HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

chefandy

no profile record

comments

chefandy
·去年·discuss
Appreciate it. I got through about 10 paragraphs of preamble and disclaimers before giving up. I’m sure this document is what the community and author need it to be, but only being interested in the technical takeaways, your comment at least helps me know what to skim for.
chefandy
·去年·discuss
I don’t think this are optimal for the craftspeople market. If I managed a bunch of rental properties or something and was doing quick-and-dirty fixes all day, I’d buy these if they worked. The hole size vs screw size seems weird. Also if I had to board up my windows for storms regularly. Or quick home projects outdoors. Plenty of times where speed of application and easy unscrewing are both useful.
chefandy
·2 年前·discuss
Word. I was mostly just making a joke about FarmVille— the classic engagement-vampire facebook game.
chefandy
·2 年前·discuss
> I have no idea what game Meta is playing

Based on their business moves in recent history, I’d guess most of them are playing Farmville.
chefandy
·2 年前·discuss
> exactly my point

Ok, so you’re saying that because bad things would happen anyway then it doesn’t matter if it’s illegal? So you’re just going to ignore how much worse it would be if there were just no laws at all? Corporate scumbags will push any system to its limit and beyond, and if you change the limit, they’ll change the push. Just look at the milk industry in New York City before food adulteration laws took effect. The “bad things will happen anyway” argument makes total sense if you ignore magnitude. Which you can’t.

> anti capitalist

If you think pointing out the likelihood of corporate misbehavior is anti-capitalist, you’re getting your subjects confused.

> 2021

Anywhere else you want to move those goalposts?
chefandy
·2 年前·discuss
> If you don't have laws against dumping in the commons, yes people will dump.

You can’t possibly say, in good faith, that it think this was legal, can you? Of course it wasn’t. It was totally legal discharging some of the less odious things into the river despite going through a residential neighborhood about 500 feet downstream— the EPA permitted that and while they far exceeded their allotted amounts, that was far less of a crime. Though it was funny to see one kid in my class who lived in that neighborhood right next to the factory ask a scientist they sent to give a presentation in our second grade class why the snow in their back yard was purple near the pond (one thing they made was synthetic clothing dye.) People used to lament runaway dogs returning home rainbow colored. That was totally legal. However, this huge international chemical conglomerate with a huge US presence routinely, secretively, and consistently broke the law dumping carcinogenic, toxic, and ecologically disastrous chemicals there, and three other locations, in the middle of the night. Sometimes when we played there, any of the stuff we left lying around was moved to the edges and there were fresh bulldozer tracks in the morning, and we just thought it was from farm equipment. All of it was in residential neighborhoods without so much as a no trespassing sign posted, let alone a chain link fence, for decades, until the 90s, because they were trimming their bill for the legal and readily available disposal services they primarily used, and of course signs and chainlink fences would have raised questions. They correctly gauged that they could trade our health for their profit: the penalties and superfund project cost were a tiny pittance of what that factory made them in that time. Our incident was so common it didn’t make the news, unlike in Holbrook, MA where a chemical company ignored the neighborhood kids constantly playing in old metal drums in a field near the factory which contained things like hexavelant chromium, to expected results. The company’s penalty? Well they have to fund the cleanup. All the kids and moms that died? Well… boy look at the great products that chemical factory made possible! Speaking of which:

> Just look back over the last 200 years, per…

Irrelevant “I heart capitalism” screed that doesn’t refute a single thing I said. You can’t ignore bad things people, institutions, and societies do because they weren’t bad to everybody. The Catholic priests that serially molested children probably each had a dossier of kind, generous, and selfless ways they benefited their community. The church that protected and enabled them does an incredible amount of humanitarian work around the world. Doesn’t matter.

> Masks

Come on now. Those businesses leaders had balls but none of them were crystal. What someone said in 2023 has no bearing on what businesses did in 2020 based on the best available science and their motivations for doing it. Just like you can’t call businesses unethical for exposing their workers to friable asbestos when medicine generally thought it was safe, you can’t call businesses ethical for refusing to let their workers protect themselves— on their own dime, no less— when medicine largely considered it unsafe.

Your responses to those two things in that gigantic pile of corporate malfeasance don’t really challenge anything I said.
chefandy
·2 年前·discuss
If that’s the only data point you look at in American industry, it would be pretty encouraging. I mean, surely they’d have done the same if they were a branch of a large publicly traded company with a big high-production product pipeline…
chefandy
·2 年前·discuss
Let’s see… of the top of my head…

- Air Pollution

- Water Pollution

- Disposable Packaging

- Health Insurance

- Steward Hospitals

- Marketing Junk Food, Candy and Sodas directly to children

- Tobacco

- Boeing

- Finance

- Pharmaceutical Opiates

- Oral Phenylepherin to replace pseudoephedrine despite knowing a) it wasn’t effective, and b) posed a risk to people with common medical conditions.

- Social Media engagement maximization

- Data Brokerage

- Mining Safety

- Construction site safety

- Styrofoam Food and Bev Containers

- ITC terminal in Deerfield Park (read about the decades of them spewing thousands of pounds benzene into the air before the whole fucking thing blew up, using their influence to avoid addressing any of it, and how they didn’t have automatic valves, spill detection, fire detection, sprinklers… in 2019.)

- Grocery store and restaurant chains disallowing cashiers from wearing masks during the first pandemic wave, well after we knew the necessity, because it made customers uncomfortable.

- Boar’s Head Liverwurst

And, you know, plenty more. As someone that grew up playing in an unmarked, illegal, not-access-controlled toxic waste dump in a residential area owned by a huge international chemical conglomerate— and just had some cancer taken out of me last year— I’m pretty familiar with various ways corporations are willing to sacrifice health and safety to bump up their profit margin. I guess ignoring that kids were obviously playing in a swamp of toluene, PCBs, waste firefighting chemicals, and all sorts of other things on a plot not even within sight of the factory in the middle of a bunch of small farms was just the cost of doing business. As was my friend who, when he was in vocational high school, was welding a metal ladder above storage tank in a chemical factory across the state. The plant manager assured the school the tanks were empty, triple rinsed and dry, but they exploded, blowing the roof off the factory taking my friend with it. They were apparently full of waste chemicals and IIRC, the manager admitted to knowing that in court. He said he remembers waking up briefly in the factory parking lot where he landed, and then the next thing he remembers was waking up in extreme pain wearing the compression gear he’d have to wear into his mid twenties to keep his grafted skin on. Briefly looking into the topic will show how common this sort of malfeasance is in manufacturing.

The burden of proof is on people saying that they won’t act like the rest of American industry tasked with safety.
chefandy
·2 年前·discuss
I think the real key is figuring out how to turn the hand-wavy promises of this making everything better into policy long fucking before we kick the door open. It’s self-evident that this being efficient and useful would be a technological revolution; what’s not self evident is that it wouldn’t benefit the large corporate entities that control even more disproportionately than it does now to the detriment of many other people.
chefandy
·2 年前·discuss
If there are any fully-autonomous cars on the streets of nyc, there aren’t many of them and I don’t think there’s any way for them to operate legally. There has been discussion about having a trial.
chefandy
·2 年前·discuss
Sadly, we live in a society where those executives would use that impunity as carte blanche to spend no money improving (in the best-case scenario,) or even more likely, keep cutting safety expenditures until the body counts get high enough for it to start damaging sales. If we’ve already given them a free pass, they will exploit it to the greatest possible extent to increase profit.
chefandy
·2 年前·discuss
share the chats then
chefandy
·2 年前·discuss
Then, some will dust off that Larry Wall quote about hubris as if it's exculpatory... Well, I read that book too, and he was definitely talking about problem-solving approaches in software development, and not general-purpose personality traits for software developers.
chefandy
·2 年前·discuss
Well, what good is a naive misgiving if you don't even use it to haughtily dismiss genuine expertise? I can't tell you how many times I've had developers essentially manaplain my non-dev fields of expertise to me knowing that I was a credentialed professional and they were making stab-in-the-dark assumptions. Phrases like, "theoretically, it should be very simple," should usually be replaced by, "It would be ridiculous to assume everything I don't know about this is inconsequential, but here are some baselessly confident words about it:".
chefandy
·2 年前·discuss
> People do get oddly grumpy when you criticise OpenSCAD

Most of us don't realize how much our comfort with familiar concepts affects our ability to objectively evaluate them. Moving from dev to being a tech artist, I see the same exact sort of irrational biases, hang-ups and endemic misconceptions with completely different tool chains and types of complexity. When I first started using Houdini, I tried to turn every task into a Python coding problem because that's what I was comfortable with— Python is amazing in Houdini but it's definitely not the best way to accomplish most tasks.
chefandy
·2 年前·discuss
I've encountered nearly no businesses that don't accept cash and I pay with cash all the time. The lower-income end of the working class makes up a huge percentage of our economy, and it's an extremely cash-centric demographic. But even then, I've got a friend who sells fine handmade jewelry and some folks came in and bought like a 30k piece from her in cash because they owned a cash-only business. I can't imagine anyone existing outside of a ultra-gentrified corporate enclave that would encounter nearly any businesses that don't accept cash, let alone most. Maybe they just never see anyone use cash because they're not in a socioeconomic segment where it's still the standard?
chefandy
·2 年前·discuss
I don't have direct access to my long-term savings and retirement accounts— I have to go through my financial manager who'll works in a small, local firm, and so would anyone trying to impersonate me. He would probably recognize my voice, knows where I live and what's going on in my life, to whom I'm married, etc. because we have bi-annual check in meetings. He'd definitely contact me through his existing contact info if there was anything weird going on with one of my requests, especially if it involved a different address or account than he's used to dealing with. As anyone in that compliance-and-accuracy-focused line of work should be, he's very intent on making sure all of the Ts are crossed and Is are dotted. He charges a flat percentage of my modest retirement savings annually (I'm far behind most white collar workers my age, coming from a working class early adulthood) so he has a financial interest in my investments, and does a really solid job managing them. The accounts are in a large investment-focused bank which I believe only he can access. I think it's about as safe as you could get while still keeping your money active in the economy and not having a rich person's resources.
chefandy
·2 年前·discuss
If you have at least a fraud watch on your credit which means creditors are supposed to call you on the number they have listed before they open new accounts, then the money is arguably worth protecting more. But if you think it's tough to convince the bank with which you have an existing relationship that you didn't make some withdrawals, imagine trying to convince a bank you've never heard of that you didn't actually approve a loan for 3 Cadillac Escalade Platinums which neither you nor the bank realize are currently in a shipping container on their way to Abu Dabi.

(Nothing against Abu Dabi— I just picked a random place not under US jurisdiction where plenty of people have Escalade Platinum money.)
chefandy
·2 年前·discuss
You can have a financial manager control your accounts for you and just keep a small checking account, (plus they'll help you grow your balances) but they're not free. Well, they're not free if you want them to be unbiased. Given, what's going to keep them from getting scammed? Maybe what you're looking for is several safe deposit boxes.
chefandy
·2 年前·discuss
Right. Snowflake facilitated AT&T'S abject negligence, but ultimately the buck stops with AT&T, here.