If we are being honest, Facebook easily gets most of the scrutiny here because of the rampant news hysteria. Google is a very distant second.
But I agree that Apple seems to get a pass here and in the news coverage as well. Perhaps because Apple is more established or because Tim Cook has better connections with media and government? Or maybe they hire the best PR firms.
But rather than focusing on individual firms, I think we should be focusing on the monopolies these tech giants are creating and the dangerous it can be for society if they aren't "fair" actors. And if we want, we should expand it beyond tech to banking, agriculture, media, etc.
Just a few years ago we were worrying about "too-big-to-fail". And here we are with endless mergers and ever greater concentration of wealth and power and influence.
That may or may not be true, but Europe is more of a content powerhouse than a internet/tech powerhouse. Their content is a bigger money maker than their tech. So it is in their interest to punish tech and protect tech.
It's also why China has such lax IP laws. They are more of a manufacturing powerhouse than an IP powerhouse ( for now at least ) so they have little to gain with stringent IP laws. When their IP portfolio increases, you can bet that their government would be all about IP protection.
And going back even further, we had some of the laxest IP laws in the western world during the 1800s because we had so little IP to protect. Which allowed our businesses to take a ton of IP from IP-rich britain and europe.
They aren't two separate wars. They are two campaigns within the same war.
You wouldn't divide ww2 into two separate wars because the germans and the soviets were allied in the first half of ww2 ( when they invaded poland and divided europe in half between them ) and then they fought a war against each other in the 2nd half.
The "continuation war" doesn't get much attention because of political reasons. Just like much of europe ( including france, most of scandinavia, netherlands, belgium, ukraine, etc ) underplays their cooperation with nazi germany for much of ww2 when nazi germany was on the ascent.
As they say, the first casualty of war is the truth. This applies not only during the war, but post-war as well.
I've been of the opinion that it's simply easier to analyze the era from ~1914-1945 as one long era of war with ill-defined boundaries of conflicts, rather than looking at WW1, Russian Civil War, Spanish Civil War, Second Sino-Japanese War, WW2, and a host of other smaller conflicts (including Continuation War and the Second Italo-Ethiopian War).
As a practical matter, the European/African theater against Germany/Italy and the Pacific theater against Japan are two separate wars that happened contemporaneously and with some powers fighting the two wars at the same time. The Continuation War was in large part pushed by the Germans to extend the front of the USSR, and as such is essentially part of the Eurafrican WW2, although the Finns did not entirely cooperate in actually pursuing Axis objectives.
This does show the difficulty of drawing firm boundaries around the wars in this era.
Sort of, but even in Finland, the Moscow treaty was called "interim peace" (välirauha) already before 1941, indicating that it was obvious that the European war will again spread to Finland's borders again.
The Soviets occupied Baltic countries, and continued and increased the political and military pressure against Finland already by late 1940, so that Finns did not believe it really is "peace".
Many unfortunate incidents worsened the situation; for instance, the day when the new Soviet ambassador arrived in Finland after the Moscow peace treaty, Finland had a national day of remembrance for the fallen soldiers (akin to Memorial Day in US). With about 25 000 men lost just few months before, this was of course done with flags in half-mast throughout the country and the mood was solemn and grave.
But the new ambassador did not know this, and he thought Finns are just demonstrating against his arrival. A wiser ambassador would have known better, but Stalin preferred ideological purity and refusal to listen to facts.
I'm not so sure. I think poor quality sleep and proscrastination are a symptom of not wanting to do something.
Poor quality sleep never got in the way of me doing the things I wanted to do. Whether it is prepping for a field trip I was excited about or waking up in the middle of the night to watch a livestream of esports game or anything I was interested it. It's only chores, jobs or studying for something I wasn't interested in that I always put off til tomorrow. And things like meetings at works I wasn't looking forward to always contributed to poor quality sleep.
Rather than being the cause, I suspect poor quality sleep is a symptom.
I agree. And to add to your point, we are bombarded with the demographic problem message every day. So what's the solution from these experts? Are we supposed to continuously grow the population forever? I've read our social welfare programs to private industry are being threatened by demographics change and the solution is more people. Okay, then what? What happens in a generation? We are back to the same demographic problem. Is it really a solution if you are just pushing the problem one generation into the future?
Seems like the problem isn't with demographics but the economic system if the problem is perpetual and impossible to correct.
Yes, it seems stunningly obvious that we aren't creating new jobs that pay a reasonable living wage fast enough, for a long time. AI (and plain old automation) accelerates that even more. So where are those new jobs coming from? There's no easy new job for the truck driver that pays as well, but even for the young person who is potentially easier to train for a new field, we keep producing more with less human effort, the general outlook is poor, we won't have as many jobs.
It seems to be qualitatively different than when people left farms to go to factories, or factory jobs to office jobs.
None of that would have been an issue if we had put the money away it costs to take care of those people when they get old, aka SS done right.
But we won't be back to the same demographic issue, because the issue that they people who retire now in the west are the last generations that were bigger than their parents generations (it has a formal name, but you can roughly think of it as many kids born, many kids die transitioning into many kids born, few kids die into what we have now which is few kids born, few kids die).
It's actionable information. If you're worried about ingesting pesticides, you might believe that eating fewer vegetables and more meat would be a safer option. The simple fact of bioaccumulation means that this would be the wrong approach.
What if we go to regulate pesticides, and through lobbying and special interest groups, animal feed gets less regulation. It'd be good to know that the pesticides can affect people even if their grains and vegetables don't get sprayed.
The amount of plants a cow eats vs a human is a big difference. You'll be exposed to less pesticides if you just eat plants instead of eating the cow and plants.
I'm talking about factory farming where the cow is fed large amounts of corn and soy.
Perhaps they should have used a better example than rotten tomatoes.
RT is owned by NBCUniversal and is terribly unreliable as a movie ratings aggregator. At one point it was a very useful site, but now it is useless. Might as well ask disney, nbc or studio execs on which movies to watch. We know that RT has lied and fudged ratings for financial or other purposes. It has the same problem as NewsGuard. It is controlled by industry insiders to benefit themselves and the industry. Would anyone trust an oil company ratings company controlled by oil companies?
Rather than a "rotten tomatoes" for news, I'd rather have a "meta" news or wiki site which has a running list of all the fake news that news companies have pushed out. Make it part curated and part user driven. Let users provide, comment and even contribute to it.
Make it listable by news companies and journalists. So we can see which news companies and which journalists have pushed the most fake news to the american public.
And some of the comments on this thread is a master class of virtue signaling as well. All sides seem well represented here.
Also, who is putting up walls? Be specific please. I too come from a low income "unprivileged" family and got my first computer in high school.
And the tech industry has always been diverse. It has been the most diverse and the most meritocratic industry for a long time. It's the industry where minorities and immigrants like Jerry Yang and Sergei Brin can thrive unlike more establish industries like news, media, oil, finance, transportation, etc.
Why are you painting a false image of what the tech industry is like? There are no barriers to programming. It is the most available and meritocratic and fair industries around.
Also, your entire comment had no relevance to the article. You just went on a stereotypical virtue signaling rant.
Also, do you really want diversity, or do you want a "diverse" group of people who all think like you?
I just can't handle the hypocrisy. All over HN, you support H1-B visas and claim the tech industry's success is due to diversity provided by H1-B visas. And elsewhere, you claim the tech industry is not diverse and the problem with the tech industry is the lack of diversity.
Which is it? You can't have it both ways just to suit your agenda. Be consistent.
Is it just google or all business? As china gets wealthier and as they develop, doesn't that also erode our military advantage? Isn't the overall economic growth a greater threat than one company, no matter how important? Not sure why Google is being singled out.
It might be natural or innate. Even young children associate taller with good and shorter with bad. I forget where but there was a documentary where children were asked to associate qualities to stick figures. The children gave the taller stick figures the positive qualities and the shorter stick figures the negative qualities.
We know that adults definitely associate positive qualities with height. We know voters associate positive traits to taller candidate. And females do as well - assign more positive traits to the taller male.
But I agree that Apple seems to get a pass here and in the news coverage as well. Perhaps because Apple is more established or because Tim Cook has better connections with media and government? Or maybe they hire the best PR firms.
But rather than focusing on individual firms, I think we should be focusing on the monopolies these tech giants are creating and the dangerous it can be for society if they aren't "fair" actors. And if we want, we should expand it beyond tech to banking, agriculture, media, etc.
Just a few years ago we were worrying about "too-big-to-fail". And here we are with endless mergers and ever greater concentration of wealth and power and influence.