which claims having more women on the board has achieved better business outcomes.
Which is fine until you start digging and find out that they passed legislation in Europe forcing companies to be more diverse. That companies in Europe had the number of women on boards double in less than two years http://imgur.com/a/4sE2y despite a recession and stagnating economy.
Then they justify the economic "recovery" since the 2008 crash to that decision.
And now hiring more women is associated to economic growth.
You should hire and compensate people based on the value they generate. Instead companies are becoming political parties trying to reach diversity quotas to satisfy the local demographics and government policy du jour.
This has been going on for decades but there is nothing like government intervention to accelerate a disaster.
Automation may seem unintuitive economically but the alternative is much worse.
Food workers tend to be minimum wage workers. Minimum wage really stands for minimum living wage which is different from place to place and somewhat artificial (e.g rent). If minimum wage workers could be paid less, the "owners of capital" would (because they don't generate that much value)
Example: if you order a 9$ burger and it costs 5$ to "manufacture" a burger (food processing, shipping, preparation etc.) and 4$ to have a minimum wage workers assemble it; by eliminating the minimum wage worker, eventually the price of the burger will go down.
But who will buy burgers? Automation/technology is about turning goods into commodities. Eliminating scarcity.
So, yeah, I would work for the guy killing minimum wage jobs because without him, 10-15 years from now, you'd be paying 25$ a burger and most of it will go to the minimum wage worker making 15$/hr doing a job a machine could do.
I won't bother to argue how mind numbing those jobs are.
I'm not arguing that people should be flipping burgers, or even that we should be "creating jobs", or whatever. I agree with you, some of the things people have to do to earn their right to exist in this society are inhumane and it would be great if they were automated away, and everyone benefited.
The problem is that nobody's really interested in what happens to the low-skilled worker once their job gets automated away. Take a walk through the Tenderloin in San Francisco some time and ask homeless people what they used to do before they became homeless, and see how the "benefits" of automation have worked out in practice.
The pariah class, represented in my mind by the number of chronically homeless people, the prison population, or people who work in the informal economy because they can't get work due to either of those conditions, has grown since the 70s, I believe in large part because of automation. And relative poverty in the U.S. is getting worse, not better.
I don't disagree with the potential benefits of automation. I just wonder whether we're really paying attention to who's receiving those benefits.
What makes life so interesting and great in my opinion, are the limitations --and the boundaries of those limitations that people push further and further-- of these meat bags we carry eveywhere with us.
I feel like this is just "best of all worlds" thinking rather than an actual love of physical limitation. If it were the latter, why wouldn't we just start cutting off limbs and really get some interesting limitations?
It's not so much change as it is exploration. You can either wait for the best player to come out or start betting.
In the 70s, the exploration was with different hardware architectures and then we settled with general purpose computer chips.
In the 90s, it was operating systems, protocols and standards. Eventually commercial interests (mainly Microsoft) lost and we settled for open stuff they couldn't control.
Same story with cloud computing, a technology that didn't really exist 10 years ago and is still being developed. Eventually we will settle for aws or openStack and common processes will be developed that companies like linode, amazon, google etc. can all share and use and the software will be open source because there will be no major differences between all of them.
Every technology experiences a phase of exploration where people contribute left and right and eventually we settle for a handful of major players. Remember the MVC frameworks competition in Ruby/Python/PHP less than 8 years ago?
If you want a highly customizable browser, Firefox is it. Chrome is in its infancy when it comes to customization and they often make decisions that prevent power users from taking advantage of their browsing experience.
For example, they've disabled custom stylesheets in recent releases despite a clear indication that people were sharing themes, they have very old bugs that don't get resolved (like the stupid white flashes on dark themes), major accessibility issues.
Generally they try to appeal and prioritize regular users (which is fine) but go out of their way to make decisions that ignore power users and not even provide alternatives intentionally.
Finally and the most frustrating part is they don't value feedback. https://code.google.com/p/chromium/ is a joke and a waste of time. The most starred issues are often closed to the public when it reaches a certain level and users are asked to submit a new bug again if the old one is not fixed. This means that if there is still a bug, you have to wait months before other users experience it, find the time to search for the bug and star it, reach enough stars to get attention and then get a response. Bugs are often miscategorized and the wrong team has it in its backlog. It's a mess.
There isn't a feature in Chromium or Google Chrome that Firefox doesn't deliver.
Take it from a serious chrome user and extension developer for several years, switch to Firefox if you want to tweak anything that bothers you easily without having to change the damn source code.
> There isn't a feature in Chromium or Google Chrome that Firefox doesn't deliver.
Multi-process browsing. It is incredibly annoying when my entire browser locks up because one of the fifty tabs I have open is doing something stupid. That never happened in several years of using Chrome, and it happens several times a day in Firefox.
So imagine you are a person that stopped browser hygiene during a few months while finishing their PhD and now _still_ carries around about 900 open tabs waiting to be sorted into bookmarks and junk. (Yeah, that's me.)
I have to re-start Firefox every 48 hours or else its resource consumption starts affecting the overall system. This is my primary issue with current Firefox versions, although I am aware that I'm an n-sigma outlier.
Intrestingly, however, the Firefox team has been greatly improving memory management, so that currently, even with my completely pathological browser session, Firefox remains usable for 48 hours with 900 tabs open.
Or just close all those tabs. Realistically you're never actually going to get around to reading them and they're just there weighing you down. Seriously, close them. Forget they were ever there. If you haven't looked at them yet it means that they're not that important!
Yeah, this is the only way I keep my browsing sane. Over the years, a kind of "tab garbage-collection" habit has emerged. I find it works really well, since if a tab hasn't been visited in the last 20 minutes, I probably won't open it again.
Additionally, the history-tracking of the browser is good enough and my google-fu sufficient so I can find anything I need that I've previously visited.
I've found Evernote with it's web clipper to be great for this. Anything I figure I might want someday, but I don't know exactly when or why, goes into my EN archive. The full text is searchable, so it's like having Google for only stuff that I've found interesting in the past. (And the clipper can even add results from your library to search engine results, so you can re-find things even when you're not specifically looking.)
Agreed. The multi-process vs single process is controversial. With cheap memory, multi-process would be better.
However, I personally don't experience crashes several times a day.
Overall, a crash is not really that dramatic. The browser restarts, all tabs are still there and only load if you click them, you can use Lazarus to auto-save all form inputs and not lose a single point of data and it resumes at the exact position in seconds (no need to scroll either).
Just add NoScript and block the sites where developers can't write decent JS.
>> it happens several times a day in Firefox
If it happens frequently regardless of the sites you're visiting then it must be extensions or hardware acceleration or plugins. i.e a configuration problem and not a FF one
> Chrome is not immune to bad JS and will also slow down your system until the single tab is killed/crashes.
That's true, but with like 8-or-so cores I don't really care or even notice that much (if I notice some tab is eating a lot of CPU power, I just go into the task-manager and kill it, until I need it, at which point I reload it.) No disruption to my browsing experience happens. In firefox, I'll have to close the tab, possibly restart the browser, et cetera.
> The browser restarts, all tabs are still there and only load if you click them
I haven't really used firefox for a while now, but it used to lose tabs occasionally for me. I hope that's fixed nowadays.
So Firefox does support multi-processed tabs through Electrolysis (its IPC layer). From what I understand this is used primarily on Firefox OS to sandbox app runtimes.
Doing one process per tab, which is what Chrome does, comes at a very steep cost in increased memory usage. If you compare a Chrome and Firefox instance holding 20 or 30 tabs, the memory consumption is going to be dramatically different.
His article explains how you can try out the experimental multi-process support in Firefox, but that it works differently to Chrome's. I think Chrome's way of doing it wastes a lot of system resources and that we need to be more clever about how we spend a user's system resources.
> For example, they've disabled custom stylesheets in recent releases despite a clear indication that people were sharing themes, they have very old bugs that don't get resolved (like the stupid white flashes on dark themes), major accessibility issues.
Stylish is applied post-rendering in Chrome. It works fine in FF because of the browser API.
In chrome, because of the limitations of the extensions API, it doesn't cover chrome pages, developer tools or source view. If you pick a dark background in Stylish and visit a site with a white background, you will see flashes of light because the extension takes over after the document was created and chrome stylesheet was applied.
Nothing too crazy. I have a keyboard shortcut that grabs the URL from chrome, then passes it off to a script that interfaces with pass  to have a rudimentary, but secure and cross platform password manager.
tell application "Firefox"
set pb to the clipboard
tell application "System Events"
keystroke "l" using command down
keystroke "c" using command down
set page_url to the clipboard
set the clipboard to pb
It’s kind of hacked together and I haven’t tested it with rigor but until now it did its job. If you use it, please let me know if you could enhance it or whether it breaks for certain pasteboard contents.
Flash support. And no, supporting the old deprecated Adobe plugin doesn't count as many sites now require newer versions. This is to support flash games. My kids love the simple flash games on Kongregate and similar sites, so I have to use Chromium on their systems.
I had exactly this in mind last summer and actually built something! http://curate.im - check it out. I had planned to add voting and collaboration functionality, but nobody ended up using the site so I gave up on it and it's just been sitting there for almost a year. It's not tailored specifically to systems organisation though. Enter the beta code HN001 if you want to sign up lol
I've always wanted something like this to. Only, I suspect that lists are only one possible form of information that needs to be organized. I also think users should be able to shape trees (and maybe others).
Maybe you encourage vistors to click on everything they agree with and thereby learn which users contributions are seen to be the most valuable. Users with the most valuable contributions could be rewarded with more ability to shape the tree or list...
List would supported nested lists i.e it would be a tree
In terms of rewards or monetization, it would be possible to gamify contributions ala stackexchange and rely on affiliate links for commercials tools and perhaps even share the revenues with the top contributors or offer them options on what to do with the money