hence, the hypocrisy of the US being a "free market" yet choosing not to accept competition when it's not tilted in their favour.
I think the US should allow imports of such cars (provided they pass strict environmental and safety regulations - most of which i'm sure it already does).
It will stop the car giants from resting on their laurels. If it hurts jobs, that simply means those jobs are no longer competitively producing value; the competition therefore will become a forcing function for change.
It's not like foreign auto mfrs haven't already decimated the US auto industry.
Ever since the 70s Japanese automobiles mopped the floor with USDM vehicles.
My parents bought exclusively American cars until 1980, when they made the mistake of buying a brand new 1981 Ford Thunderbird. Utter trash. Never bought another American car again. Hyundai and Nissans ever since.
> If Cloudflare is at 99.95% then the world suffers
if the world suffers, those doing the "suffering" needs to push that complaint/cost back up the chain - to the website operator, which would push the complaint/cost up to cloudflare.
The fact that nobody did - or just verbally complained without action - is evidence that they didn't really suffer.
In the mean time, BofA saved cost in making their site 99.95% uptime themselves (presumably cloudflare does it cheaper than they could individually). So the entire system became more efficient as a result.
> The fact that nobody did - or just verbally complained without action - is evidence that they didn't really suffer.
What an utterly clueless claim. You're literally posting in a thread with nearly 500 posts of people complaining. Taking action takes time. A business just doesn't switch cloud providers overnight.
I can tell you in no uncertain terms that there are businesses impacted by Cloudflare's frequent outages that started work shedding their dependency on Cloudflare's services. And it's not just because of these outages.
This has nothing to do with capitalism, and everything to do with regulatory capture and archaic rules established in a bygone era for a purpose that has since been outlived.
It is not only freedom of speech, but freedom of association that would also be jeopardized.
People long ago used to have to hide that they're gay, not only because they could be ostracized, but that people they associate with could also be under scrutiny.
Being able to track one's movements, or who they associate with, could reveal information that said person would want kept secret.
There was a podcast episode I listened to once, probably Darknet Diaries but maybe some other tech one, where the person being interviewed was an active community member in some bbs back in the day. Everyone decided to meet up to play dnd, and he showed up as a 13 year old kid when everyone else was 20+. They let him stay after cleaning it with his mom.
This is one type of connection that would be unlikely to form if superficial anonymity is lost. That kid probably would be off in some "safe" walled garden.
This doesn't even touch on more obvious forms of discrimination like gender, religion, etc.
And political affiliation / speech isn't protected in the US, so an employer could term you anytime for policy disagreement. Such a policy would destroy the exploration of ideas overnight, as outrage mobs would try to get any dissident sacked.
This is the issue with content production being owned by the distributors too. It's too profitable to own the vertical because each piece of content is an effective monopoly, because to participate in culture requires watching it (piracy notwithstanding). Therefore, the "fix" is to regulate this monopoly - by making sure that monopoly cannot exist without cost. One "simple" way is, imho, to make content production and ownership of distribution strictly prohibited in the same entity, and to also enforce mechanical licensing of content (such that you cannot have content exclusives in the distribution platforms).
Movie theatres have similar restrictions with film studios in the past - to prevent this very monopoly. It's high time we brought it back.
Yeah the best way to fix this would be to enforce the separation of distribution and production via the Paramount Decree. Separate content production from the streaming service itself. Get rid of the vertical integration plaguing the industry and we'll get better content since quality will be the territory on which studios have to compete with each other again.
exactly. This isn't a new problem. But what has been new is the recent growth in funding to "help" those who are deemed helpless - at someone else's cost (it could be taxpayers, it could be, in this case, other fee paying students).
The problem isn't the grift - it's the lack of any real oversight, and the ease with which such help is given lately (i would call it overly-progressive, but that might trigger some people). It is what makes grift possible.
I think if you capitalise the P it's fine. It's not actual progress, but the Progressive movement has pushed it. Because that philosophy has a naive view of people, and assumes the best. So their policies and spending allow tests with 100% sensitivity and 0% specificity.
because device makers will not care for the DRM, but will care for the hardware decoder they need to decide to put into their devices to decode netflix videos. By ensuring this video codec is open, it benefits everybody else now, as this same device will now be able to hardware decode _more_ videos from different video providers, as well as make more video providers choose AV1.
I think the point is that if you are not Netflix, you can use AV1 as most of your clients devices support hardware acceleration thanks to the big guys using AV1 themselves.
I struggle to follow your point. They still need to do that for any codec, and I would think that the DRM decryption would be using algorithms that might also be hardware accelerated.
which is why the price in electricity isn't truly being reflected properly by the cost of distribution.
If it costs less up north, then there would be incentive to move demand there (for data centers, which is more location agnostic). But if the price is the same up north, then the locality becomes a deciding factor.
that's not a jungle, rights come from a social contract and all the complicated social technology we usually operate to try to manifest said rights.
in a jungle there are niches, and opportunities, and even though there are very strong participants, no one is invincible, especially outside their niche.
the jungle is a place where the social contract is decided by the physically strongest players. the strongest player in the jungle is the man and the jungle only exists because he decided to not level it and turn it into a palm oil farm. in that sense you're right, I completely agree, no one is invincible there.
Yes, it's hard, and I'm not sure there are general strategies that always work.
It's fundamentally the same problem that the company is trying to solve when they interview you, just the other way 'round.
Some ideas: observe and ask in the interviews and hiring process in general. See what you can find out about the company from friends, contacts and even strangers. Network! Do some online research, too.
Btw, lots of the cliché interview questions ("What are your greatest weaknesses?" etc) actually make decent questions you can ask about the company and team you are about to join.
Something I've found useful is just reaching out to past employees. Usually folks that don't work there anymore will be more transparent. Only challenge is getting someone to respond to you, but you'd be surprised how many folks will talk if you don't come off like you're trying to sell them something or a bot.
I think the US should allow imports of such cars (provided they pass strict environmental and safety regulations - most of which i'm sure it already does).
It will stop the car giants from resting on their laurels. If it hurts jobs, that simply means those jobs are no longer competitively producing value; the competition therefore will become a forcing function for change.
reply