The year that I took AP Physics, every single piece of study material and practice test exercised only really simple math - small numbers, everything cleanly worked out into integers, etc etc. I did almost everything in my head or with quick notes on paper. This pattern was so consistent I almost didn't bring my calculator into the actual exam because I hadn't needed it all year, and grabbed it only at the last second "just in case".
Turns out that was not a design goal of the real exam and basically nothing worked out to neat, small integer solutions - I probably would have hard failed without the calculator. I'm still sort of confused why prep materials and the real exam diverged so much.
I had a university exam where my calculator literally didn't work. I put a note on the paper to that effect and worked out as far as I could by hand without actually giving any of the final answers. Given the test was about knowledge and not the precise answers, I don't think it harmed me any (my grade was over 80%).
I passed my physics classes refusing to evaluate the final expressions, after all that's what calculators and computers are for. I don't feel that had a huge impact on my grades either and my sanity/stubbornness went unharmed.
The above was referencing stopping on a city street ("Powell between Bush and Sutter"). You're talking about stopping on a highway. These things are not particularly comparable.
In the California Vehicle Code section 360, a "highway" is defined for the purposes of the vehicle code as "a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway includes street." [0]
Presumably Efani accomplishes that additional protection by maintaining a human support staff they put more resources into training than the average carrier. That's expensive, especially when you consider that it's a relatively niche service (so small user base to amortize that cost over) and presumably only used by people that really care about sim swaps, likely because they are frequently targeted for sim swaps, and thus the training needs to really work. They also have no other lines of business like device sales/financing that could help cover those human operational costs.
That, plus the fact that it's a premium service that is mostly only useful to higher net worth / higher income people, makes it seem reasonable that it would be quite expensive relative to a regular provider.
>Presumably Efani accomplishes that additional protection by maintaining a human support staff they put more resources into training than the average carrier. That's expensive, especially when you consider that it's a relatively niche service (so small user base to amortize that cost over) and presumably only used by people that really care about sim swaps, likely because they are frequently targeted for sim swaps, and thus the training needs to really work.
According to the BLS "Computer User Support Specialists" get paid $30 on average[1]. Whatever training they give to staff to resist sim-swap attacks, I can't imagine they can't be more complicated than the certifications that "Computer User Support Specialists" have to get through, so I think it's reasonable to model their support costs at $30/hr per person. With the premium they're charging over a budget MVNO they can afford two support people per customer. How many fraudulent sim swap attacks could the worst client possibly attract? Is it really that hard to train someone to deny sim swaps until they go through 11 steps of verification like their website says?
>That, plus the fact that it's a premium service that is mostly only useful to higher net worth / higher income people, makes it seem reasonable that it would be quite expensive relative to a regular provider.
I mean yeah that's the more reasonable answer. It's a luxury product and priced accordingly.
"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness."
What kinda pisses me off with these things is that cost isn't a reliable indicator of quality. A lot of luck seems to be involved.
I've worn a 15 € supermarket-brand hoodie around the house for about ten years before it started showing any signs of fatigue at the elbows. I've had more expensive, "name brand" articles of clothing wear out after much shorter and lighter use. In between, the absolute worst was a 30-40 € H&M blouse which became two sizes too big after a month.
Cost isn't necessarily an indicator of quality, but it is an indicator (often, of consistency in a brand). I mentioned the price not because of quality indicator, but because of how I approach it, is how I give myself permission to buy expensive things (I think about it over time): if I know they will last and they are made to my standard. As mentioned here[1] the whole clothes thing is a bit of a hobby/process for me. The sweater I was particularly mentioning was hand made in South Korea (I actually visited the factor) - everyone is paid properly, and most of their stuff is low impact[2] meaning they don't fly materials all over the world to assemble the garment. The sheep for their wool for example, is from Japan. For me this is part of a wholistic approach I have to living my life while minimizing my impact, I keep all my clothes with the intention of passing them down. I've yet to find anything outerwear(hoodies, jeans, shorts etc) made to my standard that is less than $100, I'm not sure it's possible if you include responsible sourcing.
Oh, I agree with your point. But I can't afford to fly around the world and inspect factories. Hell, even if I could, I wouldn't have the time and the inclination to learn what to look for.
> if I know they will last and they are made to my standard
That's exactly the issue. How do you know that as a regular person?
I'm mostly happy with my shirts for example, which I think are made locally in France (but don't know how they source their materials). Their quality seems to be fairly stable, and if I buy them on sale, they're very good value for money.
But with other name brands, it's been more hit and miss. Levi's jeans, for example. One pair has lasted so long, I don't even remember when I've bought it, used it a lot riding a motorbike. Another pair has started thinning between the thighs in maybe two years of lighter use (going to the office or out around town), and it's never even been close to my bike.
> I've yet to find anything outerwear(hoodies, jeans, shorts etc) made to my standard that is less than $100, I'm not sure it's possible if you include responsible sourcing.
I'm absolutely fine with paying more for garments that last. What I hate, is paying a ton and ending up with poor quality.
If you would be able to articulate what you look for in a quality garment, I'm sure a lot of people would be more than happy to read on it.
That's true, unfortunately. OTOH, I have several Tommy Hilfiger T-shirts bought in an outlet that lasted for 10+ years and still look Ok. I would say you're more likely to get quality out of "actual" brands than own-brands of stores such as H&M (which follow the fast-fashion trend too), but that's still not really reliable I'm afraid...
> you're more likely to get quality out of "actual" brands than own-brands of stores such as H&M (which follow the fast-fashion trend too)
Fashion brands aren't build for quality. They're built for aesthetic. If given a trade-off between ruggedness and something more frivolous and daring, a fashion brand should pick the latter. That's how they differentiate.
I once bought a Burberry hoodie in a Turkish market (not the ones with the name plastered all over it, subtitle little tag in a corner). It lasted for many years and my girlfriend at the time who was a lawyer at a prestigious lawfirm and lived in Kensington Ave. London thought it was the greatest piece of clothing I possessed. It cost 15 Euros, but probably only because I didn't know how to bargain properly, and it never occurred to her that it wasn't a real name brand apparel.
The sibling below mentions Tommy Hilfiger, and it just reminded me that one of the worst pieces of clothing I ever bought was from a Tommy store in New York.
One store that's absolutely worth a visit if you live in NY is the century 21 outlet mall near ground zero. I've been there twice when I attended a conference and you get really good quality clothing for cheap, that was absolutely worth it. Every single one of those lasted a long time.
How do you just buy guaranteed classics. i.e., I want the heinz ketchup of wardrobe items. Consistency. I mean, Levi 501 is an example... but beyond that, everything I wear is so basic but it keeps changing. Even Nike Airforce One's keep changing so much. I just want a black shirt that stays black, black pants that actually fit and don't rip, a black sweater that doesn't pill much, a black jacket that I can beat the hell out of... etc.
I've seen a lot of people say that 501's got noticeably worse over the years. If you want good jeans buy traditional selvedge denim, you know the ones that can stand by themselves if you put them because they are so dense. Back then it was protective clothing so they are very durable.
I'm one of those people, though I don't use 501s specifically. I've noticed Levis quality has become hit-and-miss. I have two pairs, bought at the same time. Same model, same color, only the length is different [0], but same waist size.
They don't even fit the same! One is clearly larger, whereas the other was skin-tight when new. One seems somewhat thicker than the other.
In the last 15 yrs, I've used a dryer no more that three times. Aside from being better for clothes, it's less gas / electricity (i.e., better on the environment). Sans super high humidity, it's not a bad habit to have.
I too have a hoodie which is probably going on 15 years old now. It's finally started getting faded and looking a bit old but still very much usable, think it came from Walmart when I was visiting the US.
In the same vein I've got an old pair of dirt cheap trainers I bought on another US trip in about 2008, still abosolutely fine and cost under $20. In contrast the expensive pair of converse I bought less than 2 years ago are already falling apart.
Except in this case, $400 can also buy you one shirt per year for 12 years, all of which combined would most certainly last you longer than 12 years. Moreover you wouldn't have to waste your time babying them.
It's funny you can easily spend 10-15 USD more and get a product that will last you 5 more years. Old Navy sounds like crap, it is but they have gems where flannal shirts are double stitched and hemmed perfectly. I even buy pants I haven't had to replace in years.
Mostly off-topic, but if you find this compelling, you will certainly enjoy reading the short story "There Is No Antimemetics Division" whose chapters are linked from https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/antimemetics-division-hub
I bought the book and read it based on another HN recommendation. The premise was interesting at first but the writing is trash and it ended up being the worst book I had read in recent memory. As another comment noted, it goes off the rails about halfway through. Not worth wasting paper, in my opinion. FWIW.
'generally safe' implies that some small number of folks still suffer from excess iodine due to contamination, manufacturing errors, etc...
It's probably reasonable for 999 999 people to benefit in exchange for 1 person being very unlucky, but that's a different argument that needs to be made.
The very first thing you did is write a program that prints a pixel-perfect "memory reset successfully" message to the screen as if you had just cleared it yourself :)
yep, remember doing exactly this for the ti-84+ CE. god bless third-party TI-BASIC documentation websites.
better than making it seem like you had just done it yourself, you could use the Menu() function to simulate all the menu navigation necessary to actually get to that screen!
funnily enough, jabbing all the buttons on the calculator and having to select functions via menu listings created one of the comfiest development environments I've ever used. after a while, banging out a screensaver or fake menu became second nature.
I'm not a big BASIC fan, so I've done my stuff in C, since it was a Motorola 68k on the TI-Voyage 200. I don't remember exactly how (it's 15+ year ago), but you could mark your app as a "system app" which was not removed during a factory reset.
Add a cryptic name, blank screen on start with a short timeout to return to menu when a key combination is not pressed and nobody will ever notice.
> If you meet anyone who disagrees with any of that, let me know
Facebook appears to have disagreed with that; they amplified calls for ethnic cleansing and did not respond to concerns about it, so they must have believed that asking them not to was too much. That's the point.
That point hasn't been made. That is why I'm putting some time into this comment chain - we've got the journalism thing happening where people did terrible things, and people used Facebook, and then the journalist is painting Facebook as guilty by association without saying much specific that provides a link. And then letting low-empathy readers join the dots without considering what the people involved were likely thinking.
Bad people use Facebook. We don't need evidence to know that. This article is strong evidence that very bad people use Facebook, but it isn't at all clear that Facebook should be considered morally involved based on what has been presented seen so far.
Maybe the killing blow is yet to come. But I'm pretty sure any objective standard that gets Facebook in trouble here will get them in just as much trouble for letting Victoria Newland or US 4 star generals post publicly. There are a lot if brutes in public office.
Furthermore getting involved in matters of war and peace is not a role that Facebook will get praise for, it'll do some really terrible things if it goes down that path. They should be biased towards inaction. Even and especially if they care.
Yes, this may have happened anyway. Yes, Facebook is not fully responsible. But I disagree with you. The lines are clear.
Facebook de facto became the internet in a country of ~50 million people through subsidising their platform through free data access.
Their platform was developed in order to further their own goals - through maximising engagement and monetisation.
The second order effects of their own personal ambition was enabling people like Wirathu to reach hundreds of thousands of people with hate speech and calls for genocide.
Facebook were informed of this multiple times and allegedly, did nothing about. During this time they had 1 Burmese speaking moderator.
Stating that they have no moral responsibility for the consequences of their actions is in my opinion horseshit. But it does align with certain aspects of the current American zeitgeist of entrepreneurship, free speech and platform "safe harbour" regulations.
This is not a view shared everywhere and should not be assumed when American tech companies scale out of the US. Thankfully this dogmatic approach is being regulated by the likes of the EU and other countries so these platforms are more aligned with their own moral frameworks.
Personally, I find Facebook absolutely morally responsible for parts of this. Just through the simple fact that provided a platform for tens of millions of people - with severely lacking moderation - all in the chase of growth and profits.
This isn't exporting "freedom and democracy" to the world like the good old days. This is abhorrent profit maximisation with no regards for the consequences of their actions, hidden behind a thin veneer of moral rationalization.
I upvoted several posts of yours in this thread but man, are you implying FB was not actively promoting one side? I don't even believe it was "the algorithm".
Stuff like this does not happen by accident, nor in a vacuum. The only reason we don't hear more about this is that important people don't want us to.
Don't play the naivety card in topics like this.
Edi: downvote all you want, you horrible apologists. FB is a weapon and you know it.
"Mansions" is hard to quantify; whether a given house was a mansion will be subjective, and doesn't correlate super well with the amount of financial support they gave their child. But if you want to really dig into the details:
> Gates
His father was a high powered lawyer in Seattle; his mother was a member on a number of corporate and philanthropic boards, including one that gave her direct access to the Chairman of IBM at the precise moment that Microsoft was attempting to sell software to IBM.
> Bezos
His parents loaned him a quarter million dollars to start Amazon in the mid 90s.
> Ballmer
His father was a "manager" at Ford, which could mean a wide range of things; he grew up in a very wealthy area.
> Allen
He seems to have come from genuinely middle class roots - his parents were a librarian and an elementary school teacher.
> Musk
This one is pretty complicated; his father owned an emerald mine and seems to have been quite wealthy, though Elon disputes his father's claim that he invested money in Elon's first company.
> Page
Both parents were academics in computer science.
> Brin
Both parents were academics, immigrating from the USSR to the US - his father ended up teaching math at the University of Maryland, his mother doing research at NASA.
So that's two (Gates and Bezos) where their parents were significantly wealthy and influential in useful ways; two where it's unclear how much they got real benefit from their parents' wealth, but they certainly didn't grow up poor (Ballmer and Musk); two where the parents weren't rich but academically involved (Page and Brin); and one where they were genuinely just middle class folks (Allen).
Turns out that was not a design goal of the real exam and basically nothing worked out to neat, small integer solutions - I probably would have hard failed without the calculator. I'm still sort of confused why prep materials and the real exam diverged so much.