Douglas Adams would be proud!

You think you've got problems? What are you supposed to do if you are a manically depressed robot? No, don't try to answer that. I'm fifty thousand times more intelligent than you and even I don't know the answer. It gives me a headache just trying to think down to your level.

At least in the goopy days it was VERY clear what was and was not a button.

You shouldn't. It was revealed later that Morgan Spurlock, the star of the movie, was also secretly drinking himself to death while he was making the documentary. Not to shame an addiction OR defend McDonalds too much here, but being a raging alcoholic and blaming your health problems on hamburgers and french fries on a massive public stage is/was extraordinarily irresponsible.

He also ate nothing but McDonald's - three meals a day, even if he was already "full". In one scene, he literally vomits, then continues eating the food.

Literally zero people do what Spurlock did in that film.

But many alcoholics do.

I've seen two in my life vomit while walking without missing a step.

Yes, it's possible to win with less money than your opponent, but why would anyone want to take that risk?

The problem with money in politics is not that money guarantees a win, but that the presence of large donations distorts the entire incentive structure of campaigning and governing: Courting big donations means spending time with big donors (who expect access in exchange for their money) and when it comes time to govern, studies have shown that campaign contributions and lobbying are dramatically more influential to what gets proposed and passed than the preferences of the general public.

Focusing on the problems with presidential campaigns re: money in politics is missing the forest for the trees: All politicians have limited time to spend between campaigning and governing, and if they're constantly raising money the governing gets delegated to lobbyists.

(This is why people are always so shocked when politicians who don't accept corporate PAC contributions have drastically different priorities than those who do. Of course they do! They don't have to spend all their time hanging out with corporate lobbyists!)

This doesn't really speak to Citizens United though. The nature of Dark Money is that no one knows where it comes from, so politicians cozying up to their donors is not actually the particular concern here.

(Also, there has been the opposite trend, which is that more money than ever comes from private donations from billionaires and other wealth.)

Here's what I think is happening:

Market research says "Parents want control."

In the journey from CEO mandate "build a product that gives parents control" to developer implementation, "parents want control" somehow turns into "What parents want is extremely fine-grained controls," which isn't the same thing.

So a bunch of product managers brainstorm a huge list of ways that parents might want "control," hand that off to some developers, and voila: Everything becomes way too complicated for everybody and the company is able to say they offer "control" while abdicating their stated obligation of giving parents the "safe" product that the parents expect.

No, I think CEO mandate goes "Build parental controls" and PMs all shake their heads and go "No problem". It hits the developers, they go Too long to do it properly and PM goes "Nah, we just prefer MVP only so we can say we have it and move on". it's also never really touched again so as features get added on, Parental Controls is poorly thought about last minute implementation.

To fix this, it's going to have to be legislation so financial incentives are present.

Vote for the Party that promises academic grants for people that write 1k character long forum posts for the laypeople instead of other experts of the field.

We have this already. It's called an abstract. Some do it better than others.

Perhaps we need to revisit the concept and have a narrow abstract and a lay abstract, given how niche science has become.

I don't think the parent post is complaining that academics are writing proposals (e.g as opposed to people with common sense). Instead, it seems to me that he is complaining that academics are writing proposals and papers to impress funding committees and journal editors, and to some extend to increase their own clout among their peers. Instead of writing to communicate clearly and honestly to their peers, or occasionally to laymen.

And this critique is likely not aimed at academics so much as the systems and incentives of academia. This is partially on the parties managing grants (caring much more about impact and visibility than actually moving science forwards, which means everyone is scrounging for or lying about low hanging fruit). It is partially on those who set (or rather maintain) the culture at academic institutions of gathering clout by getting 'impactful' publications. And those who manage journals also share blame, by trying to defend their moat, very much hamming up "high impact", and aggressively rent-seeking.

Yes, thank you, exactly. It’s a culture and systems issue. Thank you for clarifying a post I wrote in the early morning while waiting for my baby to fall back to sleep!

I’m not sure that’s something we get to vote on.

On the margin, you can let anything influence your voting decision.

File under "technically true but not particularly useful"

Well, it's not like voting is particularly useful in the first place.

and hope for a president that can do both

This is so insanely terrible that I’m going to put my phone down now and go do something else.

In California, at least, those numbers wouldn't be acceptable.

My daughter's at an in-home daycare with IIRC five or six other kids. There are two adults there full-time, sometimes three.

Two adults supervising 20-40 daycare-aged kids is simply not feasible.

> designed by a fiefdom full of territorial managers

What's harder than herding cats? Herding cats with MBAs and OKRs.

They have. I don’t remember the specifics but I believe there was some kind of hosting provider that had basically everything in production deleted and had to shut down.

But that just proves the point - if no one in this thread can remember even one example, then (however unfortunate it might be for the users) the easy answer is "no, a security breach is very unlikely to break a company"