abalone

73 ms·

631.
by abalone 8y ago
That’s not answering my question though. Collison claims money won’t solve the problem but uses a comparison that shows nothing of the sort. How does this make sense to anyone? Did he just whiff on logic here, or is he misleading us because
632.
by abalone 8y ago
Yes, you’re missing something: Much of the funding goes into prevention. SF only directly spends about $3K per homeless person. There are a lot more people staying housed because of those funds.
633.
by abalone 8y ago
> If homelessness was just a question of money, this issue would already be solved. While cities report inconsistently, San Francisco currently spends around $430 per city resident per year on services and programs for the homeless, com
634.
by abalone 8y ago
Because it's a disingenuous compare. Stripe is leading you to believe that spending per city resident is a fair measure of the effectiveness of how we spend money. But it's actually spending per homeless city resident that'
635.
by abalone 8y ago
It is is you're trying to compare the effectiveness of spending money ("If homelessness was just a question of money, this issue would already be solved.") The relevant compare is cost-per-homeless-resident. We actually trail
636.
by abalone 8y ago
> the much larger problem is SF's... failure to provide institutionalized care for people with severe mental disabilities You can debunk this with a simple observation: Homelessness has grown significantly in the past 20 years. Ha
637.
by abalone 8y ago
Hold on... This strikes me as disingenuous and here's why. Stripe is using spend-per-resident to compare SF to other cities, to lead us to the conclusion that we already spend more than anyone and so more wouldn't help. But SF has
638.
by abalone 8y ago
Old one was in place at the time of these alleged events and has publicly denied it as well.[1] [1] https://www.macrumors.com/2018/10/05/sewell-says-fbi-never-h...
639.
by abalone 8y ago
I meant the supply chain for their data center. But I won’t split hairs.. yes support site compromise is a supplier problem and probably a factor in Apple shifting away. But clearly Apple had more protections in place for their production s
640.
by abalone 8y ago
Just for clarity, there are some cases where the CEO is in fact left out of the loop specifically so they aren't in jeopardy of lying to shareholders. But typically it is the chief counsel who is informed in these scenarios. It is sign
641.
by abalone 8y ago
Gruber made a good point: They aren't quite doubling down as hard as they could.[1] They said their reporters spoke with a lot of people and spent a long time on the story. They checked the boxes in the journalistic process, so to spea
642.
by abalone 8y ago
Having evidence of this particular app having poor security practices prior to expressing concerns is an impossibly high standard. The comment is clearly based on a pattern of early stage apps putting security second. I think it's fair
643.
by abalone 8y ago
FYI "still" meant as of the time of the follow-up reporting in 2016, not today. I think it's believable that SuperMicro's support site got hacked. But I agree that was an incident on par with a sole developer installing
644.
by abalone 8y ago
In the past, these Bloomberg reporters have misreported on NSA exploiting Heartbleed. Here is the Washington Post giving them shit about it:[1] As for the 2016 incident, read Apple's denial more closely. They denied finding infected fi
645.
by abalone 8y ago
This is even weirder and outright nonsensical. Observing the fact that a child can use an iPad at age 2-3 does not imply anything about expectations for their speech development.
646.
by abalone 8y ago
No, because he didn't claim it was fatal. But your comment reveals just how much of a dick you are. He's 6.
647.
by abalone 8y ago
> Why is it not possible that (whatever three letter agency) grabbed a few engineers, told them to do X without talking to anyone else... Even if that were possible it wouldn't account for all the discrepancies here. Bloomberg cla
648.
by abalone 8y ago
Problem being they lectured that it’s “not hard” to occupy kids everyday.. not just on the weekends. Parenting is hard and takes lots of resources and tons of time every day optimally.
649.
by abalone 8y ago
I’m talking about younger kids. But, cool, feel free to report back when you actually have kids and tell us how your plan went.
650.
by abalone 8y ago
An hour a day of screentime is literally what I’m talking about. That’s a constant presence in life.
651.
by abalone 8y ago
Meaning clearly I’m a terrible parent SMH. Also I am exaggerating.. the kids enjoy the television programming they experience on the YouTube and I would prefer if there were fewer errors. Tell me you weren’t 100% addicted to a television sh
652.
by abalone 8y ago
I mean, that is just a different way of watching YouTube. You can restrict what they can watch right inside of the app using the “approved content only” mode.
653.
by abalone 8y ago
The key issue is supervision. YouTube Kids also has very enriching content. My hyper intelligent kid was able to direct himself to all kinds of educational content — way better than being forced to watch whatever crap was on TV like when we
654.
by abalone 8y ago
Uh, you are hardcore shaming.
655.
by abalone 8y ago
Yes I read daily. I also feed my kids pizza and ice cream from time to time and let them stay up past 8 last night. THERE IS A COST TO NEGLECTING MY PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES.
656.
by abalone 8y ago
This is a very weird response. iPads are breakthrough child computers. They can use them prior to typing, reading or even fully speaking . And you said it is “literally” impossible for adults to be productive — like, not just slightly chal
657.
by abalone 8y ago
I dunno... watch TV? They have legos btw.
658.
by abalone 8y ago
Downvoted because this is your personal struggle and trauma, whereas the “bad parenting” discussion was really just about screen time. Just letting you know. But please talk to someone about it if you’re not already.
659.
by abalone 8y ago
Your parent-shaming was not about exceeding one hour of screen time, it was about any screen time at all. Not all of us are able to spend our mornings frying eggs with our kids before taking them to the park for three hours (which means you
660.
by abalone 8y ago
So you refuse to read the study because you don’t like the conclusion and instead rely on your own personal anecdote. Your reasoning has no place on HN.

More ›