ehmmmmmmmm

12 ms·

1.
by ehmmmmmmmm 2y ago
I've been there as well. In reality 99% of the time you don't need new gear. However there is also a delicate balance where a new piece of gear makes you excited to go out and do your hobby more and it's that going out more t
2.
by ehmmmmmmmm 2y ago
Big Tech's latest ploy: using live facial recognition to monitor and control riots. Surveillance overreach meets dystopian nightmare. Because nothing says "protecting democracy" like treating every citizen as a potential crim
3.
by ehmmmmmmmm 2y ago
Intel's recent struggles are the result of a decade-long failure to diversify and innovate beyond its x86 stronghold. The company's delayed pivot to AI and smartphone SoCs, coupled with poor financials, make its current woes unsur
4.
by ehmmmmmmmm 2y ago
It's disappointing to hear that Paddle requires three months of processing statements before allowing integration for new SaaS products. This creates a classic chicken-and-egg dilemma: without a payment solution, you can't generat
5.
by ehmmmmmmmm 2y ago
In San Francisco if you make $1M as a W-2 employee your marginal tax rate is ~53% and your effective tax rate is ~47%. If you make $1M on your own the rates are even higher. (That's not including the 10% sales tax you pay on almost eve
6.
by ehmmmmmmmm 4y ago
Sure, but it also feels slightly pretentious. Is representation in PR what the community wants? Why not actually uplifting the community such that artifical representation isn't necessary?
7.
by ehmmmmmmmm 4y ago
Something I think which really needs to be discussed. Why do tech companies always put a token black person in their PR videos but yet their hiring doesn't reflect that?
8.
by ehmmmmmmmm 5y ago
No, you don't want dumb people to have representation, because idiots will spread misinformation (everything from climate change being fake to masks being unnecessary) and adopt corrupt practices to garner their votes. Smart people are
9.
by ehmmmmmmmm 5y ago
It also gets rid of people who are too dumb to understand RCV. Hee hee. Intellectual filter on the voting population. :)
10.
by ehmmmmmmmm 5y ago
I used to use "anting" to refer to the behavior of cyclists who stand on the pedals and don't sit firmly planted on their seats, as if they have ants in their pants. And then there were "beeing" which are the cyclis
11.
by ehmmmmmmmm 5y ago
It's probably not compliant. As with all good things, if you're in the Land of the Free (TM), eventually people will hunt you down if you try to do good things. Alternatively, base your site out of a country which gives you the fr
12.
by ehmmmmmmmm 5y ago
> fears of others Fear of other people based on disability is discrimination. I have zero fear of blind people. Fear of other species is not immoral. I'm afraid of snakes and alligators, and I'm just as afraid, if not much
13.
by ehmmmmmmmm 5y ago
No you haven't. ADA should be supporting people who have fears of animals as well, IMO. It's about supporting everyone, not just one class of disability. For that matter, a driver with a severe back problem shouldn't be force
14.
by ehmmmmmmmm 5y ago
I don't think that's funny or a valid comparison. Dogs aren't even the same species. It's not immoral to be afraid of them and having PTSD because of negative interactions with a particular predatory canine species is ve
15.
by ehmmmmmmmm 5y ago
I don't think the system would be abused that much, especially if Uber could offer a little extra financial reward to the driver for taking the service dog, to the extent necessary that people with service dogs get the same level of wa
16.
by ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
I think it's perfectly fine to be a window cleaner but refuse you're employer's request to go clean a 100-storey skyscraper and keep taking the 2-storey buildings you usually do.
17.
by ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
Yes, I agree with you, Uber should have to deal with it. A lot of people in this thread are arguing that the driver should be forced to suck it up and I think that's shitty for both the driver's and rider's safety.
18.
by ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
This is good. PTSD should be added to that as well. Dogs send me into panic and it would be a bad idea for the law to force me to drive against it. I mean, I would because it's the law, and as a result, you would be in danger.
19.
by ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
Sorry, I don't think that's a fair or constructive comparison.
20.
by ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
Again, the law doesn't precede science, and doesn't change the fact that it's going to be life-threatening. You can quote the law all you want, but if you're blind and someone with PTSD is driving (and because they don&#
21.
by ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
That kind of policy means that people with PTSD from dogs who are desperate for a job will sign up and WILL experience PTSD and WILL endanger riders. It's a shitty policy IMO.
22.
by ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
> If they're afraid of dogs they shouldn't drive unknown people for a living Not everyone has a hundred companies trying to hire them. They have to take any job they can get to pay their food and electricity and mortgage and he
23.
by ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
Not every Uber driver has much choice of a thousand companies trying to hire them.
24.
by ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
How the law is written doesn't change the fact that driving on highway with peanut butter allergy is life-threatening, and driving on highway with PTSD to a stimulus in the car is also life-threatening.
25.
by ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
Thank you. I think this is a reasonable strategy. Requiring every driver to accept dogs against their allergies and PTSD on the other hand, I don't agree with, as that would directly endanger lives.
26.
by ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
So if I really need the cash, I need to risk my life and the customer's life in the name of ADA compliance ...
27.
by ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
If you're building a new building you should be required to have wheelchair ramps. Allergies and PTSD to ramps isn't really a thing, so it's okay to require them. If you have an old building it's on the government to pro
28.
by ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
Not that I plan to, but if I did, I'd be able to pick up a lot of the slack of rides without dogs so that other drivers could pick up the dog rides. I'm sure many drivers are more than willing. I don't see how this isn&#x27
29.
by ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
> "The bottom line is that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a guide dog should be able to go anywhere that a blind person can go." Okay, I completely get this, but question -- what about business owners and drivers wh
30.
by ehmmmmmmmm 6y ago
A big fallacy is that the "Chinese government" is this big monolithic entity. It's not. Supporting the Chinese government does not equal support censorship. Do you support the National Park Service? Do you support the Federal

More ›