> It's amazing how seemingly trivial things turn out to be really hard to be in practice
There is nothing "amazing" there, just big tech trying to lock you up in their ecosystem and make your use of "other" devices as difficult as it can be.
Exactly this. Instead of inventing another useless typeface noone is gonna use (I am pretty sure there are numerous typefaces exist that excel for Thai and Japanese languages) they would better work on simple case chats backup that's doesn't work if you move the app cross OS.
Is it good for society to disable traffic cameras? Here in Sweden, traffic camera is used exclusively to reduce traffic speed on roads where the maximum speed is too fast for installing traffic bumps, with an expected effect of reducing traffic speed by around 20-30%. They are generally only installed on 60-90km/h roads, around road maintenance/construction sites, and in tunnels. They active when the radar detects speeds of 5km above the maximum. (The reduction in speed happens regardless if the camera is functional or not, since it is primarily a psychological effect).
Sweden also have traffic monitors that monitor highways around cities, border exists and tunnels, and also license plate readers for toll roads and bridges (also often used for parking). Those two generally have a much higher privacy cost than traffic cameras.
When the cameras become a revenue stream for a city it is not a good thing.
Cameras have been installed to fine cars running red lights. The city then reduces the length of the yellow to catch more people and offset the high cost of the cameras. The shortened yellows cause increased crashes and fatalities.
Net-net the track record in the states is not great.
Here in Seattle the traffic cameras are not used to limit speed, but to monitor intersections for red-light violations. The glue-squirting fellow in my anecdote objected to the fact that the for-profit corporation which builds and operates these cameras gets a cut of the revenue from the citations they issue. He felt that it was one thing to enforce the law, and quite another thing to run a profitable business doing it.
That makes more sense. Traffic accidents should not be a profit center, and placing cameras where it makes the most money is unlikely to align with places where it has the biggest impact on reducing fatal accidents. The Vision Zero goal that Sweden has is often cited as a guiding rule for designing the road system, including the use of measures like road bumps and traffic cameras. Giving money from the fines to a for-profit corporation seems fairly obvious that it will create perverse incentives.
> Is it good for society to disable traffic cameras?
Its going to be unpopular but yes i think so. Traffic cameras, besides very few use cases, are completely useless (just like speed limits in general). Plus it's a huge temptation for local authorities to turn it into a cash cow and put it anywhere they please regardless of necessity. Italy is rife with those for example.
Speed cameras help really little with preventing accidents unless we're talking about 200 at 100. Put in cameras that detect tailgating/not maintaining enough distance relative to speed.
The Swedish traffic agency, in combination with the health department, openly publish accident data for every road. Accidents and their outcomes are public data and has been so for a long time. The location of traffic cameras is also public and so is the date when they got installed. Everything is open to the public, and gps applications are allowed to both have the data and warn drivers.
The accident rate from before to after the installation of a camera has an average reduction of around 25% in reducing deaths in traffic. If someone don't believe it they can download the public data themselves and redo the math.
Sweden also do not have traffic cameras on highways, most likely because they are ineffective in reducing deadly outcomes at those speeds. The chance of surviving a frontal collision at 100km/h is highly unlikely, so the cost of installation a camera is better spent on roads with lower maximum speeds where the reduction in average speed actually have an effect on outcomes.
> The accident rate from before to after the installation of a camera has an average reduction of around 25% in reducing deaths in traffic
Try to forbid movement in the area and you can reach 100% reduce in deaths.
Statistics and data doesn't tell you the whole picture and often skewed.
Most crimes in Sweden are committed by "refugees" by huge margin, but good luck doing something about it or let alone talk about it publicly. But hey, lets install another camera to have everyone to slow down and exacerbate traffic conditions further down.
Reducing speed by 20-30% at scale results in a very large loss of man-years of lives in the form of sitting in a car. Reduced earning capacity, lost time with their families, waking up earlier and risks to health associated with reduced sleep, less theoretical throughput of roadways, reduced money for education/food/childcare when they accidently go too fast for a moment and are fined, lack of discretion in issuing tickets for bona fide emergencies, people suddenly slowing down before camera causing accidents, etc.
The obvious win in places like the US is that being pulled over is one of the most dangerous thing that ever happens to the common person, as they are exposed to a psychopath with a gun who is trained that the most important thing is to optimize every interaction to maximize his chance of 'making it home to his family' and if a policeman shoots everything that moves (up to and including, falling acorns) because he 'fears for his life' he will largely get away with it. So it is a nice alternative to that.
> worry about other students being lazy and just ripping my hard work and claiming it as their own
Lets say that happened. So what? What did you lose?
And another thing - your code is probably not something unique or particularly excellent. This not to berate/discourage you but just to perhaps nudge you to see things objectively.
> Not everything should be streamlined for a quick call solution
If you have a better solution to correct an error or solve a problem than having a call/meeting and openly discuss situation and possible resolutions - I would love to know about that.
The response was condescending and very… American. The call ensures what, that you'll be more receiving to their grievances? That nothing is on the record? A lot of people don't want to jump in calls, ever. The initial response should've validated that the community feels slighted, that they should've brought them onboard for the decision making, etc.
Acknowledging the mistake immediately seems like a good start.
> The call ensures what, that you'll be more receiving to their grievances?
It ensures you truly understand what the crux of the grievance is and what they would like to happen to get it resolved, instead of being distracted by tangential points.
> That nothing is on the record?
If you’re already assuming malice before the resolution process even had a chance to begin, the conversation has little chance of being productive. Do you know this particular person? Have you interacted with them before?
> A lot of people don't want to jump in calls, ever.
Then say no! But being preemptively mad because someone asked is absurd and does nothing to fix the problem. The asker shouldn’t assume what the other person wants or doesn’t, they should ask. Which is what they did.
> Acknowledging the mistake immediately seems like a good start.
Yes, very much agreed. But you can’t take back what you did, only try to make amends. And that’s very difficult if the other party demands perfection while you’re still even trying to understand the situation.
> Should they have brought up some Japanese PR consultant just to reply to a community post?
Yes! It wouldn't even have had to have been a good one to have done a better job. Shit, just find the closest weeb and run it past them.
A developer relations person needs to understand developers so why shouldn't we expect the community person to understand the community they're interacting with?
Mozilla doesn't have the community goodwill to burn, it's hanging on by a thread - so not hiring someone with an idea if how to actually do that job would be penny wise pound foolish.
Ok, how the perfect reaction would be if you were at charge?
I understand people have sympathy inclination to victims, so everyone would assume the victim is good and other side is bad. I have worked long enough with japanese people knowing they can throw unpredictable tantrums.
As a manager, what would be your best course of action to deal with similar situation?
Acknowledging the mistake immediately seems like a good start, as I've said.
Life doesn't always have to be from the perspective from “a manager”, these are community volunteers doing untold hours of unpaid work. Just be a person, whose acquaintance is upset you replaced their handmade postcard with an AI-generated one.
Acknowledging a mistake, no matter genuinely or not, doesn't solve the situation. It just makes victim feel good a bit.
Agree on manager view, I was rather putting situation in a wrong perspective. It doesn't change the questions though - what would you do to resolve the situation (not to make the other side feel good)?
> Acknowledging a mistake, no matter genuinely or not, doesn't solve the situation. It just makes victim feel good a bit.
This feels very wrong to me, I'm sorry, but I'd be very pissed if you told me such a thing in a personal context. Reminds of Stanley from The Office, who claims he never apologised to any of his wives.
Written communication is usually better and allows for more clarity, investigation, preparation, careful thought, and exploring of solutions. When it's not better it's usually because one party doesn't like to read or write and so avoids it as much as they can.
> If you have a better solution to correct an error or solve a problem than having a call/meeting and openly discuss situation and possible resolutions - I would love to know about that.
I do, actually. You first read what the other person wrote. Then your response will take whatever they wrote into account. If they did not expressed themselves clearly, you explain what it is that you do not understand. The "We want to make sure we truly understand what you're struggling with." is wholly inappropriate if the only reason you do not understand is that you did not read what they wrote.
Second, you dont suggest the other person is struggling with something, unless they are actually struggling with something. The original post does not show someone struggling at all.
Tl;dr if you want to "openly discuss situation and possible resolutions" you dont start by ignoring what the other person wrote. This response makes it very clear that manager does not intend to openly discuss the situation or possible resolutions, the manager is not taking the complaint seriously at all.
> unhappiness stems from the negative mismatch of one's expectation vs experienced reality
A juvenile unhappiness perhaps so. I would suggest adult one may stem from deep understanding how this world is built, altogether with futile attempts to change it.
Its taking all things as they are, and yet being sad exactly for the way they are.
But that still means you are unable to emotionally accept this understanding, that the world is as it is for perfectly logical reasons if you go down deep enough.
And no attempt is futile, every act should matter to you.
I would like to think it is not the case. It is also not entirely sure logical reasons can explain things as they are in entirety, it’s rather our attempt to explain things.
If you accept doesn’t mean you agree. You still get to internal peace.
I've been traveling around the world for many years and stayed in probably thousands of hotels. Eventually I figured if hotel has words like "supreme", "extraordinary", "exceptional" and sorts, do expect absolutely shitty quality for eh, "supreme" costs.
Wonder if the same logic can be applicable to Wise.
Ukraine is well known money laundering machine. Before the conflict started it was a well known fact and many banks didn't want to work with transfers to Ukraine. I am sure TransferWise shared similar risk model.
Ukraine had very strict banking rules for at least a decade. It had much more sense to launder through Cyprus for example or other EU countries like Latvia (when it was still possible) or Hungary if you’re politically connected.
Thats common knowledge for everyone even tangentially related to finance industry and likely for anyone who ever did international business with cross border payments . Not sure what kind of "sources" you expect to see here.
> Ukraine had very strict banking rules for at least a decade
Perhaps for it's own populace, but not for it's rulers and those who they work with.
Okay, so basically you’ve read some “anonymous sources” and decided they are true.
Because for me, as a person who did international business from Ukraine it makes absolutely zero sense to launder through Ukraine as it is:
1) no part of any union, so you will be unable to spend or move money outside.
2) it has extreme bank regulation, and you cannot just send money outside without cause. Receiving and sending money for fake “services” will not work (compared to a lot of other places I know)
3) it has a lot of independent anti-corruption institutions. You can be sure that any government official fears the consequences of doing something illegal.
4) it is in a state of war and any suspicious money operation will trigger investigation from SBU as well, since Russia tries to pay for its agents.
If there is corruption and money laundering happening, it is well outside of any path available for regular people.
It’s advisable not to judge within your limited worldview. Not everyone “reads” mainstream media, some people have real world experience.
Your arguments regarding why Ukraine can’t be used for money laundering are laughable and just show you are now aware how certain things in financial world work. That’s totally fine - but it gets distorted when some extended judgements are made based on very limited worldview.
So enrich my and other peoples world view - this is what this forum is about. Instead of saying "I'll leave it to your imagination", please provide any substance of your claims - anything we can talk about.
Since you didn't I have to guess, what you are talking about.
Do you mean some Russians used Ukraine as a money laundering middleman, specifically through corruption of politicians and elites in the system there? Because it sounds like it. Before the "conflict" (invasion) happened.
I'll leave your imagination to judge who used ukraine as money laundering machine. To have some supplementary data for that, we can look where the money entering ukraine come from for say last 5 years. You can easily find how much was coming from russia and compare it with flow from say EU. You should be capable of drawing your own conclusions after.
But if you look at the bigger picture, Ukraine has been invaded and occupied by a bigger countries which buys western banks to do it's money laundering through. Now is not the time to be discipling.
Yes, but that's a matter to be settled in a court. Banks and other financial institutions have no business deciding what's just; they just follow the regulations given to them by governments and the courts.
Russia invaded Ukraine, inflicting untold horror, and Russia is a threat to Europe.
In the circumstances of early 2022, I would have expected a way to be found, in the knowledge that such an action - telescope held to blind eye - would be condoned.
> Russia invaded Ukraine, inflicting untold horror, and Russia is a threat to Europe.
Realistically it is way more nuanced than that. Its a juvenile worldview to think in black and white.
Not willing to start any discussion on the matter, but you may want to know about massacres ukraine did in it's eastern side. After all, the russian invasion wasnt that unprovoked at all (albeit as any force causing many to suffer, it's hard to justify it).
The bottomline is - reality is way more nuanced than just black and white.
> Not willing to start any discussion on the matter, but you may want to know about massacres ukraine did in it's eastern side.
This is a Russian narrative.
> After all, the russian invasion wasnt that unprovoked at all
This also is a Russian narrative.
It seems to me you have been from some source been absorbing Russian material.
Putin is a dictator. A few years after he came to power in 2000, Russia was once again living in fear; you did not speak out. If you did, fines, prison, penal colonies with death and violence, or now and then being thrown out of windows.
It looks from material being produced by Putin, the State and the military Russia by about 2010 was looking to take Ukraine.
Putin had his man running Ukraine - into corruption and thuggery - until Euromaiden. He fled to Russia. Literally immediately after that, plan B - the small war began. Finally, 2022, the big war.
There is nothing here where we go "it was not that unprovoked".
Ukraine wanted, and wanted, freedom. To be itself, and not to live in a hell-hole dictatorship. Putin wants to possess Ukraine, because that's how he and it seems a good part of Russian State culture sees the world; in terms of power, conquest and territory.
What is the "russian narrative"? Whats is this made up definition?
> Putin is a dictator.
Based on what?
> Russia was once again living in fear; you did not speak out
I don't think Russia is living in fear, neither I should be speaking out as I am not in any way related to it.
> It looks from material being produced by Putin, the State and the military Russia by about 2010 was looking to take Ukraine
Doubt this is true.
> Putin had his man running Ukraine - into corruption and thuggery
Yea, all presidents/PMs were "his men". If this is not propaganda what you are desperately trying to do (and you do it quite poorly I must admit), then I don't know what propaganda is.
> Ukraine wanted, and wanted, freedom
Thats why ukraine sold everything it had, including it's rare minerals for years to west :) We certainly have different definitions of freedom.
Amount of theft from “military” accounts in Ukraine is staggering, if anyone would ever be interested to figure out. Everyone know that except people blindfolded by the world “military” and deluded to think money there would be used on anything else but beneficiaries whims.
Supporting evidence, please. So far you've made claims only - "everyone knows".
Kyiv Independent, who are pretty good at this and are on the spot, do not report large scale or significant military corruption. They have found and report on pretty corruption (individuals selling personal weapons). I note EU and US are very interested in keeping track of where the money is going.
> I was the same way, couldn’t pay me 10k to switch from my iPhone. For 10 years. Then, liquid ass came along and made me consider ditching Apple more seriously than I ever have
Same. First it was unnecessary tinkering with phone shape which was introduced in apple way in no less as "revolutionary". I laughed but still used the iphone.
Now they started to break UX with their stupid "liquid glass" and I am contemplating switch to android. At least you can switch off unnecessary garbage there.
There is nothing "amazing" there, just big tech trying to lock you up in their ecosystem and make your use of "other" devices as difficult as it can be.
And of course deny it along the way.