I wouldn’t be surprised if they rip people off on cheaper phones, but for higher end phones the “free” phones are typically exactly the normal price of the phone split over 24 payments. Every time I buy a new phone I compare buying it directly versus via a carrier and it always comes down to which option currently has a promotion or sale I can take advantage of.
I pay the equivalent of usd 20 for 5 mobile plans, a fibre connection and a landline per month with no throttling on any connection. AFAIK no operator here offers locked phones at all any more.
macOS fakes fractional scaling by rendering a larger image at 2x and then downscaling it. For example, 1800x1169 renders a 3600x2338 at 2x scaling, then resizes the rendered image to 3024x1964. This is slower and looks worse than true fractional scaling would be, but makes the implementation a lot easier and in practice it’s hard to tell the difference. It’d look pretty awful if the native ppi wasn’t so high.
I mean, sure, but you're basically saying "anything other than the absolute top-end displays are absolutely awful". 133 PPI is going to be higher pixel density than >99% of desktop monitors that people are actually using.
e.g. The Steam hardware survey only goes down to 0.23% usage, and doesn't have any >4K resolution listed.
As long as there's a fast charging station somewhere along the route you'd need more like 30 minutes to charge midway through, not multiple hours.
You also surely recognize that your driving patterns are very atypical and a car not working for them says very little about how suitable the car is for the market as a whole.
A fast charging station that is working, that has the correct connector for your car (including adapters you carry), that your car will work with (Tesla hasn't opened their superchargers to call cars with the NACS connector), that you have an account with... There are too many things that just are not there.
One top of that you need to find a charger. They are all over, but many of them are slow speed chargers. There are also a lot of gaps, if you pass a charger with 50% battery remaining you can't be sure you will make the next one. (most cars can pass several gas station with 5% gas in the tank and still make it to one). You need to ensure you will get back to your car when it is charged so they don't charge extra (this is a problem if you are at a concert or something and are trying to charge while doing something else that can't be interupted)
Someday all the above will be fixed. Everyone agrees NACS is the future connector, but it isn't rolled out. Someday every "gas station" will have a charger with the gas pumps (or perhaps something else?) - at least along routes where people often make long trips. Someday you won't need a phone/account, just swipe a card - or so I hope. But someday isn't today.
Exposing what people need doesn’t guarantee that they won’t go digging. It is surprisingly common to discover that someone has come up with a hack that depends on implementation details to do something which you exposed directly and they just didn’t know about it.
To put it simply, I do not believe his recounting of events. I think that he convinced himself that was the case, but the conversation did not actually happen as he remembers it.
I understand this might be unpopular, but I’ve been told exactly this… directly, to my face, on multiple occasions. The last time it happened, I asked for it in writing. Unsurprisingly, that request went nowhere.
Whether it happened to Adams specifically, I can’t say. But I can state with absolute certainty that this happens, because it’s happened to me repeatedly. Either it’s more widespread than people want to acknowledge, or I’m unusually unlucky.
And yes, it’s a radicalising experience. It’s taken considerable effort and time to regain my equilibrium when discussing these topics.
Could you share more about the context? When? For what position? In what sort of organization?
Personally the only time this has happened to me was when I applied to be a bartender and was told there was a quota for men and women and they had recently hired a man. And I just let that one go, partly because it was a lark and not a career move, partly because I could see the logic in it and chalked it up to the inherent seediness of the enterprise, and partly because my identity had opened a lot of doors for me in the past ("you look like Mark Zuckerberg" was a comment I got when I was hired at my first startup, in a sequence of compliments about my qualifications) so I wasn't bothered by it closing one.
I'm open to hearing other experiences though. I'm reserving judgment until I understand the context.
and, cards on the table, I will not redact company names because I don't really see the point, these are my experiences not rumours.
Here's two, there's one more but it's a bit too awkward to type out on my phone;
Elastic: there were two Lead SRE positions open, I was recommended to apply, so I applied (friend still works there). I passed the interviews and was offered the job, the other job was filled by someone internal; they rescinded the job offer after having a candidate who was just as qualified but was female. I was offered a position under her. I would have been happy to take the lower position if I hadn't been offered the other one (and accepted) and if it hadn't been on the stated basis that it was because they wanted a woman and that's why, nothing about personality, culture fit, approach or even skill fit.
Ubisoft Massive: I applied for an Architect position (a promotion), I was told that I need not bother applying as the position was only going to be filled when we found someone with a non-white ethnic background, and preferably a girl. This was not long after being told by HR that "my next hire had better be a woman" after hiring a 45+ year old white Swedish guy, so I should have known.
--
For balance; I'll say that my ethnicity has helped me too once, I got a job at Nokia partially because I was natively English speaking, so it's all swings and roundabouts.
I don't know what to think of that but I believe you and find that behavior unacceptable. I think the way to improve inclusivity in the workplace is by casting a wider net so that you get applications from people you otherwise wouldn't (not to the exclusion of other applicants), not to change the hiring decision. Like how Roosevelt said he wanted a "square deal" meaning the deck is not stacked while leaving it to the individual to play their hand.
What makes his story unbelievable is that it happened in corporate America in the 1980s (that you have a different experience in 2020s Sweden is not really a counterexample to what makes his story hard to believe) combined with the fact that he is a famously unreliable narrator. He has previously offered conflicting narratives about similar scenarios, changing the story to be about race only in his later years.
Sure, that's why I can't say for sure if it actually happened or not.
People are not readily able to believe my experiences either (though, the political narrative is opening up to the potential for sympathy? I'm not sure).
These policies come in waves. The 90s in the UK was very "PC" as we'd say. I don't necessarily believe that all diversity initiatives happened in the 2010's and onwards.
That said, you're totally right nobody can truly know except him and who he spoke to. A sibling commenter mentioned that it could be a mealy mouthed middle manager trying to ascribe blame to $women for his own decisions; which I totally buy, even for my own scenarios to be honest with you.
> That said, you're totally right nobody can truly know except him and who he spoke to.
Let me be clear about this, I would definitely assume it did not happen without really strong evidence of the contrary. Based on my assessment of his character and the details of his story.
Assuming anything else is giving him way too much credit, and the effect of giving benefit of the doubt here is likely allowing a known racist to spread a false narrative that is based on lies and engineered to sow discontent.
I don’t see what’s wrong about either of these examples.
If diversity is your goal, and you have two equally skilled applicants of different sexes, you should choose the under represented applicant. Elastic made the right choice.
Likewise at Ubisoft, if you don’t explicitly make room for diversity at the top level of the company then you’re never going to get to an equitable state.
I disagree with the premise that these were acceptable decisions.
The Elastic situation wasn't "two equally skilled applicants". I'd already been offered and had accepted the position. Rescinding an accepted offer because another candidate better fits demographic targets is materially different from choosing between two candidates at the offer stage.
On the broader point: I understand the goal of achieving equitable outcomes. The question is whether the ends justify the means. Explicitly excluding individuals from opportunities based on immutable characteristics, whether in the 1960s or today, remains discrimination, regardless of which direction it flows.
If we're serious about equity, we need solutions that don't require accepting discrimination as a necessary tool. Lowering barriers to entry, addressing bias in evaluation, expanding candidate pools, mentorship programmes: these grow the pie rather than just redistributing the slices.
The moment you tell someone "you're qualified, but you're the wrong demographic," you've created exactly the kind of experience that radicalises people. I've experienced it. It's corrosive, regardless of how noble the underlying intent.
Sure, elastic handled that poorly, rescinding an offer like that is very unprofessional, but that’s an indictment of their HR department and has nothing to do with the gender of the other candidate.
I understand where you’re coming from, what you’re asking for is a gradual transition to equity. But until that transition is done, you’re also asking the groups that were systematically discriminated against to endure the effects of that discrimination for longer. And those soft approaches you listed take a looooong time to work, and only while the pie is getting larger.
At one of my previous companies they took those soft approaches. The result was that entry level positions were very equitable, but the higher the seniority the higher the percentage of white men. At the rate that the company was hiring and promoting, it would take 150 years to achieve equity at all levels.
To be clear, that means asking women to wait 150 years before they have a fair shot at leadership positions.
But that was all before 2020. After layoffs hit and the growth stopped the equity transition also stopped because the white dudes at the top weren’t willing to step down so women could take their place.
You say being discriminated against is corrosive, but what about the corrosion that already happened because of all the discrimination that happened up until now? Are you going to do something about it? Or are you just gonna tell the people corroded to deal with it?
I appreciate the acknowledgement about Elastic’s handling.
On the timeline argument: I’m sceptical of extrapolating current rates to 150-year predictions. Organisations change through leadership turnover, market pressure, and cultural shifts that don’t follow linear projections. But I take your point that gradualism has costs for those waiting.
Here’s where we differ: I don’t accept that we must choose between “discrimination now” and “discrimination for 150 years.” That’s a false binary. The solutions I mentioned aren’t just soft approaches; they’re structural changes that can accelerate equity without requiring us to accept discrimination as policy.
Your point about white men at the top not stepping down cuts both ways. If the existing leadership won’t make space voluntarily, and you implement demographic quotas, you’ve just created a system where different qualified people are blocked. People like me, who didn’t benefit from the original discrimination but are now paying for it.
I grew up in generational poverty. As far back as records go, my family has never held money or power. The people you’re describing as beneficiaries of historical privilege might share my demographic category, but we share nothing else. Class gets erased in these conversations, and that erasure makes the solutions less effective, not more.
What about the corrosion that’s already happened? I think about it constantly. But I don’t believe the answer is to corrode more people in the opposite direction and call it justice. That’s how you get radicalisation and backlash, not equity.
I don’t even disagree with you about class, but to deal with that we need to deal with capitalism itself, which I’ve given up on at this point.
So if this is the system we’re stuck with, and it’s an unfair system, then let’s at least make sure it’s equitably unfair.
The goal is not to make sure the most qualified person gets the job. I actually think evaluating others fairly is impossible so that’s an impossible goal.
Sorry if you feel that you got the short end of the stick. I got it too. Someone has to.
You’re arguing we should take turns being discriminated against because fixing the system is too hard. I’d rather actually try to reduce the total amount of discrimination instead of just spinning the wheel to see whose turn it is to lose.
“Someone has to get the short end” isn’t wisdom: it’s defeatism, and toxic at that.
The issue is not “discrimination is happening”. The issue is that systematic discrimination has biased outcomes and under represented certain demographics, and that needs to be addressed.
Discrimination against individuals is not a problem.
“Discrimination against individuals is not a problem” is quite possibly the most dystopian sentence I’ve read on HN.
I’m one of those individuals. So are the women and minorities you claim to be helping. We’re not statistical abstractions to be shuffled around in service of demographic targets.
If your solution to systematic discrimination requires you to declare that discriminating against individuals doesn’t matter, you’ve lost the plot entirely.
I can say the same thing at you. If your solution to large demographics experiencing systematic discrimination over decades leading to worse outcomes is to tell them that from now on it’ll be different but that all the disadvantages they experienced will not be dealt with then you’re either insane, or trying to disguise your bias.
No you haven’t. You’ve offered platitudes. “I think about it all the time” ok, what are you actually going to do about it?
The grow the pie approaches you mentioned only works while the pie is growing, and we’ve had layoffs for the past 2 years. What is your solution now that the pie isn’t getting bigger?
It sure sounds like your solution is telling people to wait 150 years and hope the problem solves itself.
When growth stops, you focus on evaluation bias and institutional barriers. Blind resume screening, structured interviews with standardised criteria, expanding recruiting beyond homogeneous networks, addressing sponsorship patterns in promotions. None of these require growth.
None require discriminating against anyone.
But here's the thing: I'm not the one who needs to justify my position. You're asking me, someone who's been explicitly discriminated against multiple times, to solve systemic inequality for you, whilst simultaneously defending discrimination against individuals as acceptable policy.
I've spent two decades becoming exceptionally good at what I do. I ensure fairness in my own decisions. I can't fix capitalism or rewrite history, and it's absurd to demand I present a complete solution to systemic inequality before I'm allowed to object to being told I'm the wrong demographic for jobs I've earned.
Your position is that discrimination is fine as long as it's against the right people. Mine is that discrimination is wrong. One of us is being a hypocrite here, and it's not me.
You want the injustices to remain unaddressed, and the people affected to wait longer until they are because you never got to benefit from discrimination and now it’s your turn.
I don’t expect you to solve everything, I expect you not to get in the way of the solution.
- Discrimination against individuals doesn’t matter
- I should accept being discriminated against
- Objecting to this makes me the problem
- This is somehow not hypocrisy
I grew up in generational poverty, worked myself to the bone for two decades, ensure fairness in my own decisions, and proposed structural alternatives. Apparently none of that matters because I look like people in power.
There’s no productive conversation left to have here.
You’ve been through all that and yet here you are, successful.
You never had to worry about being the first female manager someone has had. You never had to worry about being judged unfairly because of your accent. You never had to deal with your colleagues saying mildly racist things to your face and expecting you to be ok with it.
And nobody is taking your success away! All I’m saying is that you’re gonna have to wait a bit longer because it’s not your turn anymore.
But apparently that’s not enough, so you’re throwing a fit about it.
And again, your “structural solutions” are platitudes. They don’t work.
If racism against white men is common place why are white men still over-represented in most corporations and especially at the c-suite level? Do you think there should be even more white men in those positions? That seems to me like you're arguing in favor of more racism, not less.
I think people should be selected for roles based on merit, not skin color. If that results in more or less people of any given demographic in any given role I'm fine with it - provided that they got there through merit.
Management, especially upper management, of large American companies is predominantly white men. Always has been. It was even more so back when Adams was supposedly suffering from this discrimination than it is today.
Any claim that racism against white men is common has to reconcile this fact. If the system is so biased against them, how do they end up so incredibly overrepresented? Are they so much better than everyone else that they get most of the spots despite this unjust discrimination? Or maybe the bias actually goes the other way.
I 100% believe that he was told this by at least one higher-level White male manager in corporate America in the 1980s who would rather his anger at being passed over were directed at women, minorities, and an amorphous conspiracy than the individual decision-maker making the decision to pass him over, and who knew him well enough to know that he would both uncritically accept the description of a bright-line violation of his legal rights that fit his existing biases while also not taking any action to vindicate those same rights.
You write beautifully. I decided to click on your other comments and found the same. Rare combination of high-density, high-impact vocabulary, and yet high-clarity.
His theory of gravity (everything in the universe is exponentially growing in size at a continuous rate, shrinking the gaps between things) was a fascinating thought experiment for me as a kid and I enjoyed thinking through how it could work and why it wouldn't work. Finding out later that he at least at one point took it seriously as a potential explanation for how the universe works was very surprising to me.
I'm too brain fogged to think through this, but as long as you can make the math work out the same, this theory is as valid as any other (I don't think you can though)
One of the minor weird things about iOS development early on was just how fast the transition was from the simulator being dramatically faster than actual devices to the simulator being slower than devices. When I started out you’d get things working nicely in the simulator and then discover it’s an order of magnitude too slow on a phone. Just a few years later and my phone was faster than my laptop until thermal throttling kicked in.
When using systems without history editing I simply make an order of magnitude fewer commits. With git I basically commit every few minutes and then edit later, and with not-git I simply don't commit until it's "ready". Either way all of those intermediate states aren't getting published or saved forever.
I once had a vexing problem with my old Intel MacBook — macOS failed to boot, but Windows seemed totally normal. Can't possibly be a hardware failure, right? The symptoms disappeared after replacing the SATA cable!
This reminds of the infamous GPU issues of the unibody models (the last non-retina ones). I have one such 2012 15" MBP which has a dedicated GPU which, as I understand it, has developed soldering issues.
Non-Mac OSs don't know how to turn this GPU on out of the box, so it just sits there without bothering anybody. But, for some reason, MacOS turns it on and it craps the bed, rendering the machine unusable.
I had the 2010 version of this model, with the same symptoms starting in mid 2011. I would get 5-8 crashes a day from the GPU being on the fritz.
Apple ended up replacing the mainboard in a free out-of-AppleCare repair. I never had the problem again and I used the machine regularly until about 2018.
In my case, it lasted one or two more years, and I only learned about the repair after they stopped offering it. By that time, the machine had already been replaced for other, unrelated reasons.
reply