The website makes it sound like all of the code being bespoke and "based on standards" is some kind of huge advantage but all I see is a Herculean undertaking with too few engineers and too many standards.

W3C lists 1138 separate standards currently, so if each of their three engineers implements one discrete standard every day, with no breaks/weekends/holidays, then having an alpha available that adheres to all 2024 web standards should be possible by 2026?

This is obviously also without testing but these guys are serious, senior engineers, so their code will be perfect on the first try, right?

Love the passion though, can't wait to see how this project plays out.

Someday I'll stop feeding the trolls, but apparently today is not that day.

Alright, first up, do a quick Google for anecdotal fallacy and consider whether you may have inadvertently fallen into that.

Second, you seem to simultaneously be arguing that the government is somehow omnipotent and impotent at the same time - which is it? Either the government is carefully manipulating the economy to hit the numbers we're controlling for or they don't have a clue how to calculate inflation but I can't see how they could do both simultaneously.

Third - calculating inflation - how do you think we should be doing it? You state that the government is pretending it is lower than a true reflection of reality but don't seem to have a perspective on why that is. At one point you're suggesting that it's high because fast food prices went up, then you go on to say that things would be better if we measured it like we did 35 years ago. What are you proposing, exactly, and how would your proposal leave us better off?

Let's say for a moment that I agree with you and the "official numbers" are bullshit. How, exactly, would you like policymakers to make decisions if they have no data upon which to base their decision? Should we expect our leaders to simply rely on their gut instinct?

Not going to comment on crime stats, but I can't stop myself from asking about, "They change the inflation numbers so inflation stays down." what do you mean by this? Do you think that the BLS publishes an inflation figure and the entire market economy shifts to conform to that number? I simply can't.

Regarding housing - yes, we don't have enough of it. This is something people are running into all around the world and it isn't unique to the US. I'm certainly not suggesting that it isn't something worthy of being addressed, but what does it have to do with the Washington Post?

Not at all, I don't know you, but I'm fairly certain you could understand it if you took the time to. The point I am making is that there is a disconnect between the way that policymakers view the economy (robust and steady growth) and the way that journalists have been reporting on it (doom, gloom, impending disaster).

I retrospect, my initial argument was fairly tinfoil hat. Another explanation could be that fear and anger brings eyeballs and since WaPo, in addition to many other legacy outlets that still regularly print on physical paper, is effectively underwater from a business standpoint, the editor may feel that sensational headlines are important for growth. Their new CEO has pedigree as a Murdoch crony, and this tactic is in line with the way that outlets on the far right have gotten engagement, so it isn't difficult to imagine mandating a similar strategy.

As the OP explained in their piece, "major metrics" are showing the opposite of what you, and outlets such as WaPo, are suggesting. We have seen several "major metrics" trending in a positive direction such as real wage growth and unprecedented levels of employment. Sure, the economy isn't perfect for everyone, but where we've identified gaps, in some cases thoughtful policies, such as income-driven repayment plans for student loans, have been introduced.

Yes, housing costs are too high. This is ubiquitous throughout the developed world. Yes, too much wealth has been redistributed to the ultra-wealthy, and this has detrimental effects throughout the economy. But to suggest that, "the economy is tanking", without providing any argument to support it other than "major metrics" doesn't resonate with me at all.

How surprised should we be, really, when a media outlet owned and operated by one of the richest people in the world is advancing the narrative that the existing status quo is detrimental to the average person during an election year?

To be clear, an individual's anecdotal experience in the economy will not match up perfectly with the data. Yes - the prices for food and housing have increased faster than we would have liked. However, policymakers are only able to account for a small adjustment in policy recommendations based on anecdotes.

At the national level - in Congress or at the Federal Reserve - large volumes of data are necessarily collected and analyzed to create an aggregate picture of the economy. Individual policymakers are encouraged to argue about the best or most accurate measures to use, and different leaders will point to different measures as evidence to support their proposals, but ultimately these are the drivers of economic policy.

While yes, I would support prices returning to 2019 levels, I've studied enough history to understand that this is not the nature of a market economy. We can stand around all day bemoaning the state of things or we can accept the situation as it is provided to us and figure out the path forward.

I see the types of articles highlighted by OP as bad-faith reporting on the economy with the goal of increasing pessimism about the economy more broadly, riling up our Keynesian Animal Spirits to expect bad outcomes, rather than pointing out the good policy measures and reasons for optimism like the OP did.

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.

Thank you?

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.

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.

Everything is transient and eventually becomes shitty, sure, but I generally trust them because they're able to make money just from people using the service. I don't know how profitable they are, but I am reasonably certain that as the card issuer they get a cut of every transaction. Given that they aren't issuing physical cards and have no obvious costs other than maintaining their platform, I don't see a reason not to trust them in the medium term.

I've generally had good experiences with Privacy.com. It seems like a decent solution when I want something from a semi-reputable website.

I particularly enjoy the bit where cards are vendor-locked, which has been interesting to observe in a couple of instances where a site seems to have had their credit card db breached and the attackers turn around and try to use the card on another site, where it is inevitably denied, but I still get an email that shows which site got hacked and where the attackers were trying to use the information.

Wait, you don't inherently trust pictures of text posted by anonymous strangers online? Clearly this sentiment deserves downvotes. /s

On a less sarcastic note, I've noticed this a lot with my gen z friends - instead of using the share button that is built into pretty much every website and app these days, I get a screenshot of a headline from an article and am left to find the source on my own. Infuriating.

This is a great explanation of how the disinformation machine works, thanks for sharing.

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...

I hear ya, definitely don't let it put you off from checking out area 15 though, the vibe in there is super cool and worth the visit even without lost spirits IMHO.

Unfortunately yes

Area 15 /Omegamart would be incredible stoned.

Lost Spirits is in the same complex and is closing soon, if you're going to Las Vegas in the next few weeks it would be hard to recommend it more highly.

Seems like the media conglomerates are all chomping at the bit to see interest rates fall. shocked pikachu

The Fed has been clear about this since the beginning - interest rates are their primary mechanism for combating inflation. Since inflation has been persistent, we should not expect rates to come down in the near term, and frankly I don't think that is a bad thing.

Investors now need to be more careful about where they put their money, since money isn't free anymore. Yes, this means that the internet is being enshittified, but my hope is that it also means that the services that stick around will find a sustainable business model that consumers will find to be more consistent and reliable.