The implication here is more along the line of: "revenge porn is wrong, period. Some people may not feel like its an issue because they're guys and the victims are usually women".

The whole "what people do with the video" isn't the problem in itself. Its that a specific subset of usage of said video squarely fall into various categories of sexual harassment, extortion, etc. This wouldn't get prosecuted as a copyright case.

Don't buy it but also don't use it. The dollar vote is how it should happen. But if you're pirating it, you're basically giving them ammos against you.

You don't need games and movies to live. This isn't food. Play by the rules and screw them over at their own game until the rules change. If people just bypass the rules, then they end up looking like the bad guys, and there's not nearly as much incentive to change the rules themselves.

Many countries have that already. Not many countries have self driving cars.

That being said, one of the biggest cause of unemployment is the inability to efficiently get people from where cheap housing exists and where jobs are plentiful, because generally jobs are in expensive areas.

Better transportation options helps a lot with that.

Even IE11 isn't terrible. We have a pretty large web development team at work for our product, and being a Unix/Mac shop, its annoying to test IE (need VMs, etc). I'm pretty much the only person who consistently test it, and its very very rare people break something, even though they're only testing on latest Firefox and Chrome. Even IE10 doesn't break that often. IE9 however....that horse was dead a long time ago.

Now, result may vary, if you use a lot of 3d transforms and bleeding edge features, even Firefox and Chrome are totally different. But having to support IE10 makes sure none of that gets in, and it makes things easier (the irony...).

Companies that target only evergreen browsers and have all these new toys available to them are in for a world of pain, when IE becomes the least of your worries...

Rendering HTML in the 90s was easy. Rendering html today, is really, really fucking hard (there was stuff added between the 90s and HTML5 you know...)

There's 2 big issues.

First, there's just a lot. The CSS3 spec alone would take forever to implement from scratch. Well, no one finished yet.

Second, the spec is full of holes. FULL of holes. So people just lean on each other to figure out what to do. If you implement the spec exactly as is, you could still make something totaly useless, because you're not handling the undocumented edge cases the same way Firefox or Chrome do.

At this point, pretty much no one can realistically write a browser rendering engine from scratch. Even Spartan isn't from scratch. They're just getting rid of the parts of Trident that are holding them back, but very much keeping big chunks of it.

If all of a sudden, all rendering engines and their memories were to spontaneously go poof, but all existing web pages still remained as well as the html5 and related specs, it would be a very, very long time before we could browse the existing web again.

I had that discussion recently at work.

The problem with the JavaScript scene, is that there's basically 2 communities.

One community is actually doing javascript, and trying to find the best ways to go at it, improving on what has worked, using the strength of the language and building on top of it, etc. This is where things like Express, Kao, Babel, Lodash, Bluebird, Mocha, Browserify/WebPack/SystemJS, Aurelia, etc come from.

Then there's the other group, who hates JavaScript, and is basically going: "Hey, pattern/framework XYZ has no equivalent in javascript yet!?! OMG! Why didn't anyone ever think of this????" and go and reimplement it. This is where AtScript/TypeScript/CoffeeScript, Ember, Angular 2.0 (specifically), all the bullshit classical OO stuff, and the 6 million libraries/hour come from.

After a while, you get pretty good at automatically discarding the second group, and as long as you pick stuff from the first, things go relatively smoothly (at least as smoothly as they go in other languages...which means it still has some pain points)

Don't forget that a lot of 1%er money never gets spent (and thus raise the price) to buy things you would. Unless you were in the market for a multi-billion dollar yacht, it doesn't really matter what Bill Gates, Buffet and Cook spend their money on.

If everyone ends up with all their money and go to the grocery store with it instead....things won't stay rosy very long.

Yeah, dealing with contractors feel like getting a job. It all ends up with a personal network and connections if you want anything good.

I don't even care how much I pay, if there was any kind of correlation between price and quality of the work. But there isn't. The guy with a razor thin profit margin is often leagues better than the one who charges you twice as much for the same work. Once i find a good one, I just tip them an absurd amount to make sure they want to work for me again (especially for cheaper jobs. Professional painters are paid very little, and its not easy to get it done perfectly... A plumber can be another story, where some trivial jobs cost a fortune).

At this point I just don't bother calling someone without a strong referal. It never works out,

I'd expect them to just do it by zip code...And there's always going to be edge cases.

its an hypothesis and a model attempting to explain some weird stuff we're observing. Its probably wrong, but its a starting point. A bit like the early earth centric models of the solar system originally (that actually ended up giving the correct results, even though they were wrong)

My wife and I have this discussion all the time (she's pretty rational).

The thing is that in a lot of industries, and in tech in particular, salaries are negotiated. Sharks and more aggressive personalities always come up ahead with that.

We saw it pretty straight when at one point, she applied for a job in the same department as me, for the same company (we wouldn't work together, but we shared the same department director).

I have more experience than she does, but she has better credentials...roughly a wash. She interviewed a bit better than me. We got a similar initial offer (she got a HIGHER initial offer, and rightly so).

Here's the catch: I refused mine initially. They came back with counter offers, we negotiated for a few days, and I came up way ahead (20%~ higher or so). Even KNOWING this, when my wife got her offer, she just took it as is, no negotiation whatsoever.

Net result: she made about 10-15% less money than me even though she was more qualified.

At the end of the day, hiring managers have budgets and they will try to pay as low as possible without hurting employee moral/retention, and they do expect some level of negotiation. If you take the first offer, you'll be paid less. And less "pushy" individuals are more likely to not negotiate.

That's not the only reason for gender salary gaps, for sure. But its a FUCKING BIG ONE.

And every time antitrust laws and Apple are mentionned, the regulators will look down at their iphone/ipad, think "No....we can't hurt my PRECIOUS!!" and look the other way.

Yup. Net neutrality is a net loss, because the customer could benefit from having not-so-neutral features (ie: let say ISPs favored streaming instead of throttling it?)

It was just better than the alternative in light of having so little competition. With proper competition, this would have solved itself.

We could just import dehydrated water. I hear the transportation cost of water, once dehydrated, is minimal. Its an obvious solution.