Some users switch apps by dragging windows around the screen, like a messy stack. A friend of mine didn't even know about Cmd+Tab to cycle through open apps. Users are weird.
I use a mix of Cmd-Tab and a hot key to see all non-minimized apps (Mission Control?) to pick from. I’ve realized that that I’m faster at seeing the color of the window I’m looking for than remembering the app name.
Is it too morbid to joke about it actually being a great time to get a lot of samples for a study?
I mean, that plus Zoom and you're like halfway to a world-wide sample size, more-or-less
On a serious note:
I'm extremely grateful for everyone who's working to solve this big and complicated problem, and (like the other poster said) it's entirely reasonable that it's really difficult to get larger studies going.
I don’t believe it. Studying how to effectively treat coronavirus patients is literally the most important problem in the world right now, and I’m sure a lot more than 11 severe cases are being treated with hydrochloroquine.
While your point is a good one, meaningful clinical research is hard enough under normal conditions. Forms, enrollment, protocols, data collection, statistical analysis plans, reporting, etc. It's an entire industry used to operating in scales that often span years for a single meaningful study.
And I agree with that as far as it goes, but I think it reflects the problem - clinical research contains a bunch of hurdles that have nothing to do with uncovering the truth. So in a sudden emergency, where clinical research starts to diverge from the treatment decisions of doctors and the drug supply actions of governments, I'm not going to put much weight on clinical research.
"I expect more of companies and people than their minimum legal obligations."
That's weird ... what do you expect from, say, hammers and blenders ?
I expect people to do nice things and be kind and think of my interests. Simple tools, on the other hand (like screwdrivers and shovels and LLCs and Corporations and family trusts) should just do exactly what they are designed to do - and nothing more.
Fair point. Still, even corporate entities are made up of flesh-and-blood humans. So if those humans benefit substantially more than the original creators of a work then it's reasonable to expect those founders to change their license or stop contributing.
So it's possible that well-funded consumer/producers like Amazon may at times crush, overtake, or otherwise discourage some of the unpaid labor that they benefit from.
(Not trying to make a moral argument. Personally I'm a bit conflicted on consuming and producing FOSS.)
You are probably right in the sense of what-is, that Amazon's moral compass is guided only by legal obligations. That does not make it what-should-be. Companies are groups of people. Decency is not erased when a corporation enters the picture.
Corporations exist for the benefit of the society that grants them their charter and that charter can--and should--be revoked when the corporation acts against the best interests of that society. We do have that power, but we've forgotten about it.
I wasn't intending to imply it was one or the other, I was trying to get the parent to clarify their comment, and those were my 2 best guesses, sorry if came off like that.
I've seen this point before, but it's not an argument for keeping rates low. "If we raise rates, the rich will just find ways to avoid them!" People find new ways to try to murder and steal all the time; that doesn't mean we throw up our hands and make it legal to do so.
The solution is to raise rates and fix loopholes, difficult a political lift as that may be.
Show me how high taxes in France have made them better off at the median. US wages are far higher at the median, US wage growth has been far higher for decades, US unemployment is routinely 1/2 their rate, US growth is routinely 3x-4x higher. They've seen nearly zero inflation adjusted growth for 20 years and have among the world's highest tax rates.
Their people are rioting week after week, because their system of high taxes has failed them, their middle class is being crushed anyway. What are they going to do, raise taxes further? The only thing left is to begin confiscation of wealth directly and then they're just the next Venezuela in waiting, accelerating their collapse.
I've seen zero evidence the US Government can be responsible with spending and allocate it to proper use as things are now. They've been wildly irresponsible for 40-50 years running, including in stealing trillions of dollars from Social Security over decades (and then lying about it) and on wasting trillions on unnecessary military spending. Why would I give them more money until they prove they can be good stewards with the $4.x trillion they get to spend now? Let's see them take the $750 billion in military spending down to $450 billion where it should be and redirect those resources to infrastructure et al.
> I've seen zero evidence the US Government can be responsible with spending and allocate it to proper use as things are now.
It's hard to argue one can get the same performance - on the same scale - as US government in projects it does.
How, for example, you measure overall lack of wars and general growth in prosperity, health etc.? What's the US part in that? Even if, say, Sweden manages lots of projects more efficiently per capita, how would you argue scaling that won't be worse than what US is doing?
It's a rather common opinion that governments are less efficient than private organizations. Still for some things we keep governments and keep trying to make them efficient, having headwinds which aren't typical in private world. Not sure if starting with "first reach efficiency..." won't get us to the same situation as US government is in right now - i.e. a prolonged shutdown.
That’s not the point being made at all (that we need to force people to pay the high rate). The point this commenter is making is that you cannot point to the nominal tax rate and use it as evidence that high tax rates don’t cause harm, because it is not the nominal tax rate that matters, it’s the effective rate.
My primary point is that we can't look to the past and say "rates were super high before, and look how great we did". We need to realize those were nominal rates that no one ever really paid. It may make sense to raise rates on high-earners, but we can't justify it based on the past economic results during periods of high nominal rates.
Sure, but isn’t there something to the argument that we should fix those loopholes and go after offshore evaders first before we crank up rates? Seems that ensuring the existing tax code is tidy and evaders are held accountable should be done first before making changes with potentially dramatic macroeconomic effects.
I can't edit my post anymore, but I should apologize for implying that gnicholas made that argument. As others have pointed out, they were just making a point above effective rates versus nominal rates. My mistake.
Because you’re sinking a huge amount of money into someone’s passion project, for which you may or may not have received equity before being broken up with. Being able to afford something is not a binary situation in which “yes” means you should do it unconditionally.
Wow... no. You're committed to a life with someone and want them to be happy because their happiness is your happiness. Money is way less important than being happy in life with someone.
But this is about marriages or similar commitment, not "before being broken up with", and also not "unconditional", you need to think it's good for your partner too.
Hmm context matters I guess... folks I'm referring to have generally been together for a decade... So they may have a somewhat different take on relationship.
Replying to self: I meant “unconditionally” as in without consideration of other factors — not meaning to imply that conditions should be attached to the money.
Facebook itself won't be meaningfully "deleted" for at least five years. It simply has too much money: even if its main product went kaput tomorrow (which it won't), it would find some other way to stay alive. That would almost certainly be via an acquisition spree, in which it would go to great lengths to tie its targets' platforms into facebook.com, which is based on React (AFAIK). So the answer is: nothing.
That said, what if, as a thought experiment, Facebook imploded tomorrow? It reminds me of the "what if the Sun disappeared" scenario -- it's not that it's _unlikely_; it's that it would require new physics to even get you there. So speculation is somewhat idle. That said, here's what I think would happen:
1) The core contributors would be snapped up by some open source-adjacent organization, like Mozilla, and given free reign to work on React in the majority of their time.
2) Some sort of new, independent governance would be formed. IME, new web projects seem to be more ad-hoc in this respect than, say, GNU brethren.
3) Development velocity would undoubtedly slow down. This happens naturally as projects mature, though, so let's not mourn the inevitable process of nature.
4) Some idealistic fork will pick up a bit of steam, and the sister projects will steal from each other liberally. Like bacteria, politicians (zing), or anything else that competes.
5) Something else will rise to take React's place.
But again, it doesn't matter, because Facebook won't disappear on a time scale that matters relative to the velocity of JS development.
reply