I agree that runtime support will definitely help. However, a simple mitigation strategy is to override the `fetch` function and provide a central rate-limiting. This helps prevent such incidents even if this kind of bugs are shipped to production.
Food is not entirely local. CA gets majority of fruits from Mexico, Peru, Chile etc. Olive, Sunflower, and other oils are imported. Many spices are imported. Lumber tariffs will impact housing and repairs. Any thing with semi-conductors will be expensive: routers, modems, tablets, phones.
Middle class expenses may arise around 5-10% at the very least.
Most of our potash comes from Canada, but surely the US is self-sufficient in nitrogen fertilizer (since it is made from natural gas, which is really cheap in the US) and ISTR it's being close to being self-sufficient in phosphate, too.
Maybe. But as an OSS developer, I find it cozy that even domestic food production has a certain global component. I like the image of a global community helping each other, just as we do in software projects.
I mean, if American companies had rejected Linux/Ruby/Lua because "they are foreign goods, born in Finland/Japan/Brazil", were it better?
Just thinking: So, Google makes life easier for users by creating Chrome and getting us respite from IE. When they moved the web really forward and way faster than others (Edge/Opera switched to Chromium too) - the DOJ wants them to give it away. It's like raising an exceptional child only to be asked to be adopted when they grow to be an adult.
Your analogy isn’t accurate because the child wasn’t exceptional, it only exists a vehicle for maintaining Google’s ad dominance.
It’s like raising an exceptional child who is a criminal and having people come out of the woodwork saying “he was so good, he didn’t do anything wrong”
Agreed that it brings search dominance. But, it's like siblings helping each other out in life. A child excelled in a field where other failed. Now this child also helps promote his/her sibling's business.
Many Apple products only connect with other Apple products. Microsoft keeps poking/pushing to use Edge on Microsoft. Brave browser did eat into share and made a mark.
What is stopping from other kids in the field (FF, Edge, Opera etc) to be better, beat Chrome and also blocks ads?
You are one comment too far with your analogy. Continuing comparing a browser with a child and a corporation with a family is not helping your case.
Analogies work fine for shallow understanding, but like comparing electricity with flow of water inside the pipes, they very quickly break down once you get a bit deeper into the subject.
To make my point clearer, building a browser is not like raising a child, because building a browser is just coding: need more features - hire more developers. They built Chrome not for the good of humanity but for the benefit of their commercial interests.
The removal of Manifest v2 support clearly shows there’s a conflict of interest there. The best thing for users is to allow ad blocking, but the best thing for Google is to not allow it. Since they’re choosing to impede/reduce those capabilities, we can clearly see who’s getting the benefit.
I know there are other arguments against Manifest v2, but they seem like parallel construction to justify the “real” reason.
Is there a possible track for H1B holders (solo/team) to be able to start one? What I have usually been briefed is that you need a US citizen as a majority stake holder. Thanks.
It's challenging but not impossible. A key is having less than 50% ownership interest in the company and an employment agreement with the company. It's close to impossible where the ownership is vested and at or above 50%. Again, not impossible but extremely challenging. The other owners also can be foreign nationals; they don't need to be U.S. citizens. So, where there are three foreign national founders, each owning a third, this should be fine.
I believe this means that once the entity is founded and funding secured, all participants will need to transfer their H1B to this new entity in order to work for it, right?
Exactly what I came to say. I need something for my daughter to connect with and/or track her while playing with her friends outside. It is difficult to always be on her lookout, and any other watch tracks them more. I need control to see who they are talking to, chatting with, what apps they use, and controlling screen time. Few kids in her class are already on IG/Tiktok courtesy their elder siblings and I do not want my daughter to be exposed to such crap.
Edit: also to inform her in case I am running late to pick her up from school due to traffic or otherwise.
Why do you feel like you “need” this, though? I think that’s exactly what GP is saying – not disagreeing that it might have utility, but that there is a cost associated as well. The world is just statistically not that scary, and it’s good to let our kids make mistakes and get lost and find their way and face adversity and survive.
Me and my wife differ in our perspectives on this. She is more of a “safety at any cost”, whereas I am more of a “free range kids”. I know the world has changed since I was a teenager, but our parents never knew where we were, who we were chatting with on the internet, and we turned out great.
Did we turn out great or did you turn out great?
There are many cases where unsupervised use of the internet or getting lost did not turn out well at all. Why view someone opting into this (my entire family has "find my" enabled on our phones.) Where is the negative? Kids can still be free range while allowing for the parent to know where they are.
I mean, when people bring up unsupervised use of internet, I always remember that my first exposure to porn in the 90s was a site called animal sex farm (there was a list with leaked credentials for porn site that I stumbled into and that was the first site on the list). I was rather shocked by what I saw and let's say it's not something I'd want my son to be exposed to at 12 years old.
no freedom is removed from the child. It's a failsafe they can chose to contact the parents when they feel overwhelmed and then the decision from the parent can still be made to not help.
If anything children will be given more latitude to be independent.
Safety at any cost is a very silly phrase.
If something happens to your child and $250 could have prevented it the cost seems very small and the statistics very personal
I don't think GP is talking about money when they say "cost". They're talking about the cost to a child's healthy development when it comes to independence, freedom, and learning how to deal with adverse situations without knowing that mom or dad is constantly looking over their shoulder (figuratively, in the tracking case) and can pluck them from said situation at a moment's notice.
The choice on how to act when your child is in trouble is still yours.
It's very obvious to me that a lot of people engaging here don't have children.
There is a lot of idealistic posturing.
Do you really think a child takes developmental damage by feeling cared for and protected?
"make mistakes, get lost and find their way" does not work for crowded and busy neighborhoods. No one would like their kid to be lost in new york. Add the risk of abduction in high risk communities.
Also, it depends on kids age. I want kids to be safe in elementary, make mistakes and learn in middle/high school.
> I need control to see who they are talking to, chatting with, what apps they use, and controlling screen time.
Sure it's not my right to tell you how to parent. However I ask have you not sat down with your daughter and explained her the dangers and consequences?
Restrictions are what you want. Restrict her from downloading apps, ask her to show you her messages. Limit her screen time when she's done her chores.
Don't hide and sneak controlling her habits in the back scenes because if you loose her trust you won't get it back.
Unless by controlling you do mean restricting which changes the tone completely.
An 8 year old doesn't really have a fully developed mind. You can often talk with them that jumping out of the tree will likely break their arm, but chances are when you're not looking they're still going to jump.
Little kids often struggle understanding and remembering consequences, especially of really big complex ideas.
There's a reason why we don't just let 12 year olds drive.
> I need control to see who they are talking to, chatting with, what apps they use, and controlling screen time.
I'm just some random on the internet, but this rubs me the wrong way. Trust is important in relationships, and this doesn't show any trust. Some of this is perfectly fine, but tracking their chatting is an invasion of privacy unless you have a specific reason to be worried.
Presumably OP is talking about a younger kid, and not his 17 year old. It has nothing to do with trust of your child, and has everything to do with not trusting other people to do what is best for your child and not try to take advantage of them. To put it another way, I doubt OP is concerned that his kid is going to go hunt down a pedophile and then have sex with them. He is probably more concerned that a pedophile might try to hunt down his kid and then have sex with them.
I discovered noTunes a few months back and it is one of the best installs of all time. It also goes to show how product/developer thinking not always aligns with how users want to use the product. And then, I start thinking why would a developer build such an annoying thing... unless marketing forced them to.
There were never any. None of the models or code are actually open. It claims to be a nonprofit but is effectively a for profit company pulling the strings of a nonprofit just to avoid taxes.
This is a bit unfair. Some people left OpenAI on the ground of ethics, because they were unsatisfied with how this supposed nonprofit operates. The ethics was there, but OpenAI got rid of it.
