I was wondering about this too...
From the actual press release:
"Apple will also establish a fund to assist small US developers, particularly as the world continues to suffer from the effects of COVID-19. Eligible developers must have earned $1 million or less through the US storefront for all of their apps in every calendar year in which the developers had an account between June 4, 2015, and April 26, 2021 — encompassing 99 percent of developers in the US. Details will be available at a later date."
> The main idea of the non-compete agreement is that employers want to stop people from walking off the job and taking trade secrets to rival companies. If companies weren’t able to secure those protections, they’d need to pay lower salaries, and we’d all be worse off.
Anyone else confused by this statement? How do you make the leap from non-competes to higher salaries, or conversely, that a ban on non-competes would result in lower salaries?
I mean I think I can see the author's intent (that the company would need to divert funds from wages to somewhere else to protect their IP), but it seems like the rest of the article disagrees; namely, linking the Californian ban on NCAs to the innovative success in that state (and high salaries) would suggest that banning NCAs might foster higher wages. Intuitively, it feels like, in absence of a non-compete, a higher salary is the biggest deterrent to losing trade-secrets to other companies via poaching.
I'll admit, I read it as income. But it does make me start to think about the disparities in how wealth is generated across different classes of Americans. For me, wealth is almost 100% generated by my income, so I would say my income tax is basically a wealth tax.
I don't know much about this field (and I did not purchase the full article), but it seems like quite a leap to assume this is a source of the gender-gap. First of all, you're talking about 80% of one standard deviation difference in reading-to-math scores between males and females - that doesn't seem like enough to study it as the cause of anything.
And how does being better at reading steer people away from STEM? There is just as much reading going on in STEM as out, and arguably more intensive reading in.
It seems like the score difference is probably related to the gender-gap somehow, but I doubt it is a cause. I would be interested in reading the article if it was freely available.
Facebook is the entity creating this work, and is the root of the problem (by contracting a 3rd party to perform work that they very well understand the consequences of). The article is suggesting that Facebook should be held accountable for the detriment (trauma) that their work is causing. I think the article even argues that the contractors aren't equipped to deal with a problem of this magnitude/seriousness. Facebook is in the best position to rectify their moral accounts, but we all know that's not going to happen because they are evil and so forth.
There is a lot of sensationalism (see title of article) and high, anxious emotions around facial recognition right now, which really is to be expected at this point. But it is muddying the rational conversations we should be having about it.
Can Amazon lessen Rekognition's bias towards white people (ie. bright pixels)? Yes. Get over that.
This article completely whiffed on an important point regarding police use of facial recognition (or maybe I missed it) and that is _police_ bias. We are talking about one of the most culturally and racially biased concentrations of power in the country. It's important to note that they will NOT be training the models or writing the algorithms that drive their tools.
We have a chance to let some brilliant engineers create deliberately unbiased tools that can only improve the situation in America's police force.
PLEASE do not let your fears win. It will be used for evil and it will be used for good. That is not something that should be banned.
Sorry I started getting a little emotional.
I was inspired by Da Vinci in my younger days to become a modern Renaissance Man. Then I discovered that the depth of knowledge in any given field had become far too deep to ever hope at becoming expert in more than one. Sure you can still make art, and study mathematics and astronomy, and so forth, but it's almost impossible to reach the level of mastery that Da Vinci reached in his day. No one hires Renaissance Men anymore :(
"Apple will also establish a fund to assist small US developers, particularly as the world continues to suffer from the effects of COVID-19. Eligible developers must have earned $1 million or less through the US storefront for all of their apps in every calendar year in which the developers had an account between June 4, 2015, and April 26, 2021 — encompassing 99 percent of developers in the US. Details will be available at a later date."