What correlation do you observe? Where i am, it seems all rich and poor follow the rules (with some minor exceptions). I mean makes sense who wants to get sick?
> What correlation do you observe? Where i am, it seems all rich and poor follow the rules (with some minor exceptions). I mean makes sense who wants to get sick?
Anything Microsoft other than Office+outlook sucks. I don't know about azure though as I have not endured it yet.
Adobe wants to have you by your balls the moment you install their installer :-) I keep a separate computer for Adobe stuff just for that reason. Actually to run some MS junk too.
>Seriously though with all the interview code tests bubble sort, quick sort, bloom filters, etc. Why can't companies or even websites get this right?
I have see some of the stinkiest stuff created by people who will appear smartest in any test these companies can throw at them. Some people are always gambling/gaming and winging it. They leave a trail...unfortunately.
Performance and reliability is indeed terrible. It is a mystery that a word processor crashes so often and take 10s of seconds just to quit. But the fact is that they get the job done and I haven't seen any decent alternatives to word, excel and for that matter even outlook. If you know something reasonably close, then please share.
A shoutout for duckduckgo here. I tried both qwant and duckduckgo about a couple of years ago but the quality of search results forced me back to google in a couple of days. But I gave it another shot a few weeks ago and I have been pretty happy with the search results from duckduckgo and the fact that the ads do not follow me around the web based on my searches is rather pleasant. I must admit that google hasn't done anything bad to me but their sheer size and scale is scary enough for me to look for alternatives.
Now back to the search quality, I wanted to find out when exactly world economic forum 2020 is happening and google won hands down (search term = world economic forum 2020 dates). But for now and for most of my day to day search terms duckduckgo is doing okay. I know this won't last for long as they also are looking at advertising dollars but I hope then someone else will stand up to challenge duckduckgo+google combined.
The property rights are what they are. Who the owner is should not cloud the argument. If you are a middle class person and have a lawn in front of your house, would you allow the random people to use the lawn for chilling/sleeping/picnic or whatever? Well a rich person happens to own a much bigger and luxurious version of the same front lawn. If the state or whoever owned the thing once upon time sold it, then it is his. The fact that he is stinking rich and we the normal populace would love to have access to the same property is no argument.
On the other hand if his purchase did not include exclusivity to the beach then by all means go there and piss around. But just being rich and owning something that most of us can not afford is no justification to snatch it from them. It is just using the justice system/democracy as a mob intent on plunder.
P.S. 1. I don't care who khosla is. But looking at the whole debate it seems the whole opposition is based on the fact that he is a billionaire. I refuse to buy that line of argument. Tell me it is illegal for so an so reason and I will buy. But he is an asshole or he is a billionaire is just emotions doing the talking :-)
P.S. 2. Going by the comments below, I feel compelled to clarify that my comment is not informed by the local laws. I am just a little bit puzzled by the words billionaire and asshole being used synonymously. The law should be same for everyone. A billionaire can hire more lawyers is no reason to call him an asshole in this context even if he has earned the title elsewhere unequivocally.
By California law, there is no such thing as ownership of a beach. All beach sands are public, by statute. You are asking who the owner is, but there is no owner of the rights of access or exclusivity, by law.
Of course, Khosla should have access to the lands he owns. Under California law, land is something that private citizens can own. A beach is not one of those things.
EDIT: that being said, private property rights do not always or even typically grant you exclusivity. Many jurisdictions have various requirements on what private landowners must allow the public to do on their land. For example, many jurisdictions have freedom to roam provisions, which ensure that the public has access to wilderness, even if privately owned. The United States does not have this in general, but it is certainly within the purview of the states to legislate such things. In many US cities, homeowners own the sidewalk and must maintain it, but allow the public access. This is written in the deed, or mandated by statue.
The case is not about the beach itself. It's about land near the beach through which one can travel to visit it. Is Khosla obligated to provide the public with access to the beach by crossing his land? Ordinarily this kind of right is represented as an easement on the property, or as a roadway separate from the property, neither of which exist here.
The previous owner built a gate on the property, which was open and closed at their whim, posted "no trespassing" signs, and charged for access to the road and beach.
Yes, you're right. I'm responding to the comment above which states that the case here is akin to forcing homeowners to allow people to picnic on their front lawn. The difference is that homeowners own their lawn, while Khosla does not own the beach. Many homeowners have easements requiring them to maintain sidewalks and allow the public to pass through (I know I certainly do). In this case, I suppose the question is if California's 1979 law implied this easement or not. Either way, it is hardly unprecedented.
Right, which is why the Supreme Count rightly refused the case. The issue isn't the general principle of beach access easements. The issue is the specifics of whether there actually is an effective easement on this particular property. Frankly, I can't tell from the article or the discussion if there actually is an easement. That fact that irrevocable easements can be created by long-term public use (called adverse possession?) makes this more complicated than it appears.
Regardless, the right thing for Kholsa to do is provide access. And further the bad press probably is causing more issues than the few folks that would be accessing it ever would.
> That fact that irrevocable easements can be created by long-term public use (called adverse possession?) makes this more complicated than it appears.
This isn't like owning a front lawn, this is like owning the pavement, but not the front lawn- but insisting no one else can use the front lawn because (whilst you don't own it) you can stop them accessing it. In fact in your metaphor not only does he not own the lawn, he lives in a state where it's not even possible to own the lawn, he bought the pavement knowing he could never own the lawn and has been illegally obstructing access to the lawn for decades.
And now somehow he has people on the internet arguing that a billionaire should be allowed exclusive benefit to public land- as if of all people, the billionaire is the one that needs the public handout.
>And now somehow he has people on the internet arguing that a billionaire should be allowed exclusive benefit to public land- as if of all people, the billionaire is the one that needs the public handout.
No I didn't say that. If the exclusivity is not part of the sale then it should be trivial to kick his butt. The fact it isn't is confounding to me. Perhaps because I am not an American.
What? California beaches have been public property since 1976. He bought the house knowing he doesn't own the beach, and that the public has a right to that beach.
No one is allowed to own a beach in California. This isn't about mob rule, this is about a choice Californians made many years ago that says beaches are public.
Because he’s not blocking access to the beach, technically. Just blocking that pathway. But it’s surrounded by cliffs, so the only way to access it is through the path he’s blocking.
Are these questions based on reading the article or not? A lot of the things are discussed in the article... the question is not whether the beach is public, it is about what access requirements he has to meet. Does he have to provide a road? Parking?
This has nothing to do with him being rich. This has everything to do with the fact that he is an asshole. He has no property rights to the beach but is spending his money trying to change that.
He has no right to do what he is doing but the only reason we are talking about it at all is because he is rich.
> (unless the beach is on a lake rather than the ocean).
And there I see why he has hopes. If it is legal on a lake then someone would wonder why not on ocean. Rather than asking the nice people on internet one might as well go to a court of law.
Why are people angry that he went to court. Where I come from people settle these kind of questions in less civilised ways. Court is better i think.
Some argue, Nial Ferguson comes to mind, that private property rights and rule of law are what has brought success to civilization. It is funny reading this thread. Your post pointedly reminds us that we could live under regimes that have no qualms in seizing our property. I’m reminded that in the US our founders wrote of life, liberty, and happiness. There was an earlier version, life, liberty, and property.
#1. Internet is no longer the source of truth. I can buy it by CPC or CPM.
#2. Within the first paragraph of the first hit on search results, a policeman is enforcing the restriction. I would be encouraged to dig in if I were in a similar situation instead of being intimidated.
#3. I am not on either side. Just watching and weighing in from far away as an indifferent observer.
His monopoly on land is granted at the discretion of and subject to regulation by the state, just as many other actions are.
My front lawn can be eminent domained to build new power lines, so clearly the state has greater authority over property than your argument represents.
Then the state should use eminent domain to take his road, then upkeep the beach, the parking lot, and the bathrooms themselves. Instead, the state is trying to force him to run a business that loses money.
> If you are a middle class person and have a lawn in front of your house, would you allow the random people to use the lawn for chilling/sleeping/picnic or whatever?
That's not the issue. If you own property that's completely encircled by other properties, you're entitled to an easement through a neighboring property. Conversely, if you own a parcel of land that participates in the blockade of another parcel, you very well might be required to let the owners of that other parcel to walk on your lawn to get to their property. You'll probably want to maintain a walkway, because if their daily use turns your lawn to mud, you'll probably be liable for any injuries they sustain.
Water rights aren't your average yard. If water rights aren't protected, the rich could buy up the entire coastline and you'd have no where to access the beach.
What is worst than being popular? Perhaps bought popularity. A team member decided to boost an instagram post(same FB platform) expecting a few tens of likes to start the virtuous cycle. We got a few thousand likes. It is our most embarrassing post ever and the worst part is that I haven't deleted that post yet. FB and instagram are black mirrors that make me wonder who am I and how low I can stoop.
I don't feel qualified enough to advise. But here is what I did after folding my startup
1. I used it as a very expensive resume. Costs me a few hundred dollars in running costs on AWS but pays back regularly by helping me win new consulting clients.
2. Mine was a travel startup so had few reusable modules e.g. booking engines for various GDSs (Sabre, Travelport and even Expedia's API). I manage to sell these with little modifications to a few companies that were building things from scratch. After initial sale and a minimal support period, further support was charged at consulting rates.
3. Initially I thought that I would be able to sell the whole development stack specially the user management, email verification, security, PCI compliance payment solution stack etc. But never found any takers for that part of the code. Don't really know why.
4. I initially folded my startup because of lack of experience in sales and marketing. But I am plugging those holes in my competence and I might resurrect this startup in a couple of years from now. I am glad that I never gave up my rights to any part of the code or technology.
Not sure if any of above is relevant to your particular case except #1 which could be useful if you decide to do consulting/freelancing in future.
Instagram and WhatsApp are the bought step kids of facebook and by all indications(ok just hearsay) are more relevant(read popular) than the original product i.e. the facebook. A sound investment but I can imagine how it feels for Zuckerberg. While recently trying to advertise on Instagram it became evident how desperately facebook wants to put itself in front of these products and brands. I kind of understand at a personal level but at the business level it doesn't make so much sense. I almost feel sorry for Zuckerberg. Actually I don't ;-)
Should I be worried about the branding? Or the fact this behemoth of a company is buying it's way into every corner of my life. Close your eyes and imagine a few drones trying to see everything you do in your apartment. That's what it is. This ain't the internet I ordered :-(
People were using Fitbit, not Google, and now their data is in Google's hands without their consent. Even if they stop using their devices immediately, Google still has the data Fitbit collected previously.
It's a good lesson about being willing to share data: even if you trust the company you're sharing with, a company you don't trust may end up buying that company and getting your data after all.
If you're privacy-minded, the only safe option is to treat all companies as untrustworthy.
What you can’t do is delete the data that Google is collecting on you without an account. Data your family gives them. Data from your emails that land in gmail inboxes. Data from the umpteen thousand cookies that lead back to Google.
I’d like to see what Google has on me, but without an account I can’t.
While that sounds like a logical argument it’s becoming more and more difficult and will be impossible soon. It’s like saying you can live without electricity. Sure you can and there are people who do but that’s not the point. The point is a single company owning so much information about so many people without proper oversight. In such world it doesn’t matter if YOU are not a google user. You’ll suffer the consequences regardless. Start with how such a society is going to vote in elections and move from there.
Well done Google. So now you won't spy on me only when I am typing something on a computer or phone but also when I breath or when my heart beats. *uck FitBit. There it is in the dustbin and everyone else I see wearing it is an idiot or is an idiot. I hope insurance companies don't make it mandatory to provide my google account details while signing up. But who am I fooling.... So much for "Don't be Evil"....RIP
This news made me discover where the line is. My Android device is always listening, it tracks my every journey knowing where I travel to and how I get there. Google scan my email and undoubted have traced the majority of my internet activity.
Now they want to know each time my heart beats, how many steps I take, how many calories I am burning etc. Nope. No thanks. Never been one to boycott devices but the Fitbit is now in the draw. I will be looking for a garmin this weekend.
