Since we’re telling people to Google things, try “anecdotal fallacy” and let us know if it helps you to understand the source of the downvotes.

The OP is about survey data that directly contradicts your position. It’s fantastic that you’ve found a position where you have work/life balance that works so well for you, but it simply doesn’t match the experience of many commenting in this thread or those who were surveyed.

Be as obstinate as you like, it won’t change the lived experiences of others in the industry.

It sounds like someone got ahold of a 6 year old copy of Google’s risk register. Based on my reading of the article it sounds like Google has a robust process for identifying, prioritizing, and resolving risks that are identified internally. This is not only necessary for an organization their size, but is also indicative of a risk culture that incentivizes self reporting risks.

In contrast, I’d point to an organization like Boeing, which has recently been shown to have provided incentives to the opposite effect - prioritizing throughput over safety.

If the author had found a number of issues that were identified 6+ years ago and were still shown to be persistent within the environment, that might be some cause for alarm. But, per the reporting, it seems that when a bug, misconfiguration, or other type of risk is identified internally, Google takes steps to resolve the issue, and does so at a pace commensurate with the level of risk that the issue creates for the business.

Bottom line, while I have no doubt that the author of this article was well-intentioned, their lack of experience in information security / risk management seems obvious, and ultimately this article poses a number of questions that are shown to have innocuous answers.

Well to be fair the OP has the date shown in the image as Apr 23, and Google has been frantically changing the way the tool works on a regular basis for months, so there’s a chance they resolved this insanity in the interim. The post itself is just ragebait.

*not to say that Google isn’t doing a bunch of dumb shit lately, I just don’t see this particular post from over a month ago as being as rage inducing as some others in the community.

You’re right, it’s not an insurmountable obstacle, I think I was just feeling petulant about seeing another product with a sign next to it saying basically, “you must be this invested in the Apple ecosystem to ride”.

Let’s be real though, it’s already a better option than what Apple is offering for $3500, so I’m sure they will get some traction before being bought out.

Lastly, because you underscored the point I was making, fuck iPhones.

This requires an Apple iPhone XR or newer, as the face scan utilizes the TrueDepth sensor.

Am I wrong in my reading that this hardware product is only available for people who already own and use an iPhone XR or newer? It seemed neat until I got to that bit…

This is really just stereotypical Tesla driver behavior. They are far and above the most entitled drivers.

FTFY

Lemmy has a tagging system, definitely recommend tagging this user so you get a warning that they might be wrong but don’t want to educate themselves, then you can just ignore them and move on with your day.

ಠ_ಠ

Yes, all of the most advanced chip making factories are in Taiwan. It’s the biggest reason that the US passed the CHIPS act and also why there is so much geopolitical tension around Taiwan.

Why did you think there was so much focus on Taiwan? Boba is great and all, but surely it doesn’t merit the protection of the US Navy. 😁

(☞ﾟ∀ﾟ)☞

If you like that emoji then you’ll love this.

Yes, that was the “phishing” bit.

My label for that user is, “regularly confidently incorrect”.

There are a few power users like them around here and it can be fun to watch them argue with folks. Perhaps they just enjoy the act of arguing? They might just be malicious, but I prefer to imagine that most people are trying their best to engage in good faith more often than not.

I didn’t downvote, but I briefly thought about it because their first statement is incorrect. Not factually, but the fact that many tech companies are downsizing isn’t something that you could reasonably argue in court as for why these specific positions were eliminated.

“But your honor, all of the other cool companies are doing it!” isn’t something that would stand up to much scrutiny.

The bit you quoted was what made me pause, because I agree with you.

I’m not suggesting that - I agree with you, once a couple decides to adopt, their adopted children are just as loved as any others. I’m simply pointing out that people will go to great lengths not to adopt in the first place.

If people are having children who shouldn’t, would you agree that there is a moral imperative to prevent them from having children in the first place?

I haven’t looked into it personally, but from every account I’ve heard, it sounds like a horror show. Admittedly, there’s probably some confirmation bias in there, but I’m also thinking about it from an anthropological perspective.

If adopting a child were equivalent to giving birth to your own child, why would people still go through the torture that is pregnancy? We know that there have been orphanages for centuries, so this seems to be a long running thread in the history of humanity.

From a behavioral economics standpoint, it seems presumptuous to suggest that more couples ought to change their preference from what they’re predisposed to choose naturally, especially without an explanation for why they are likely to have this preference to begin with.

Once you start speculating on the reasons why people prefer adoption only as a fallback option, you’ll likely find that the answer is complicated and personal to every couple, but in aggregate the average couple isn’t thinking about adoption as a plan A.

Even when it comes to same sex couples - they’re working on technology to be able to combine dna from two same sex parents and create an embryo that is truly a child of two people of the same sex.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that, I’m just thinking of examples where adoption seems to run counter to people’s revealed preferences.

It feels like you’re suggesting that adoption is a panacea, but for a majority of couples, it simply isn’t. I agree it could be considered selfish, but selfishness is a virtue in our society so I am asserting that it should be expected and accounted for, rather than simply waving your hand at its inherent issues and pretending they’ll go away.

Adoption has been proposed and has failed as a satisfactory solution to this problem for millenia, what has changed about it to make it relevant now?

Based on your post history, you’ll just delete your comment within a few hours anyway, but have you considered that if adoption was such a perfect solution then more people would adopt?

Instead of simply imagining simple solutions to complex problems, maybe try having a bit of empathy and see where that takes you?

Good luck.

So if you lose access to all of your devices, you’re completely locked out of everything until you’re able to get a new working phone activated on a trusted phone number? The trade-off of inconvenience for security here just doesn’t seem worth it to me.

deleted by creator