A lot of people forget, but iOS shares the same underpinnings as MacOS X. In fact, when Steve Jobs announced the original iPhone, he didn't say it ran iPhone OS, he said it ran MacOS.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's macOS already ready to go for ARM, much like there was an Intel MacOS for years before the transition was announced.
As for whether iOS could replace macOS, if you go back to my first point, think about iOS as a version of macOS that was stripped down and has been built back up over the intervening decade. I don't think they could make the switch tomorrow, but in a couple of years, it's not unreasonable to think there could be a reunification of the iOS and macOS codebases, creating, essentially a fully-featured iOS for desktop hardware with the features we've come to expect from modern desktop OSes.
There's some good points in the article, in particular the draining of color from the Finder sidebar and a few other glaring usability issues that haven't been addressed.
But, man, seriously, the original Time Machine UI was garbage. The Yosemite version is so, so, so, so much better. It's not great, but it's a lot better than what it used to be.
What happened with Milo is less about him attacking Leslie Jones, and more about his _followers_ attacking Leslie Jones. Milo knows full well that if he identifies someone for his heckling, he'll have thousands of trolls and their sockpuppets do the heavy lifting for him.
I personally don't think people should be accountable for their followers behavior, but let's suppose it is so.
Then, should we ban people such as Shanley, Randi Harper and their likes when they "unleash" their followers on some guy?
And this is actually different. While Milo did not explicitly call for the attacks, Shanley and Randi routinely do call for a target to be abused, for their companies to be harassed until the target is terminated, etc.
I don't support any side, I'm just trying to show that the first comment regarding consistency is indeed accurate, Twitter has none.
>I don't support any side, I'm just trying to show that the first comment regarding consistency is indeed accurate, Twitter has none.
No argument here. Twitter's inconsistent, if not outright apathetic about abuse no matter where it comes from. It's been pointed out there's no shortage of harassment and abuse from people on the left on Twitter. Maybe not at the rate and volume of the "alt-right" types, but it doesn't matter. Twitter needs to clean house.
The thing is they're not really apathetic. They seem to pick a target once in a while and go overboard with the retaliation. And it seems to be just out of the blue for no specific reason other than the mood of the day.
>Then, should we ban people such as Shanley, Randi Harper and their likes when they "unleash" their followers on some guy?
Absolutely. If the goal for Twitter is to be a place free from this sort of abuse, then anyone using a position of prominence to call for harassment and abuse should not be allowed to do so.
I don't actually know who these people are/that they've done what you're saying, but if it's true, then I don't think it's a hard question at all.
These fines are fundamentally stupid: yes, Citi's IT fucked up, but the fault is with the regulators for having such braindead reporting requirements to begin with.
Instead of something sensible like "you trade, you report", the regulators have set up a patchwork of formats, inclusion criteria and target agencies that pretty much ensures that lapses like this occur. Turning Frank-Dodd into workable code is fucking hard: I spent a couple of years pushing that boulder up the slope until I ragequit a couple of months ago.
The regulators should be ingesting data in one place and running analytics on a data lake. The banks are so sick of spending money dealing with the lack of regulatory technical competence that they'll probably happily pony up a couple of billion dollars between them to set up the surveillance system for the Feds; doing it once is cheaper in the long run than repeating the same set of mistakes at every bank on the Street.
The banks are sick of this, but just like the grass that doesn't want to be eaten by the cows, they also depend on this complicated regulation to keep our competitors.
I'm not sure complicated reporting is how banks are maintaining margins. They're diverting billions into complying with these requirements, for very little gain.
And anyone entering their business would have to as well. The large banks are happy to have these regulations in some ways as it makes it hard for midsized banks to grow and compete with them.
> Citigroup failing to send information on 26,810 transactions in over 2,300 such requests.
26810 requests, do you think they made more than $7m on this?
It's about proportional fines. Just because they're a giant company doesn't mean we should find then $1b for forgetting to put a handicapped parking space at one of their offices.
There is a school of thought that punitive fines should be a proportion of company value/earnings rather than an absolute dollar figure to exact an equal amount of discomfort.
I think Finnish speeding fines are a percent of income.
There is a school of thought that punitive fines should be a proportion of company value/earnings rather than an absolute dollar figure to exact an equal amount of discomfort.
In the infamous McDonald's coffee lawsuit, this was actually the motivation behind the initial large damage award. The jury attempted to award punitive damages equal to two days' worth of McDonald's coffee revenue.
(obligatory note here for the many people who have heard false information about that case: the coffee spilled in a car, yes, but the car was motionless, in a parking space, and the person who spilled it was not the driver, and was found partially at fault for the spill; she suffered severe burns requiring hospitalization and skin grafts, which is not generally what one expects from coffee; it was found McDonald's served its coffee significantly hotter than other chains, in a temperature range making burns more likely, and was aware of the fact that it could cause severe burns because this wasn't the first case, and in fact McDonald's was aware of hundreds of cases of burns resulting from its coffee; the initial damage award was significantly reduced by the judge; search for Liebeck v. McDonald's for more details)
Only because the fine is based on your income doesn't mean it has to be draconic. Quite the opposite. They can actually be less draconic than fixed amount fines. If you earn minimum wage a speeding ticket can be a complete disaster. If you are a tech worker you will barely notice the ticket.
25-to-life is indeed excessive, but if some people had 25 year lifespans and others had 2500 year lifespans, "3 strikes and you're 10-25% of your lifespan" is actually quite reasonable.
I think I see what you're getting at: punishments or penalties for offences that are arguably disproportionate to the crime.
On the other hand I think there is a gulf of difference between "3 strikes" laws and punitive damages being awarded against a company for an arguably frivolous lawsuit.
The former will disproportionally target people who are relatively disadvantaged, e.g. people living in poverty or drug addicts, and ruin their lives.
The latter (in this case) targeted a multinational corporation, with the damages being around 0.01% of its annual profit or less. McDonald's can survive that. Even if a person or two in the chain of command get fired, there's a gulf of difference between losing your job and getting locked up for 25 years.
I know you're not talking specifically about mcd coffee suit, but there's nothing arguable about that one; because there's still some measure of belief that it was frivolous here's a quote taken from the wikipedia article[0]:
> Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for 3 weeks, provided by her daughter. Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years.
What? Absolutely not. I'm just saying that it sounds reasonable to believe that burns increase with temperature, as opposed to being high in a range of temperatures and lower below and above that range. Figure 4 in your first link agrees with this common-sense guess.
The guy said "in a temperature range where burns are more likely". I'm not sure why you're objecting; there are certainly ranges where burns are less likely; that's what the paper I posted is about.
I think it's also pretty clear just from the burn time curve. If it takes you a second or two to notice the heat and move away, then anything above ~155F is going to make a burn much more likely. At 180F, the burn is basically instantaneous. Whereas at 140F, having five seconds to respond gives you a lot of time to move, shake off the liquid, et cetera.
Not to me, so I'd say it's more "your issue" than "the issue". Industry articles on serving temperatures are all about ranges, so I presume he's just talking about those.
But even with your interpretation, it's true. The upper bound is 212F. A cup of steam is not a significant burn risk, that being something like 0.16 ml of water.
Even if fines were in proportion to company value/earnings, they would also need to be in proportion to the violation. Not every violation is equally as egregious.
> I think Finnish speeding fines are a percent of income.
Yes and no. Lesser infractions are static amounts, larger ones are based on day fines, they determine the amount of days -> units for the fine based on the severity of the infraction and the units are used as a multiplier against your daily income for your fine.
I've thought long and hard about this for many years. Punitive damages - eg jail time or financial punishment should be removed from our system except in cases where people are unfit to be in society (like murders' etc).
What should happen - all of the management at Citgroup should have to attend a 5 day training provided by the SEC showing how they can fix the reporting problems they have. How it causes problems to society. How it is dishonest - and how it wastes taxpayers dollars.
I'm betting having that happen to Citigroup 2 or 3 times a year would really make them think about following the rules.
Plus - its positive reinforcement instead of negative (punative) damage.
same goes for Switzerland, but as common sense suggests, there is and should be some threshold based on severity. below is static fine, above it things get more interesting/intense.
some (a lot) people would like to see banks burn, in same way common folks enjoyed public decapitations of ruling classes in french revolution. not judging, hard topic on its own, probably depends on where you are positioned in your life.
For me it's not as much about fining them as it is holding the correct people responsible (not just throwing some junior engineer under the bus as usually happens) and making sure it cannot happen again or gets noticed much more quickly
Large companies have more employees and will have more violations, maybe proportional to their size, whereas a rich person should not have more speeding tickets than a poor person and should arguably pay more per violation.
That may have been true back in the 20th century, but not anymore--Apple and Walmart have market caps on the same order of magnitude, but one employs far more employees than the other. Besides, if you have more $ per employee, that just means each violation will cost more money/damage.
The other thing is with a company the size of citigroup (250,000 employees), it is statically impossible not to have:
- incompetent and/or careless employees and managers
- dishonnest employees
- computer bugs, glitches, clerical errors
If you take down a large corporation every time you find any of these, there will be no corporation left within a year. Just small companies that were statistically lucky to have neither of those that particular year.
Name me a program, any program (other than Hello World) where no bug has never been found!
They had this bug for more than a decade. They should have systems in place to look for these things.
People make mistakes, but these mistakes should be caught before they get into production. And the ones that still make it into production should be hunted.
Should we discuss about all the 15 years old bugs that are found in Windows, Linux and MacOS which are well into production (and many of them critical bugs that affect the core of the product)? Has a software company ever been fined or held liable for bugs in its products? In fact too often, bug fixes are paid updates.
Financial companies are held to extraordinary standards, and in my opinion it's a game they cannot win.
This is not a minor bug, this is a bug that caused data to be misrepresented. If you want to compare it to OS bugs, then you need to look at silent data corruption: how many data corruption bugs have gone undetected in operating systems for 15 years?
You mean a server OS leaking kernel memory to any external connection doing something special with TLS without leaving any audit trail that this happened is a minor bug?
this is unbelievably naive comment... do you work in IT? 15 year old bugs are nothing special, with known ones having workarounds implemented (often buggy), or just some completely new happening on broken data feed, unexpected values etc. the list is endless
Who said anything about being evil? If my car manufacturer has a bug in their manufacturing process and I die in a ball of fire as a result, they weren't being evil (they didn't intentionally kill me), but it doesn't change the fact that they screwed up and are going to have to make amends.
Citigroup screwed up. Now they have to pay a fine. If they get off the hook for free, how is that fair to their competitors, who also had to do this rather tedious reporting?
Citigroup was $7 BILLION for their mortgage fraud. [1] I think that can be considered a "real consequence." This was a far less severe infraction, and the fine was correspondingly much lower.
I was thinking the exact same thing. They should have a really thorough investigation and they need to make sure that NO ONE knew about this bug at any point in the past 15 years.
If Citygroup has a habit of hiring and fostering employees who turn a blind eye and keep their mouths shut, then they should be punished severely.
You'd think that, but there's been a huge swath of engineering school graduates joining ISIS and similar organizations. It's not that ISIS is recruiting them, something about engineering students [makes them more likely to join ISIS](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2015/11/1...)
The engineering school of the university I work at is plastered with posters urging students it's not too late just make the call don't make the jump. If it weren't so tragic it would be funny that it's the only college that seems to have that problem
So I guess ISIS appeals to the ones who would rather go out with a bang.
In the world of an RPG why does my character go off and become an Adventurer instead of living a quiet, humble, out of the way life?
In that fantasy world the normal quality of life isn't that good, and if you're just sitting around you're probably going to be picked off by some a-hole before natural old age.
In that fantasy world if you go out and TRY to have adventure your hard work, blood, and tears usually result in a better outcome. You did good, you get good rewards.
I think the real reason our society feels so vulnerable to 'radicalization' is that there is a distinct breakdown in 'the dream'; in the belief that you can put forth work and actually be rewarded. Or even in the ability to take that risk without starving/growing ill and ending up in a poverty spiral.
The people demand fulfillment, and meaningful lives; they want dignity and respect for their contribution to the whole.
Engineers are given answers and told to look for places to apply all the answers. Scientists are given answers and told to look for new questions that haven't been answered. These are fundamentally different approaches to life. The former, the engineering approach, I would not call "smart."
I don't think it is a coincidence that engineering students are both far religious than science students, with the exception of software engineers. Last I checked something like 90% of structural engineering students were religious, while only like 10% of physics students were. ISIS claims to have all the answers. Liberal/progressive ideologies readily admit to a world without solid answers. The former appeals to the engineering mindset far more than the latter.
There's this attitude that because computer work on pure logic, anything a computer does must therefore be logical and rational. The problem is that the humans who program the computers will often encode their own illogical, irrational, biased, and flawed logic. The computer is not logical and rational, it just follows instructions well. If the instructions are illogical, irrational, biased, and flawed---but executable---the computer will follow them. And when they spit out a illogical, irrational, biased, and flawed result... well, it must be logical, rational, unbiased, and unflawed, because the computer is purely logical, rational, unbiased, and unflawed.
We code our biases into the algorithms we use every day. They inherit our flaws. The sooner we all wake up to this, the better.
On the other hand, if the instructions are clearly defined and machine "intelligence" is used, the computer will often fix the biases of it's creators.
What you are pushing is nothing but the idea of (secular) original sin for algorithms.
Unfortunately, innumerate reporters imagining AI as somewhere between a human and a 5 line python script doing exactly what the creator proposed are unable to comprehend this.
> We code our biases into the algorithms we use every day. They inherit our flaws. The sooner we all wake up to this, the better.
And our values. And assumptions. In Arthur C. Clarke's "2001: A Space Odyssey" the homicidal behavior of HAL was ultimately based on the conflict between his secret instructions and what he was able to share with the human crew, Bowman and Poole.
This is actually a serious concerns when it comes to AI. People tend to think it's overblown but non deterministic behavior is bad because you don't know what the program will do. Maybe it crashes, maybe nothing happens, maybe it nukes your cpu. You simply don't know. The first rule of true AI has to be to ensure it values human life. It would be grossly irresponsible to create an entity more intelligent than us and do otherwise. But what happens when the military inevitably decides these new AI things would make really good drone pilots. Or when a sufficiently powerful enough AI comes to the conclusion that the best way to protect human life is to take human life. What's the end result of that conflict. What's stopping a sufficiently intelligent AI from rewriting it's own code to get around restrictions it doesn't like. We already have self modifying code. It's a scary thought, and the fact that people are basing these things off the way humans think makes it even scarier
These articles on "jawn" always miss the use of "the jawn" which works in a manner similar to saying something is "the shit." In other words, the phrase "That jawn is the jawn" is a valid sentence, meaning "That thing is the best."
Stuff like this is why I think "jawn" is the fuckin' jawn.
I met a guy from Philly who over used "the jawn" so much we started calling him John. He was also often caught uttering phrases like "I'm from Philly yo"
I once played chess against a guy who used this word for just about everything. He made his move while I wasn't watching, I turned around and asked him what he did.
"I took your jawn with my jawn." I said "which one is John?" He said "They're all jawn."
From then on, every time I spoke to him I replaced every noun with "John." Surprisingly, even without nouns, we never had much difficulty understanding each other.
I'm from outside (1hr) of philly and didn't immediately recognize "jawn" as written in this article. I moved away about 8 years ago and I think the word has evolved quite a bit. We used to say "juant" which seems close to "joint" as the author notes. "Pass me that juant, where did you get that juant." Haven't heard it with the hard n.
I'm also from outside the city (30 minutes) and recognized it exactly as described in the article. I've never heard it as a replacement for "the shit", though -- go figure.
From 5 minutes out of Philly and went to UPenn. "Jawn" is certainly used as the all purpose noun from this article and I've never heard it used as "the shit". The only other way I have heard it used for is as a code name for a certain pill as it helps obfuscate you're talking about a drug openly.
Makes sense, since the "all purpose word" that came to mind as something similar was "shit" which is also another all purpose noun, as well as an adjective which can mean "good" or "bad" depending on context.
I'm really not sure how I feel about this. Moot created the biggest, most toxic garbage fire of an internet community, refused to take management of it, and walked away when it became too toxic for anyone to deal with. In a way, he's a perfect new hire for Google, but Google usually doesn't leave quite so much devastation in its wake.
While it might be incredibly toxic at times, it's also the source of quite a lot of interesting Internet culture and movements, many positive works, and a ton of creativity. It's a microcosm of the worst and the best of what the Internet can pull off.
Don't dismiss it out of hand as exclusively negative.
Time and time again, the hands-off moderation of anything on 4chan beyond child pornography has had knock on effects in the real world. GamerGate began life on 4chan, and is still making women's lives miserable. All you have to do is ask Allison Rapp, their latest victim. <http://kotaku.com/the-ugly-new-front-in-the-neverending-vide...
While moot did, eventually, push GamerGate discussion off 4chan, he took forever to do so, and walked away from the site not long after. By not taking a stance on harassment and abuse earlier on, however, he created conditions for such a culture to flourish on 4chan.
Is there interesting and positive stuff on 4chan? Almost certainly. Would it still exist had moot taken a stronger stance on dealing with toxic posters? I'll go out on a limb and say yes.
Just FYI, reading the wikipedia article is a really bad idea. A variety of fanatics, political obsessives and involved administrators have been squatting on it for months; it's a dumpster fire.
How is this assessment any better than judging a physical community based on their loudest/most controversial members? The "4chan garbage fire" is a rude stereotype.
If I'm in a physical community where the loudest, and most controversial members are making it a terrible experience for people inside and outside that community, and the leaders refuse to deal with it, I think a fair assessment is that the community is toxic.
Your statement seems to imply that the loudest, and most controversial, members make it terrible for EVERYONE inside the community.
That is not the case in 4chan. There are a large number, if not a majority, of boards which have healthy, constructive cultures and are extremely helpful for hobbyists and enthusiasts.
So, if it's not terrible for everyone, then it's not a problem---as long as it's not terrible for you. Maybe, perhaps, this would work if the terrible people kept to themselves, but this is rarely the case. I was a regular poster on /mu/ for several years, but once the /pol/ users started trashing the board up, it's been a shell of its former self. And, again, that's just within 4chan. The worst things are what 4chan's community have done outside of the site. See also: GamerGate.
> If I'm in a physical community where the loudest, and most controversial members are making it a terrible experience for people inside and outside that community, and the leaders refuse to deal with it, I think a fair assessment is that the community is toxic.
While I disagree that 4chan is "toxic" in many ways it is representative of society in the way that twitter represents a fleeting incomplete thought.
What you have said maps near perfectly to the state of America. While politicians have totally fucked up the country, it is somewhat bleeakly obvious that these same dynamics are at play here.
So if you are American consider that you are in a physical community where the loudest, and most controversial members are making it a terrible experience for people and that they have chosen leaders that mirror their own desire to * refuse to deal with it, which unfortunately leaves us with the unpleasant assessment is that the community is toxic
What devastation? 4chan is absolutely not a "toxic garbage fire of an internet community", and it's not even his concept or idea. He didn't "create" anything in that sense.
He also didn't, "walk away when it became too toxic for anyone to deal with." That sentence is literally too hard to parse, given what's publicly available information about Moot and 4chan.
