miker64's comments

I think this is not so much a gripe about Apple's new chip, as it is the painfully fragile nature of maintaining access to anything digital made in closed formats.

We are, for good or ill, the first generations for whom more of our 'legacy' is digital, and as much as there's the idea that anything on the net is forever, the reality is that more is lost, perhaps forever, than is magically, infinitely available.

You commented on my comment, using your experience to support a claim that societal pressure about who parents (and how) is biologically driven.

I countered with my own experience that it is not.

Ancedata all around.

I'm glad your system works for your family. Similarly, I'm glad ours works for our family. But from both stories we can see that what you claim as a biological fact is not so clear.

I'm in a hetro marriage, my kids come to me for 'mothering,' in about equal measure as they do to my wife.

And they did that when they were infants as well. My wife did not do well without a solid nights sleep, and I was used to oncall work, all night nursing was me. This was equitable, as well as playing to our strengths and weaknesses.

There is no reason to have iron rules of we must each do every parenting action in equal amounts, but to find equitable split of the work that needs to be done.

A question I have here, is _was_ he parenting before the divorce? The court has only the testimony and financial state of the two people on which to go with. If he was the one making the money, and she was home with the child, what does that say about _who_ was doing what work?

And yes, it would be good for there to be more pressure on men to parent, and on there being more acceptable models of parenting partnerships than breadwinner and child rearer.

I don't like the idea of court standards being tied to gender (or gendered roles), but it does have to take into account who was doing what work and how to ensure the safety of children while the parents disentangle their marital and financial bonds.

but the courts enforcing desegregation did work at the societal pressure level.

What I'm saying is that denying the fact that a partner gave up career growth to parent does not change that they did, and does not stop the pressure upon women to do so. It should not be tied to gender, it should be tied to who gave up paying work to do the child rearing labor.

Spousal and child support _are_ where divorce courts are influencing equity, by having the parent who's career was not impacted by parental duties provide monetary support to the parent who was.

What does that look like in this situation? I agree, in theory, but _how_ is it applied to a divorce? How does it apply to the financial power imbalance of 'breadwinner' and 'active parent?'

I'm also curious, what is the 'vice' in this statement?

Sure, but the 'fix,' if there is one, likely needs to start with the social pressures on women to give up their lives to parent, with more equitable parenting expectations overall, and let that bubble up to the court baselines.

The mother being treated/expected to be more of a parent does not start at divorce. That's simply the continuation of a societal expectation that women will do the 'mothering.'

Because that social expectation is there, it is far more often true that in a hetro marriage the wife will be the one who gives up their career path to take care of a child. Thus the court systems has standardized on an expectation that the mother will need spousal support, and child support in a divorce, because she is the one who'll need to retool and rejoin the workforce, while still _doing_ the parenting she did while in the marriage.

None of this happens in a vacuum.

Amethyst is pretty nice, though I find I have to restart it once a day at least because it loses an app or two over time.

What did it say, the tweets been deleted.

Gets points with me for honesty in the comparisions page (https://www.talkyard.io/compared-with)

But we won't have an assistant that digested the world's libraries. We'll have an advertising company gatekeeping the digitally digested world's libraries.

I think that's worth worry about. As well, if Google in their drive to monetize content that they don't own, causes the various publishers and IP owners to go on the legal attack, any other option/startup will be quickly dissuaded from building a similar, or better, assistant.

Not the poster, but also an ex-bay area tech.

The amount to which I was steeped in tech due to being able to do things like dumpster dive for computer hardware in the 80s definitely affected my career path, but _that is not a thing anymore_. And you are already interested, so having a seed of 'what's that?' isn't so necessary.

I've been out of the bay for 5 years, and worked there for almost 20. The opportunities I had were about a time and place, and _today_ that place is far more online than physically based.

If you can make it to the bay, it is a wonderful place, full of tech and culture and people from all over, but it is not the only place with all that. It's also hella expensive.

I think the Bay's time as _the_ place to be is over, but it's still _a_ place to be.

Good luck!

> But how does the "vintage marantz" sound compared to something you can buy with, say, an hour's research with an internet search engine? Including price?

Considerably better in the sub $300 range, and depends at the $600+ range. I'd personally go with the Marantz still, but I'd want to do some serious a/b testing.

Per the linked licensing doc:

When you need permission

If you’re intending to use it for any other purpose, for example....

• substantially to do your job – as an employee, contractor or consultant

• for commercial purposes – to make a profit

• for non-profit and government organisations

...you’ll need to get our permission first, and you might have to pay a fee.

Find out more about getting permission to use BBC content at http://www.bbc.co.uk/helpandfeedback/use-material

(edited for copypasta format failures)

I see a bunch of network neutrality confusion here.

This is not anti-net neutrality, nor is it pro-net neutrality.

It's saying: Rather than accept the unknown path between your customers and you, pay for this service and you can use our optimized backbone reducing the amount of time your traffic is on random networks that aren't optimized for the exact network tuning you need/want.

Network neutrality has to do with public transit networks not favoring certain traffic, generally identified by having _paid_ for preferential treatment.

These folks are _not_ running a public transit network, they're running a _private transit network_ with peering points back to the public internet for access by consumers and producers.

Thanks for the context!

Is there something new that's happened for this to be news?

Both UPS and FedEx deliveries arrive at my front door in good condition, the delivery drivers bag the packages up if I'm not home and it looks like rain.

USPS consistently rings my doorbell and makes sure packages are handed to me rather than left outside.

Amazon delivered packages have been: thrown from the street; arrive crushed, punctured, or otherwise damaged; left in the driveway; left in the neighbors yard; never ring the doorbell, unless it's after dark, and then they ring and run.

Amazon's last mile service is a complete shit show, impressively worse than the random cut rate last mile delivery services they used when they were trying to force UPS and FedEx to lower prices.