I’ve always had an excellent vision both near and far, except for one flaw that I can’t distinguish some shades between green and blue. All the turquoise colors give me a strange feeling of not knowing if it’s green and blue. When I was younger I used to ask if it was green or blue and would only be satisfied once someone told me which one it is. Over the years, I’ve learned to recognize the feeling and attach turquoise to it, but it’s still slightly annoying for my brain. I know it’s selfish of me, but I hope that driving won’t require the ability to distinguish turquoise well… I never thought that this minor impairment could one day be a problem.
I don't think this should be an issue... At least in the US, only law enforcement is authorized to use blue lights and they don't use them in this way. If you see lights that might be blue solidly lit around all edges of the car, it's self driving. If you see a flashing light that might be blue, it's police. If you see a solid light that might be blue, and is only on one side, or only in the middle, it's most likely police, but might be self driving with a lot of broken lights.
My parent house is along the Tour de France route, but despite that I've never heard of the existence of the women's Tour de France. It might be one of the many reasons why winners of this tournament win less money overall.
Wait until they hear about France, where factory produced bread is abhorred and where there are still plenty of bakers doing their bread by hand. Moreover, the baguette costs and tastes the same no matter how rich or poor you are.
It's not like there's a better bread out there that most people don't have access to because they aren't rich enough.
For me, what works best is to kickstart the day by checking something out of my todo list. Every morning, I choose a small task which shouldn't take more than 2 hours to complete, trying to have something to show for. The rest of the day using flows naturally afterward.
This is the thing that works best for me, though I define a smaller task as much smaller than that... ideally something that takes <15 min and doesn't necessarily require a lot of brainpower. I'm in the midst of starting a business, so I have a lot of paperwork that fits the bill nicely.
If I don't have any task like that, I just make myself work on something for ten minutes. 90% of the time, I continue to be productive after that. The 10% that I don't, I either give up and take a break until I feel productive (if that's feasible) or just force myself to work on anything that absolutely must be done now.
Seems that Apple is just following, with much delay, the law of People's Republic of China. I don't understand why some people think companies should be above the law.
> I don't understand why some people think companies should be above the law.
I think certain aspects of justice are above legal frameworks. For instance, slavery is wrong no matter what the law says. Companies like Apple, by lobbying the government for various non-business things (gay rights, climate change, etc.), recognize this.
I think wholesale restriction and manipulation of political speech is just wrong even if it is legally mandatory. And, while understandable, I'm not sure (still chewing it over) it's a valid excuse to say that we were just complying with the law.
> For instance, slavery is wrong no matter what the law says.
I hope you realize that you are only saying this because you happen to be born at this particular point in human civilization.
For a very long time, people thought slavery is right, including the people who wrote your constitution (assuming your are from US). It is easy to say that slavery is wrong now, but not in 18th century in the US. Think of China as the US, a few centuries ago, when human rights are still a concept being explored.
> For instance, slavery is wrong no matter what the law says. Companies like Apple,
While FOXCONN is not slavery, outsourcing work to countries where you can pay incredibly poor people unethically low wages to create expensive products is hardly a good indicator that a company will stand up to laws that don't affect their bottom line.
Does Foxconn pay unethically low wages? The base pay for 40h/week is ~$400/month. In my Western European country, minimum wage is ~$660/month. The difference doesn't seem that much.
Gay rights/climate change aren't great examples. Those are areas Apple can lobby for change and make their own internal changes without breaking the law.
Take something Apple says it stands for - privacy. They will stand up for users to a point but they will not break the law. They will lobby and create technical solutions but they will not deny or disclose a national security letter no matter how BS or immoral the request may be. This is the same thing. By distributing VPN apps they break the law. They can still lobby for change or potentially come up with a technical solution that allows users to bypass the great firewall but does not break Chinese law (although I don't see how that's possible).
Apple regularly boast about how they are a privacy focused company and just want the best for their consumers by enforcing tight restrictions on all apps. You have no other possibility to install apps on an Apple device but the App Store. Now they effectively block privacy-focused tools in a country that is known to jail everyone that speaks against authorities. That doesn't line up with their rhetoric and people see the hypocrisy.
Because it's a very bad law by a single party government that is a bit notorious by now. Apple also is so big on freedom, rights, LGBT, etc. but at the same time deals with countries that respect none of that.
In any case, go to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14679276 and you'll see people calling for US companies to deny service to all Germans and overthrow their liberal democratic and otherwise stable government that way, all this for just wanting to ban online hate speech that is already illegal everywhere else in Germany.
Just don't say US companies shouldn't topple allied democratic liberal foreign governments that do little to no wrong on their citizens or you'll get downvoted like I did.
Sure, copyrights are still in effect and can be sold to other parties. One reason holding copyright over open source code is important is license enforcement. The benefits of holding copyright over code is why the FSF wants copyrights assigned to them [1].
The code is there for everyone (who respects the license), but you also buy the brand, the name, the guys working on the project (aka talent acquisition)...
