’ve seen over the last 10 years from those who think they have a monopoly on truth and science.
Pretty sure it was whole grains. Not what the base of the pyramid ought to be (it should really be vegetables) but hardly "empty" calories.
Japanese eat lots of rice, white rice even, and stay thin. The food pyramid wasn't the problem. Putting sugar in everything, eating cereal and other processed foods, and dropping home economics cooking classes from school was the culprit.
"All governments make mistakes. Therefore, pushing propaganda and lies about vaccines is okay, like telling kids three servings of vegetables is okay when actually it should be four."
But why? Do you feel the need to respond to those weirdos in the street yelling about how god hates fags and the end of days or whatever? Is anything gained by acknowledging them at all?
There's plenty of real stuff this admin is doing to respond to; focusing on the performative nonsense that exists seemingly to keep them 'winning' in the news cycle to their base might just be wasting your breath.
This is the real stuff this admin is doing. Using the public health apparatus to discredit and dismantle one of the most successful medical projects in human history is real stuff.
> Do you feel the need to respond to those weirdos in the street yelling about how god hates fags and the end of days or whatever?
There's a huge difference between the seriousness of "the official disease control of the US government" saying some nonsense and "random citizens yelling in the street" doing so.
> Is anything gained by acknowledging them at all?
Is there anything gained by ignoring them?
I'm sure it won't seem very performative to the kids who aren't vaccinated and get sick, or autistic folks who don't appreciate the correlation.
> plenty of real stuff this admin is doing to respond to
Because it normalises dangerous bullshit and that should be a line in the sand for any responsible human. You can’t dismiss it because it’s part of a much wider pattern that is fuelling the justification of other dangerous bullshit we used to suppress in the pursuit of harmony.
Well, many or even most non-Americans generally look up to America to learn. The USA are regarded as the pinnacle of world culture, industry, and commerce by the world. Even in non-western countries, and even if daemonized by certain leaders, the common people generally know that there are the greatest achievements in the USA. A few people may not do so, and may know how bad some corners are cut and how rotten some things are, but that's a minority. Also, if a powerful US politician farts, it is on all the front pages of all media outlets around the world. There's no escape, US news are pushed into all corners. And politicians in the world see that the thug model has worked quite effectively, and so strategies are taken over to do the same everywhere else, like ignoring science and instead citing 'common sense'.
All this BS that's currently going on spreads into the last corners of the world as ultimately good ideas, as truths, and the thugs are role models for the world.
It is not good. How to explain future to my kids? Yeah, sorry, I am also using the 'kid' argument now.
Well yeah, the GPDR was great in theory and a huge win for privacy advocates until it did jack shit in practice. It turned out to have zero teeth and everyone just found ways
to keep business as usual while 'complying' with the law.
I think it's ridiculous to say GDPR did "jack shit". I now have the ability to withdraw consent for tracking/marketing cookies on every major companies website I visit. An option that was near non-existent before GDPR.
What the law wanted: putting regulatory friction on tracking cookies by requiring collecting consent will make sites do less tracking.
What the law did: endless cookie banners.
What the law wanted: ending the torrent of people's inboxes filling with ads.
What the law did: nothing because they caved to the industry and let people send ads anyway. actual spammers never followed the law anyway and real companies who ship ads weren't at all burdened by an existing customer relationship requirement.
What the law wanted: companies will stop keeping your personal information on their servers forever.
What the law did: nothing because they again caved to the industry and it just got added to the cookie banner consent screen or the company just said they kept the data for "value add" services like personalization.
I'm shrugging a bit, because we have very different experience regarding what the law did, as I worked on projects and privacy and handling of personal data was taken pretty seriously. (Sure, my sample size is small.)
Separating good traffic (and emails and sites) from bad is an inherently hard problem. I'm not surprised that a big generic supranational regulatory body did not solve it. But I think they found and okay balance between regulatory burden and efficacy.
(And even though I understand that the enforcement had to be left to various agencies of the member states, the absolute sluggishness and total lack of proactivity was bad for morale. Even though I'm aware it had to go through the courts too. But that's a communication problem and I expect the fucking supranational regulator to be able to articulate what the realistic expectations are and where are we compared to them, and what's keeping us from getting there, and so on. Post-legislation monitoring and follow up is very important, and all regulatory bodies are atrociously unaware of the harm their skill deficiency causes in today's complaint-driven cumulative resentment-based populist politics/propaganda.)
For even n>2 you define a tie breaker node in advance and only the partition connected to that node can make a quorum at 50%. For n=2 going from no quorum to quorum requires both nodes but losing a node doesn't lose quorum, and when you lose a node you stop, shoot the other node, and continue. For split brain the fastest draw wins the shootout.
reply