What good is a six figure income, if you have a six figure cost of living?
It depends on whether you have a fairly long-term guarantee of employment. If you're making $30K after tax a year and are spending $10K/year on cost of living, then each year means that you can afford to maintain the same lifestyle for two more if you save it (ignoring interest and so on). That sounds pretty good, in spite of the low absolute terms. Now compare that to someone making $300K/year after tax and paying $230K/year in cost of living. They only save up on year's cost of living roughly every 3 years, so they're in a more precarious position if they need to leave their job for any reason. In absolute terms though, the first one will have saved $100K after 5 years, the second will have saved $350K. If you do that for ten years and then move somewhere cheaper, then you can buy a house for half a million or so somewhere else, in cash, and still have a reasonable amount invested to provide some income.
The job with a take-home salary three times the cost of living gives you more short-term security, but the job with the salary a mere 1.3 times the cost of living makes it easier to save a large nest egg.
Actually, I do see heart surgeons doing pro-bono work and performing experimental surgeries as part of the research portion of their job, publicly publishing their findings. I also see most other creative professions and trades expecting people to come along with a portfolio of work that prospective employers can inspect.
Depends on the device. Micron is jumping on the RISC-V bandwagon because they put 7 ARM cores on each SSD controller. These chips are not very power or performance critical (they're mostly I/O limited and the flash uses a lot more power than the controller), but they're in a business with razor-thin margins and not having to pay ARM royalties would apparently come close to doubling their per-device profit.
The main thing that's 'wrong' with ARM is that ARM intentionally avoids fragmenting their ecosystem. They don't let you add extra instructions, because they want code compiled for ARMvX to work on any ARMvX core. You can license ARM cores (from ARM or other companies) and put other stuff on the same SoC, but you can't change core parts of the design. That is a great strength in some areas, but a weakness in others.
Most of the areas of the UK with a functioning economy voted remain. The ones that voted leave were the ones who looked at the status quo and thought 'well, it can't be much worse...' The fact that so many people felt that is quite a problem.
I do enjoy the irony of people writing about how the leave vote was 'sticking it to the political class'. Do they really think that the political class objects to having more power transferred to Westminster?
The 9am work time exists because that's the time that people in their 50s, on average, become most awake and those were the ones in management positions when the working day drifted towards standardisation. The average time for different age groups to reach peak awareness is basically later for younger people (teenagers are basically useless before 11am). This has been studied for ages and is well known. There are outliers (in both directions). Any job that expects any kind of alertness or creative output should adapt the work times for individuals. Doing anything else is simply accepting that you won't get the best work out of people and whichever manager decides on it should be willing to explain it to the shareholders and auditors.
Someone built a thing called PonziCoin on top of Etherium. They did it as a joke, to highlight the silliness of these things and released it, explicitly stating that it was a Ponzi scheme and describing how it worked. The logic of a Ponzi scheme was embedded in the smart contract, so the fact that it was such a scam could be externally validated. After a couple of weeks, he had to shut it down because people were actually buying the coins, after being explicitly told that it was a scam by the person selling them. I think that tells you everything you need to know about ICOs.
What's the point of money? Generally, the point of acquiring money is to allow you to spend your time doing things that you enjoy. Unless you really enjoy housework, paying someone else to do it means that you have more free time and less time doing something that you don't want to do. If you save the money, what would you do with it? Over 40 years, if it's saving you an average of 6 hours a month, that's a cumulative 120 days of free time. Can you buy an extra 120 days of free time with $270,000?
That said, paying $40/hour for a cleaner seems a little odd, unless the cleaner is bringing some very expensive equipment along.
I don't employ a cleaner, but I do get a few fliers for cleaning agencies through my door periodically. About £11/hour seems about right for the reputable-looking ones, one was £8.50/hour. I did pay a cleaner when I was a PhD student, because it was far cheaper to split the cost of an hour of someone's time per week between four of us than to argue about who was responsible for cleaning. The agency there was quite up front that most of their customers use them as a finder service, pay them for a few months, and then engage the cleaner on a private basis, splitting the difference between what they pay the cleaners and what you pay them.
If you take £11/hour as normal, then that works out at about $15/hour in the USA then that works out to around 550,000 people employed full time cleaning houses. That seems like a trifle high, though plausible.
Considering how greedy they are, there's no reason why they can't do both.
They can do both if doing both doesn't reduce the value of either. Apple has spent the last few years trying to position themselves as respecting your privacy. If they stopped doing this, then they'd see a loss in sales. Their question is whether it will gain them more from tracking than they'd lose in sales. Given that other companies are a lot better at monetising tracking information than Apple, I'd expect to see the balance lean more in the not-tracking direction.
Everything in your comment is incorrect. Please read a little bit about patent law before commenting on it in the future. Derivative works are part of copyright law and have no status in patent or trademark law. Most patents are additive in some way, providing improvements to existing inventions (many of the early ones were refinements on steam engine design, for example), and this property is one of the first things that you'll find in any patent law textbook.
Furthermore the AV1 license is structured so that if you sue someone for using AV1, you lose your own rights to use AV1. Thus, only pure-troll entities will be able to initiate such lawsuits
That's not a real problem. The normal way for such lawsuits is to spin out a company that does nothing other than own the patents and license them back to the original company. That company can then sue everyone, but doesn't do anything other than license patents so is immune to countersuits.
Every disclosed patent owner has agreed to make their patents available royalty free. There may be other patent holders who have not disclosed their patent. Patents are not mutually exclusive, if I hold a patent for doing X then you may hold a patent for doing X with Y, so just because my patent is in the pool doesn't mean that AV1 doesn't infringe yours. Expect to see patent trolls with overly broad patents that may or may not actually either apply to AV1 or be valid at all go after smallish (large enough to be worth suing, small enough not to be able to afford a good defence) users of AV1. This has happened with MPEG patents, even though they provide a financial incentive to disclose valid patents that are infringed (anyone with patents in the pool gets a share of the royalties).
However, targeted advertisement does not fall under any of those illegal acts because the advertisement itself does not mention the preference
When taking out the targeted advert, you are explicitly stating the preference. Another poster made an analogy of listing the property via an agent and giving them verbal instructions not to show the details to anyone in a particular class. I would expect a court to have to decide whether these two are equivalent.
The major point of OP's post was that joining FB can be, a rational trade-off between privacy and utility . Surprise? Your personal information is the service cost and obviously FB (a for-profit company) needs to monetise that information. Hello?
There are two problems with this. The first is that it assumes information symmetry. People are starting to become aware of the information that Facebook collects, but far fewer have an idea how much information Facebook infers. There's a lot of information that can be gleaned from combining seemingly unrelated data sets, which is why everyone in the security community is sceptical of claims that data sets can be anonymised: it's easy to do in isolation, but there's a huge body of research combining two or more anonymised data sets and deanonymising both. As such, the cost is not apparent to most people.
The second problem is that people are not just selling their own information. A big part of the Cambridge Analytica scandal is that they were able to create profiles of orders of magnitude more people than participated in their survey, by cross-referencing information. If a person doesn't have a Facebook account, but has 10 friends who all do, share their contact list, and tag that person in photos, then there's nothing that they can do about it.
Facebook might own the legal rights to use the information you gave them
Last time I read the Facebook T&Cs, they owned an irrevocable, commercial, sublicensable, transferable license to anything that you upload. Oh, and you agreed to indemnify them in cases where it turned out that you weren't legally able to assign those rights. They may not own the uploaded content in a strictly legal sense, but they own the rights to do pretty much anything except claim that they created it (in jurisdictions where Moral Rights are a thing - not in most of the USA) and to prevent you from granting the same rights to anyone else.
Interesting, thanks - I didn't see an announcement when it went away. It appears that the few ad-supported things on my iPad are using Google Ads now. Good move for Apple, because it removes a big conflict of interest for them, but not so great for people running ad-supported software on Apple devices because now it's all being served by companies that do a lot more tracking...
Apple does; however, run iAds, which is an ad service for in-application adverts on iOS devices. This means that their incentives aren't quite so clear cut.
Why is it worse to have a UI model that is strictly more powerful? You can implement a hierarchy on top of tags, you cannot implement arbitrary tags on top of a hierarchy (you can implement it on top of a hierarchy with hard links, though doing it outside of the filesystem driver or VFS layer is prone to atomicity problems).
I came across a study about 15 years ago that found that under 20% of the general population considered hierarchies a natural organisational structure, but well over 90% of programmers did (not surprising, given the hierarchical structure of most programming languages - if you can't think in hierarchies then you can't use them). Why do you want to design a UI model that's alien to 80% of the population?
We have hierarchical filesystems because they're efficient to implement not to use. Classic filesystems have O(n) or, at best, O(log(n)) search for files in a directory. This starts to hurt even for log(n) when that can require multiple disk accesses, so the solution is to force the user to make n smaller by distributing their files across multiple directories.
It turned out that this hierarchical organisation is not so great for many structures and so filesystems gained hard links, at which point the hierarchy is no longer canonical and things went downhill from there.
The key innovation of the BeOS filesystem was to recognise that hierarchy is a special case of tagging and that folders are just saved (and automatically updated) results of a search. The BeOS filesystem implemented folders in exactly this way, which meant that you could also organise things in different ways simply by defining a new search (e.g. have your music by genre, by artist, by album, or by any progressive filtering of these). This is strictly more expressive than a simple hierarchical structure.
You don't need to completely remove it. You want each post cryptographically signed by a randomly generated identity. Anyone who wants to post anonymously can do so by just generating a new identity, but set the default to ignore posts from users with 0 reputation (or, ideally, have something like a 99% . Once people have posted a few times and others have replied to them or endorsed them in some other way then increase the probability that they'll be seen. Let people configure their thresholds and weight individuals that they trust to moderate more or less highly.
Slashdot Mirror
What good is a six figure income, if you have a six figure cost of living?
It depends on whether you have a fairly long-term guarantee of employment. If you're making $30K after tax a year and are spending $10K/year on cost of living, then each year means that you can afford to maintain the same lifestyle for two more if you save it (ignoring interest and so on). That sounds pretty good, in spite of the low absolute terms. Now compare that to someone making $300K/year after tax and paying $230K/year in cost of living. They only save up on year's cost of living roughly every 3 years, so they're in a more precarious position if they need to leave their job for any reason. In absolute terms though, the first one will have saved $100K after 5 years, the second will have saved $350K. If you do that for ten years and then move somewhere cheaper, then you can buy a house for half a million or so somewhere else, in cash, and still have a reasonable amount invested to provide some income.
The job with a take-home salary three times the cost of living gives you more short-term security, but the job with the salary a mere 1.3 times the cost of living makes it easier to save a large nest egg.
Actually, I do see heart surgeons doing pro-bono work and performing experimental surgeries as part of the research portion of their job, publicly publishing their findings. I also see most other creative professions and trades expecting people to come along with a portfolio of work that prospective employers can inspect.
Depends on the device. Micron is jumping on the RISC-V bandwagon because they put 7 ARM cores on each SSD controller. These chips are not very power or performance critical (they're mostly I/O limited and the flash uses a lot more power than the controller), but they're in a business with razor-thin margins and not having to pay ARM royalties would apparently come close to doubling their per-device profit.
The main thing that's 'wrong' with ARM is that ARM intentionally avoids fragmenting their ecosystem. They don't let you add extra instructions, because they want code compiled for ARMvX to work on any ARMvX core. You can license ARM cores (from ARM or other companies) and put other stuff on the same SoC, but you can't change core parts of the design. That is a great strength in some areas, but a weakness in others.
Astonishing. The only thing in your post that isn't factually inaccurate (i.e. shown by multiple studies to be incorrect) is a value judgement.
Most of the areas of the UK with a functioning economy voted remain. The ones that voted leave were the ones who looked at the status quo and thought 'well, it can't be much worse...' The fact that so many people felt that is quite a problem.
I do enjoy the irony of people writing about how the leave vote was 'sticking it to the political class'. Do they really think that the political class objects to having more power transferred to Westminster?
They list the currencies that they dispense in letters that are about 20-25cm high.
The 9am work time exists because that's the time that people in their 50s, on average, become most awake and those were the ones in management positions when the working day drifted towards standardisation. The average time for different age groups to reach peak awareness is basically later for younger people (teenagers are basically useless before 11am). This has been studied for ages and is well known. There are outliers (in both directions). Any job that expects any kind of alertness or creative output should adapt the work times for individuals. Doing anything else is simply accepting that you won't get the best work out of people and whichever manager decides on it should be willing to explain it to the shareholders and auditors.
Someone built a thing called PonziCoin on top of Etherium. They did it as a joke, to highlight the silliness of these things and released it, explicitly stating that it was a Ponzi scheme and describing how it worked. The logic of a Ponzi scheme was embedded in the smart contract, so the fact that it was such a scam could be externally validated. After a couple of weeks, he had to shut it down because people were actually buying the coins, after being explicitly told that it was a scam by the person selling them. I think that tells you everything you need to know about ICOs.
What's the point of money? Generally, the point of acquiring money is to allow you to spend your time doing things that you enjoy. Unless you really enjoy housework, paying someone else to do it means that you have more free time and less time doing something that you don't want to do. If you save the money, what would you do with it? Over 40 years, if it's saving you an average of 6 hours a month, that's a cumulative 120 days of free time. Can you buy an extra 120 days of free time with $270,000?
That said, paying $40/hour for a cleaner seems a little odd, unless the cleaner is bringing some very expensive equipment along.
I don't employ a cleaner, but I do get a few fliers for cleaning agencies through my door periodically. About £11/hour seems about right for the reputable-looking ones, one was £8.50/hour. I did pay a cleaner when I was a PhD student, because it was far cheaper to split the cost of an hour of someone's time per week between four of us than to argue about who was responsible for cleaning. The agency there was quite up front that most of their customers use them as a finder service, pay them for a few months, and then engage the cleaner on a private basis, splitting the difference between what they pay the cleaners and what you pay them.
If you take £11/hour as normal, then that works out at about $15/hour in the USA then that works out to around 550,000 people employed full time cleaning houses. That seems like a trifle high, though plausible.
Considering how greedy they are, there's no reason why they can't do both.
They can do both if doing both doesn't reduce the value of either. Apple has spent the last few years trying to position themselves as respecting your privacy. If they stopped doing this, then they'd see a loss in sales. Their question is whether it will gain them more from tracking than they'd lose in sales. Given that other companies are a lot better at monetising tracking information than Apple, I'd expect to see the balance lean more in the not-tracking direction.
Everything in your comment is incorrect. Please read a little bit about patent law before commenting on it in the future. Derivative works are part of copyright law and have no status in patent or trademark law. Most patents are additive in some way, providing improvements to existing inventions (many of the early ones were refinements on steam engine design, for example), and this property is one of the first things that you'll find in any patent law textbook.
Furthermore the AV1 license is structured so that if you sue someone for using AV1, you lose your own rights to use AV1. Thus, only pure-troll entities will be able to initiate such lawsuits
That's not a real problem. The normal way for such lawsuits is to spin out a company that does nothing other than own the patents and license them back to the original company. That company can then sue everyone, but doesn't do anything other than license patents so is immune to countersuits.
Every disclosed patent owner has agreed to make their patents available royalty free. There may be other patent holders who have not disclosed their patent. Patents are not mutually exclusive, if I hold a patent for doing X then you may hold a patent for doing X with Y, so just because my patent is in the pool doesn't mean that AV1 doesn't infringe yours. Expect to see patent trolls with overly broad patents that may or may not actually either apply to AV1 or be valid at all go after smallish (large enough to be worth suing, small enough not to be able to afford a good defence) users of AV1. This has happened with MPEG patents, even though they provide a financial incentive to disclose valid patents that are infringed (anyone with patents in the pool gets a share of the royalties).
However, targeted advertisement does not fall under any of those illegal acts because the advertisement itself does not mention the preference
When taking out the targeted advert, you are explicitly stating the preference. Another poster made an analogy of listing the property via an agent and giving them verbal instructions not to show the details to anyone in a particular class. I would expect a court to have to decide whether these two are equivalent.
The major point of OP's post was that joining FB can be, a rational trade-off between privacy and utility . Surprise? Your personal information is the service cost and obviously FB (a for-profit company) needs to monetise that information. Hello?
There are two problems with this. The first is that it assumes information symmetry. People are starting to become aware of the information that Facebook collects, but far fewer have an idea how much information Facebook infers. There's a lot of information that can be gleaned from combining seemingly unrelated data sets, which is why everyone in the security community is sceptical of claims that data sets can be anonymised: it's easy to do in isolation, but there's a huge body of research combining two or more anonymised data sets and deanonymising both. As such, the cost is not apparent to most people.
The second problem is that people are not just selling their own information. A big part of the Cambridge Analytica scandal is that they were able to create profiles of orders of magnitude more people than participated in their survey, by cross-referencing information. If a person doesn't have a Facebook account, but has 10 friends who all do, share their contact list, and tag that person in photos, then there's nothing that they can do about it.
Facebook might own the legal rights to use the information you gave them
Last time I read the Facebook T&Cs, they owned an irrevocable, commercial, sublicensable, transferable license to anything that you upload. Oh, and you agreed to indemnify them in cases where it turned out that you weren't legally able to assign those rights. They may not own the uploaded content in a strictly legal sense, but they own the rights to do pretty much anything except claim that they created it (in jurisdictions where Moral Rights are a thing - not in most of the USA) and to prevent you from granting the same rights to anyone else.
Interesting, thanks - I didn't see an announcement when it went away. It appears that the few ad-supported things on my iPad are using Google Ads now. Good move for Apple, because it removes a big conflict of interest for them, but not so great for people running ad-supported software on Apple devices because now it's all being served by companies that do a lot more tracking...
Few companies can make Microsoft seem the less evil alternative (C-sharp/.NET), and Oracle is one of them.
Microsoft has open sourced the core of .NET under an MIT license, plus a patent grant. It's not hard to seem more evil than that...
Do you not have working copy and paste on the OS that you use to run adb?
Apple does; however, run iAds, which is an ad service for in-application adverts on iOS devices. This means that their incentives aren't quite so clear cut.
Why is it worse to have a UI model that is strictly more powerful? You can implement a hierarchy on top of tags, you cannot implement arbitrary tags on top of a hierarchy (you can implement it on top of a hierarchy with hard links, though doing it outside of the filesystem driver or VFS layer is prone to atomicity problems).
I came across a study about 15 years ago that found that under 20% of the general population considered hierarchies a natural organisational structure, but well over 90% of programmers did (not surprising, given the hierarchical structure of most programming languages - if you can't think in hierarchies then you can't use them). Why do you want to design a UI model that's alien to 80% of the population?
We have hierarchical filesystems because they're efficient to implement not to use. Classic filesystems have O(n) or, at best, O(log(n)) search for files in a directory. This starts to hurt even for log(n) when that can require multiple disk accesses, so the solution is to force the user to make n smaller by distributing their files across multiple directories.
It turned out that this hierarchical organisation is not so great for many structures and so filesystems gained hard links, at which point the hierarchy is no longer canonical and things went downhill from there.
The key innovation of the BeOS filesystem was to recognise that hierarchy is a special case of tagging and that folders are just saved (and automatically updated) results of a search. The BeOS filesystem implemented folders in exactly this way, which meant that you could also organise things in different ways simply by defining a new search (e.g. have your music by genre, by artist, by album, or by any progressive filtering of these). This is strictly more expressive than a simple hierarchical structure.
You don't need to completely remove it. You want each post cryptographically signed by a randomly generated identity. Anyone who wants to post anonymously can do so by just generating a new identity, but set the default to ignore posts from users with 0 reputation (or, ideally, have something like a 99% . Once people have posted a few times and others have replied to them or endorsed them in some other way then increase the probability that they'll be seen. Let people configure their thresholds and weight individuals that they trust to moderate more or less highly.