Of course it's not necessarily easy. But you might as well make the request. If you are in that situation and you're concerned about sensitive data being leaked, then it is an option.
Maybe stay with the carpenter and observe him so you can make sure the pictures are secure?
Might seem weird, but if you explain to the person doing the work that you have sensitive data on the device they'd probably understand the precautions.
There's nothing tonedeaf about exploring how the situation can be avoided in the future.
Obviously, the phone being borked is relevant, but in that case we need to ask what preemptive measures can be taken on a phone that isn't yet borked. It may be that the only answer right now is "don't keep nudes on your phone" then that's unfortunate and should be addressed.
Some people no doubt engage in victim blaming, but I don't think that's what's generally going on here. For instance, I don't think anyone would disagree that the individuals that made those photos public should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
The world contains bad actors, and we should be having conversations about what are the reasonable steps people should take to protect themselves. The fact that this happened, and that it could easily happen again, suggests that we should take additional care with sensitive data on our phones. Maybe an app for encrypting sensitive photos and that requires a password to access?
Yes, people should feel safe in their tech. People should also feel safe in their homes, but most everyone still have locks, and many people additional layers of security.
I actually recently started investing in better clothes. Not suits, per se, since that would be out of place for most work contexts for me. But clothes with good fit, quality, and appropriate (or even slightly more formal) for the dress codes I work under.
> This is also a huge problem with WFH. WFH doesn't build valuable social/work connections. It's easy to overlook the contributions of WFH people. It's easy to forget their names.
This is definitely true. I started working from home a year before the pandemic to help take care of a sick family member, and I felt like I was forgotten about. When COVID hit and everyone was forced to WFH, it was actually a boon for me because I was now on an even playing field with my coworkers and they suddenly remembered my existence.
My life circumstances have changed somewhat so that I probably could go back into the office, but our company is still fully remote so I'm glad to be at home. I'm really just trying to figure out what I'll do once our offices open back up. I'm thinking going into the office 1-2 days a week is probably enough to help me capture some of those opportunities while still keeping the benefits of WFH.
> If you bring a sack lunch to work every day, and eat at your desk instead of stepping out to lunch with the gang, what are your odds of promotion? Pretty meager.
I'm not sure if I have heard that point before, but it's very interesting. At different points in my career I've tried to be consistent about packing my lunch to save money, but I guess that might be an example of being penny-wise and pound-foolish.
It also depends upon who you are going out to lunch with. If you're only going out to lunch with other peons, it's probably not going to help you much.
It is true that successful people often discount the role of luck in their success, but the fact is that even while we don't get to choose what opportunities come our way, we do have control over how we choose to exploit those opportunities.
I find your moral calculus about taxation rather odd. Just because someone didn't earn something doesn't mean other people have a right to take it. For example, just because someone is blessed by genetic lottery with a luxurious head of hair doesn't mean I have a right forcibly take that hair and make a wig to cover my own balding head.
I appreciate your perspective. The problem of course is that a higher VAT would also reduce the effective purchasing power granted by the UBI.
I get that one of the benefits of UBI is that it's supposed to empower people to use the money in the way that satisfies their needs best, rather than rely on inefficient bureaucracies to determine what needs are worth subsidizing and who qualifies.
The problem is, there's no free lunch. It seems to me like any sensibly funded UBI is going to probably negatively impact many middle-class folks. Politically that's just a non-starter in the U.S.
I was waiting for this reply. The obvious answer to that being that it doesn't make printing money for a UBI any better of an idea. It's completely irrelevant.
Let's not try and justify bad ideas by pointing out that people currently do bad things.
>> divert those funds from corporations into the hands of the people
There's a limit to how much you can tax corporations until they just up and leave. Just ask Sweden in the 70's.
> To be fair, it's true that won't cover the entire bill. However, between reducing spending in other welfare programs, the increase in economic output and implementing a VAT, the gap closes pretty quickly.
All UBI programs I've seen also require deficit spending. And good luck canceling other welfare programs.
> Let's also not forget the second- and third-order benefits to society and the economy that will result from most of the population having more purchasing power and economic freedom.
People will have more dollars, but between increased taxes and inflation from deficit spending, I'm very suspect that people will have more purchasing power.
> Do you think it's fine that Amazon and friends pay next to nothing in taxes by exploiting the tax code? Why are we (taxpayers) subsidizing mega corps who are making money hand over fist?
I have no idea what Amazon should pay in any moral sense, but I'm fine with taxing them more so long as
1) A marginal increase in tax rates would increase net revenues (and not drive jobs/business offshore)
2) The increase in tax revenue was for a compelling public interest (not merely because "they're not paying their fair share") OR because it involved closing a tax exemption that was not available to their competitors (so that the market stays competitive)
Yang's plan also involves one of the highest deficit spending proposals of any of the UBI plans listed on that calculator.
It's all very well and good to say "look, virtually everyone would see a net income increase!" until you realize that's only possible by literally just printing money.
The costs of such high deficit spending are pretty certain, but the benefits meant to offset those costs are only speculative (and highly speculative, at that).
It has one stick of upgradable RAM - better than nothing, but I wanted both sticks. Honestly, for a work laptop where you are going to be trading it out again in 3 years, that's probably fine.
My E495 currently has 8GB (2x4GB for better iGPU performance) and that's all I need for personal uses for now. But I can upgrade to 32GB later if I need to (and for less overall cost).
> In the case of these laptops, you buy them to the specs you'll need at the end of the machine's useful life, at the full current price.
OK, I see what you are saying. The nit I have to pick with that particular sort of reasoning is that now Apple has put their customers in a bit of a bind:
- either you buy the absolute max spec (and hope that it includes the specs you'll need for that time span), or
- you risk buyers remorse as you end up in a situation where the laptop that you already handed over a small fortune for isn't up to the task
This past year I recently considered buying one of Lenovo's premium Thinkpad T-series laptops, but the fact that they had one (of two) RAM slots soldered put me off. I was buying this laptop for personal use, and so I didn't want to spend top dollar on it right then, but I didn't want to end up in a situation where what I had settled for wasn't enough.
I ended up going for one of the "budget" E-series Thinkpads, because (paradoxically) those do have fully upgradable RAM.