Well, did you personally prove that the earth is round?
I suspect that most of round-earthers didn't prove it themselves as well.
The problem is infeasiblity; it's infeasible for a regular person to confirm most of the scientific findings.
For example, ~75% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. They already have a hard time putting food on the table.
This kind of arguments against flat-earthers needs to be retired. It doesn't make sense to dare a person to confirm any scientific finding.
Let's just call spade a spade: Round-earthers believe the earth is round because they listen to the right experts. Flat-earthers believe the earth is flat because they listen to the wrong experts.
We are just listeners. Let's stop acting like we prove these scientific findings ourselves.
1. That could be true in only some areas. I doubt it's true for the technology sector where there are a lot of players competing.
2. Companies are already trying to pay as low as possible. If a company could pay $1 for a software engineer, it would.
3. It's absurd in its reasoning to distinguish between "unpaid" and $1 a month internship. So, a company hiring a $1-a-month intern is fine? If not, then what's the number? After asking this, then it'll be boiled down to supply-demand force in the market. This is back to number 2. If a company could pay $1, it would.
Comparing unpaid internship with slaves is also absurd. For one thing, slaves can't walk away.
I also don't think my volunteer job at an animal shelter is slavery.
If you goal is to own a home in Los Altos or Palo Alto, then even senior engineers are struggling.
The real problem is the supply and attitude:
* There are like tens of thousands people in Google HQ, and almost all homes in Mountain View are single houses. My uninformed estimate is that the number of homes in mountain view probably can't even accommodate half of the employees there.
* Then, there are problems with good schools and bad schools. Bad schools in US are like the worst schools (e.g. gang, drug, guns.). From the country where I come from, bad schools are just bad academically. Children are not dying and shooting. This increases the home prices in the good school area even further.
* Another similar problem in US is that a bad area is like extremely bad (e.g. gang, drug, guns). In other countries, more than often, a bad area is probably just old and dirty.
* People in US are obssessed with a house with a hugeee yard. I'm coming from other countries. I grew up in a condo and I'd be happy living in a condo, tbh.
The media really has it out for Facebook after Facebook decided to reduce page reach.
It seemed like Facebook can't do anything right.
The '10 year challenge' is a good feature. Some people enjoyed it. It created joy for those people. And, like other comments, the data isn't really useful.
I worked in a company where micro services succeed.
To succeed, the ratio has to make sense. We had more than 2,000 engineers with fewer than a few hundred services. So, of course, it made perfect sense.
I've also seen a startup where it had 30 people and used the micro-service architecture. That didn't work very well. To make it worse, they used Node.js. It's like using Micro service wasn't difficult enough... they had to go with a dynamic-typed language.
I don't think it's a dead philosophy. I personally prefer one-handed phone.
We instead should adjust the UI to make it more comfortable with one hand (as in using thumb to navigate comfortably).
But, like you said, none of the phones is going this direction. This seems similar to the situation in 2005 where every phone required a stylus, and Steve Jobs came along and adjusted every UI/UX to be usable by fingers.
We need another Steve Jobs to revolutionize how a phone should work.
I used to think that Flat earthers and anti-vaxxers were really weird until I encountered the situation where AQI was bad in Seattle.
It was around 170 AQI that day. Less than 30% of people on the street wore masks. Nobody cared about Science or warning around bad AQI.
I've learned one life lesson:
When I brought up this topic about wearing masks, people got defensive. Now they claimed that bad AQI didn't affect them.
Well, this pm2.5 is not visible to our eyes, and the health impact isn't immediate. It's kinda analogous to anti-vaxxers, when you think about it.
The takeaway is to never point out about a slow fatal condition that people are in. People will get defensive. I'd love some suggestions here on how to subtly suggest it.
I wonder how many anti-vaxxers unconsciously know they are wrong but stand their ground anyway because someone close to them points out how dumb they are or how soon they will die.
Note that flat earthers are fundamentally different from anti-vaxxers in the way that believing the earth is flat doesn't have any impact on their livelihood.
> Many people follow supposedly "violent" religions peacefully alongside other faiths.
This is what I originally meant. I think you understand. We might use different words for the same thing here.
Christian people in the western world would reject many stories in the Bible. Even Pope seems to reject some ancient ideas from the Bible.
Or you can say I consider the old Christianity to be a different religion from the modern Christianity. Because the sets of beliefs differ.
But, in other parts of the world where society isn't as "developed", we just follow blindly what (most of) the book says. We reject very little. Since the book is often ancient, it becomes problematic.
At least, for me, it doesn't even need to be an action. For example, if a person believes that women are properties of men because the religion says so, I wouldn't want to accept that religion. (Let's say that person says it out loud)
Please note, by accepting, I mean "being okay that the person next to you practice this religion". In other words, you can live together in the same area.
But let's say someone says they don't know if the photo is a fake.
How would you show that the photo is not a fake?
For this question, I wonder if eventually the answer will be: well, we have to trust someone.
I want to say that there's nothing wrong with saying that I trust the photo is not a fake because the person who presents it looks trustworthy.