That’s a good point. I had assumed the states allowing plug-in solar also allowed batteries, but according to https://pluginsolarguide.com , it’s only Utah so far.
by that token; you can argue HIV is endemic and nothing should be done about it...
people will understand wearing condoms but apparently can't understand masking... hmm... neither are very difficult to do, I'd argue that wearing a condom is more tricky in some aspects.
the reason is simple: wearing a mask reminds people there is a risk and it doesn't "look good", despite its many advantages for many pathogens and pollutants; also acknowledging indoor air quality is crap is hard for businesses (and governments) to do since they would need to invest into better ventilation and filtration systems.
I have a relatively high-end desktop with a nice monitor. I also have an aging laptop with a tiny screen and an anemic amount of RAM. Most of my computing ends up being done on the laptop.
With a family and a kid, it turns out I’d prefer to spend most of my time at the computer in common spaces; at the dinner table, on the couch, etc. so that I’m present and available for my family. This is far better than squirreling myself away in a room.
(Note that for work, I have a different computer, I’m talking about for life outside of work.)
The conflicts arise when all you do is work. Every second of every day does not need to be spent staring at your children and still be a good parent.
I often sit with my kids and get a little work done on the couch while they're entertaining themselves. I can engage where appropriate, and of course I don't spend my entire life working. This flexibility allows me time to walk them to school, pick them up from school, leave early to go to their sports things, band concerts, or just play outside with them.
I have a kind of strict separation between home and work and I have since I started working remotely.
When I’m “at work” in my home office. I’m not to be disturbed. When I’m “off work” my computer is shut down until the next day and I get on with the rest of my life - which doesn’t involve computers.
That sets strict expectations from everyone in my home.
I’m glad that works for you and your family. For me, I thrive from taking breaks during the day with my family and having the ability to catch up and work when the ideas hit me. That’s what’s wonderful about remote work, both our styles can be accommodated, we can be there when our families need us, and we can both be our most effective selves.
Part of Apple clearly wants to do that with Focuses giving more control around what notifications people get in which contexts.
Unfortunately other parts seem to think the opposite. For example, Apple News by default sends notifications for puff pieces like years-in-review rather than just urgent breaking news.
In practice, customers can also make requests via private support tickets. I’ve seen GitLab determine priority of an issue based partially on demand from paying customers.
> In practice, customers can also make requests via private support tickets.
Yep. Sometimes, it can also be helpful to ask publicly in a forum topic or issue and link that in the support ticket, asking for prioritized support.
> I’ve seen GitLab determine priority of an issue based partially on demand from paying customers.
Correct. You might have seen team members commenting with customer requests into issues and epics. While we at GitLab cannot share customer names and other confidential data, the feature request itself is public and increases transparency.
This is how a fintech Chief Compliance Officer explained it to me:
The industry that the SEC regulates is full of clever people who have a financial incentive to push rules as far as possible.
The concern is that if they provided a clear line between what is allowed and disallowed, that everyone will go right up to the line and then find creative ways to exploit how it’s defined.
The SEC prefers to keep the line fuzzy so that actors keep their behavior well on the “allowed” side.
Inconsistent enforcement of rules is a proven way to instill caution via fear and uncertainty.
When you are dealing with sociopaths (i.e. most of the industry that the SEC regulates), reason and compassion are useless as tools for getting people to do the right thing ... but fear still works.
> Inconsistent enforcement of rules is a proven way to instill caution via fear and uncertainty.
Where was this proven? My experience is the opposite. Inconsistent enforcement makes people think they can get away with breaking the rules. And because the enforcement is inconsistent, they have a guaranteed non-zero probability of succeeding.
If the line is intentionally fuzzy it doesn't make sense for them to lie about how the line is supposedly clear, because lying tends to diminish the trust and credibility of the SEC.
I still don't buy this explanation regardless, because it makes navigating the space impossible.
It's weird, because that line has been in place for decades, and the financial industry has mostly had no problems complying, yet a bunch of script kiddies trying to get rich are finding it oh so difficult to stay on the right side of the line?
The line seems to be unclear and fuzzy as stated by others, which will naturally cause problems with compliance, but you clearly have a personal axe to grind so I'm not gonna entertain that.
Sure, vague rules allow misdeeds through enforcement, but luckily we have the court system to police that. Meanwhile, vague rules allow the SEC to target the bad behavior, and not have to constantly be begging the legislature for new laws every time someone comes up with a new grift.
It's basically "unsportsmanlike conduct" for the financial system. The NFL doesn't tell you exactly how hard you have to push the other guy before it counts as unsportsmanlike conduct, because that would be stupid, extremely context sensitive, and only help players push each other around more. It's up to you as a player to actively stay on the right side of the fuzzy line for that exact reason.
Every person on here who works in tech should understand how stupid "no the rules need to be clear" is when it comes to bad actors and adversarial systems. Imagine if it was expected for you to clearly explain to a user who failed your internal risk system what caused them to fail, so that they can fix it and try again. Imagine if you were asked to implement a system that explained clearly to your users what would get blocked as "carding behavior". It's clear to those who have built or worked with these kind of systems how utterly stupid and self defeating such an endeavor would be.
There isn't even an unambiguously correct definition of "Fraud" in the first place!
