Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Now we're just haggling over the price (Score 1) 95

I don't fall for clickbait. But it's impossible to ignore the headlines, and sometimes it's fun to read how silly they get, like the UN chief claiming the Earth is boiling.

I apologize for assuming you meant personal criticisms. There's too much of it everywhere, not just slashdot, and I shouldn't assume everyone is doing it.

When slashdot started requiring logins to avoid most of the spambots, it annoyed me, and when I did finally sign up, my handle was my protest. It was amazing back then how many others accused me of hiding behind the anonymous handle.

Comment Re:enshitification existed long before the word (Score 1) 66

Seems to depend on location. In my home city in Europe, it was 3-4 times a day, even shortly after the war.

But that was before mailmen had to earn $300k in salary and benefits.

Numbers mean nothing once enough inflation is involved. But back in those same days, a mailman could support a family on his salary. Not a luxury life for sure, but enough to rent a place and put food on the table. Women working was still a somewhat new thing.

Comment Re:Now we're just haggling over the price (Score 1) 95

> The President can only direct funds at his discretion if the Congress has allocated those funds for him.

Well, in theory. Biden tried several times to soak taxpayers for student loans without Congressional approval, and that was up to a trillion dollars all told. Trump kept trying to divert funds for his wall.

If you think "falling" for Trump's trolling over this measly export tax is silly, take it up with the many pundits both pro and con who think it is worth their clickbait.

Comment Re:Now we're just haggling over the price (Score 1) 95

I don't remember now, other than not being some hysterical TDS-ridden pundit. It may have been what was planned then, it may have been the kind of hints Trump likes flicking out, I don't remember. If you say it isn't now, I'll give that more credence, but everything Trump does changes daily.

Comment Re:Now we're just haggling over the price (Score 5, Insightful) 95

I do not think it goes into his pocket. But last I read of it, it goes into a fund controlled by the President -- a slush fund, in olden terms.

Just as he does not personally own the US Steel golden shares which were the price for allowing the sale to the Japanese. But the President personally controls those shares, and he personally has veto over everything US Steel does.

One of the alleged differences between socialism and fascism is that a socialist government owns the means of production while a fascist government "merely" controls them. It's a distinction without a meaningful difference.

The big picture point is, he claimed banning the export of those chips to China was a matter of national security. Now it turns out that paying an unconstitutional 25% export tax into a fund controlled by the President makes the national security aspect vanish. There are names for this kind of corruption.

Comment Re:It's intentional mispricing. (Score 1) 108

And we all know that won't happen.

The thing with fines is that all the people ACTIVELY involved have interests that don't align with the public and taxpayers.

The shops are ok with fines if they happen rarely and in manageable amounts. Then they can just factor them in as costs of doing business.

The inspectors need occasional fines to justify their existance. So, counter-intuitively, they have absolutely no interest in the businesses they inspect to actually be compliant. Just compliant enough that the non-compliance doesn't make more headlines than their fines. So they'll come now and then, but not so often that the business actually feels pressured into changing things.

Comment Re:It's intentional mispricing. (Score 1) 108

You misunderstand wealth.

Most wealth of the filthy rich is in assets. Musk OWNS stuff that is worth X billions. That doesn't mean he as 140 mio. in cash sitting in his bottom drawer.

Moreoever, much of the spending the filthy rich do is done on debt. They put up their wealth as a collateral and buy stuff with other people's (the banks) money. There's some tax trickery with this the exact details I forgot about.

So yes, coughing up $140 mio. is at least a nuissance, even if on paper it's a rounding error.

The actual story that got buried is that the filthy rich are now in full-blown "I rule the world" mode when their reaction to a fee is not "sorry, we fucked up, won't happen again", but "let's get rid of those rules, they bother me".

Comment Re:It's intentional mispricing. (Score 1) 108

If they cared, they could force price compliance automatically using e-paper tags. The fact they don't deploy modern solutions to a known issue, means they don't want to solve it.

These automated tags are about $15-$20 each. If you buy a million you can probably get them for $10, but still. Oh yes, and their stated lifetime is 5 years. And you STILL need an employee to walk around updating because it's done via NFC.

In many cases, there are modern tech solutions, but pen-and-paper is still cheaper, easier and more reliable.

It's not necessarily malice. What I mean is: They are certainly malicious, but maybe not in this.

Comment enshitification existed long before the word (Score 1) 66

My grandparents and parents sometimes talked about how mail used to work.

Delivery within the same city within a few hours. The mailman would come to your house several times during the same day. Every day.

Telephones changed that. With phones, if something is urgent but not so urgent you go yourself, you can make a call. So the demand for same-day-delivery disappeared. Visiting each house only once means a mailman can cover more houses in the same amount of hours.

Privatizing mail delivery is an astonishingly stupid idea, given that what is left in physical mail delivery is often important, official documents.

Comment really? (Score 1) 64

A 2015 handbook laid the groundwork for the nascent field of "Meeting Science". Among other things, the research revealed that the real issue may not be the number of meetings, but rather how they are designed, the lack of clarity about their purpose, and the inequalities they (often unconsciously) reinforce...

You needed a handbook for that?

Anyone who ever went to a business meeting could've told you that.

By my experience, it takes only 4 things to make a meeting productive: a) someone is in charge of the meeting and moderation, b) that someone had time to prepare, c) everyone in the meeting has received an agenda with enough lead time to have read it and (if necessary) prepare their part, at least a bit and finally d) there is at least a simple protocol of the meeting for those who couldn't attend, those who dozed off in the middle, and those who claim next week that something else was agreed on.

Slashdot Top Deals

I think there's a world market for about five computers. -- attr. Thomas J. Watson (Chairman of the Board, IBM), 1943

Working...