I would say this is a bit misleading. Personally, I was able to access my FB building this morning (after the outage started) and have continued to be able to use my badge with no problem since. Not saying that there are no employees experiencing this issue, but it is not affecting all Facebook employees.
Honestly having buildings automatically lock down like this sounds like an absolute worst practice. FB headquarters is in california. What happens when the big one hits? server is killed and no one can get inside and look for survivors? Shouldn't need a functional network connection to be able to open the door of a building, but here we are I guess.
The fact that almost all industries have some level of ethical problems does not mean that there aren't worse industries than the rest, or that you should somehow take no moral responsibility in choosing a job.
>does not mean that there aren't worse industries than the rest, or that you should somehow take no moral responsibility in choosing a job.
Only person suggestion that was you. In fact if you say, "well my job isn't as bad as Facebook," well then you're ignoring or passing the ethical dilemmas in your own industry, aren't you? Facebook isn't a free pass to ignore everything else. That's like saying, "well Stalin was pretty bad and we aren't as bad as Stalin, so we're probably ok." Not ok. It's really easy to justify working in immoral industries. I would wager that in the US, you have to do it just to put food on the table.
Sure, you're putting small and medium sized farmers out of their homes / farms and contributing to mega-farms. Anyone who can't afford your product will not be able to compete and lose their homes / farms. The way that works is the more efficient farming is, the more land required to live off of. Land is the expensive part. It used to be 40 acres and a mule could get you and your family by, now it's probably 500 acres just to make a decent living due to efficiency in automation. 500 acres of good farmland costs in the millions. It's not like quality food is getting cheaper either, that profit goes into the pockets of the automaters and the mega farmers and middle men mostly. All he food everyone else eats is loaded with fake sugar (high fructose corn syrup) to make it addictive, but its nutritionally garbage. People sure buy it though, because it's addictive.
Also, there's a lot of suicide as a result of that farming efficiency with small / medium farmers. When they can't run their farms effectively because they can't afford the automation or acreage it requires, they off themselves out of shame, leaving their families to pick up the pieces. Don't feel too bad though, you're just at the end of the line of something that's being going on since the 1920s. It really picked up in the 1980s with computerization though.
Doesn't the Agricultural industry have one of the highest mortality rates?
Grain handling, everything from gases in an enclosed space to being buried alive by a quicksand like effect.
Do you ask for consent before all this handling and cleaning? You know, consent from the grain.
Ok but seriously, the best I can imagine might be a generic environmental impact concern that could be levelled far and wide. Honestly seems pretty legit. Are there any ethical issues we should know about in the field of agricultural grain handling?
I can't really think of anything directly immoral about the business I participate in. Anything that could be pointed as an ethical grey area is more like a side-effect of the capitalist society we exist within.
So maybe more specifically, I'm not working with the farmers directly. I'm working with the businesses buying and selling the grain. The "capitalism grey areas" fall into effect when a farmer signs a contract saying they're going to deliver "Wheat" at a "Grade 2" spec and show up to the elevator with a truck full of wheat. It goes through the grading specs and even though that farmer brought them a "Grade 1" they're only getting paid at a Grade 2 rate.
So the grain elevator itself grabs that top quality stuff, shoves it in a silo with the other top quality stuff and sends the farmer away. They sell that grain at a Grade 1 and make immense profit that is never realized by the farmer who did the work.
It gets fishier the further into it you go. Because a "Grade 1" spec implies certain qualities in the grain: protein, moisture, dockage, etc. etc etc. So if the elevator needs to sell a Grade 2 product, the grading is taken as a sample and likely averaged over the entire load. They can take 10% of that Grade 1 stuff, shove it into a bunch of Grade 3 stuff and sell it as a Grade 2... the blending is where they make their money.
Then it gets even worse, because a grain terminal filling a vessel for export would sign off on a load that contains up to 1% dockage, but after the product in the silos is cleaned its likely to have <0.1% dockage or whatever anyway. So what is the terminal going to do? Surely they don't give the customer free "good" product right? Nope, they fill that vessel 99.5% full of product, then shove worthless garbage in to hit the 0.5% remainder and ship it out. So a vessel with 20,000MT of Soybean likely contains a bunch of garbage wheat or chaff or whatever else they have on hand that can't be sold.
It gets absurd to think they take in those Soybeans, then run them through the clean systems to remove the garbage, but then when it comes time to fill the vessel, they just put all the garbage back in so the customer has to clean it again.
Do your control systems enable producers of GMO grain to handle and clean their grain with greater efficiency? Then you’re contributing to the GMO problem :)
Agricultural automation is part of why Uyghur slavery is so profitable (similar to how the cotton gin led to a revitalization of slavery in the US- with a modicum of training, a single slaves productivity was drastically increased)
Closer to home, assuming you're in the US, the glut of cheap corn syrup plays a big role in our obesity epidemic (especially in underprivileged communities). Obesity and related issues are some of the top killers in the US.
Legaltech - namely, automating the legal process behind startup funding rounds. We have lawyers on staff to help if needed, but we automate 95% of the work.
Sure, you are automating away the jobs of lawyers and paralegals and secretaries, janitors, marketing people, sales people, etc. Most automation jobs have ethical problems in that, if successful, they permanently remove jobs from the job market. I should know, automation is what I do, but a different industry. Also, I'm sure if the lawyers on staff make good money, as good as private industry, they certainly won't in about 5-10 years after automation has taken over. So basically you're helping to put thousands of lawyers who spent $200k in degrees to specialize in startup legal work out of work, plus all their support staff they would ordinarily hire and give benefits (healthcare/retirement) to and the families those employees support.
Facebook cannot be compared to any other industry. Facebook's ethical problems is not about the services they provide, it is about the quantity of data collected with consent(ignorance). I hope everyone working inside is ethical as believed by the upper management.
>Facebook cannot be compared to any other industry.
As far as ethics? As deplorable as Facebook is, there are way worse industries. The defense industry just made trillions murdering people in Iraq and Afghanistan for 20 years for starters, and that's trillions from middle and lower class Americans and the sons and daughters too. I think someone calculated that Afghanistan alone cost $300 million a year for 20 years. That's alot of money taken away from the betterment of the country: schools, safety nets, infrastructure, a lot of things that were neglected. The incarceration industry also comes to mind. I'm sure I can think of others if you asked.
I'm not even sure that's an industry, but in the US, a surprisingly large number of charities take up to a 90% administration fee. If that's your industry, you probably aren't doing a very good job if those sort of things exist. I wish you luck though, it's a friggin travesty that a 90% administration fee is even legal.
I don't think so. I'd say the mobile market is quite different. Look at Android and the Google Play Store which also has similar pricing stipulations. There are players offering separate app sources/stores (Amazon or Epic appstores for example), but I certainly wouldn't consider virtually every big player or even a large portion opting out.
After skimming the document for a bit, hiQ's argument looks really flaky. Especially grasping at straws like "Free Speech". They argue that LinkedIn is like a public mall and denying them access to the mall is denying them "Free Speech"? I don't see how this can be the case if they had no intent to "speak" at all in this place. Their data collection via scraping seems more like people-watching in the mall, if you go along with their analogy.
Indeed, and the court rejected that part of HiQ's argument.
"In light of the potentially sweeping implications discussed above and the lack of any more direct authority, the Court cannot conclude that hiQ has at this juncture raised 'serious questions' that LinkedIn's conduct violates its constitutional rights under the California Constitution."
I would argue that in the original, "base" was referring to a singular object and was not reduced down from "bases" (plural) to "base" (singular). Therefore, I do not think it is necessary to reduce "bugs" to "bug".
I know you are joking but if we are being pedantic here, "all your swarm are belong to us", would be more apt.
EDIT: Instead of swarm, a name for a group of bugs (errors) would be appropriate.
Japanese does not have plurals in the same way that English does. It does have an optional pluralizing suffix. However, the fact that it was not used with "base" does not imply that "base" is singular.
Looking at the sentence structure, it seems to me that "base" was really intended to be singular (which also fits with the context provided by the script on your wikipedia link). Roughly the sentence is structured as follows:
By means of the Federation Army's corporation,
as for yall's base,
entirely CATS has taken
The word I translated into "entirely" could also be translated into "all". However, gramaticly, it still does not modify "base", so I can see no sense in which "all your bases" is a correct, literal translation.
Also FYI, there are no extension enabled versions of FireFox on iOS because Apple requires all web content to be rendered in their specified engine (WebKit IIRC) and Mozilla is not allowed to use their own.
I used Falcon for a relatively large project and enjoyed using it. It is noticeably faster than Flask and I can write code faster as well. It is very much still growing and features are being added. They call Flask "Batteries not included" but Falcon takes that to another level. There are also not very many extensions in comparison to Flask. If you are writing an API exclusively, I would choose Falcon. However, if you have any HTML/CSS/JS, Falcon is probably not suited for the project.
