Does the unionized store have a contract with apple already? If so, it would seem like until the contract is up, apple should continue operating under the terms of that contract with respect to the unionized store.
I suppose you could say it "makes sense" if you confine your field of view to one round of bargaining at one employer who is interested in minimizing short-term labor costs. But does it even make sense for Apple managers/investors on a longer time horizon? Is it part of an approach that's good for the wider world?
For better or worse we don't globally optimize during an adversarial two party negotiation. We seek a local equilibrium. It's hard to fault apple for this since any other model would ultimately require a reorganized society to work on a long term basis. Apple can't do that unilaterally.
And as for the idea of freely giving concessions to unions to avoid bad news cycles: it's been tried and the results are not always fiscally ideal.
What is to stop someone from modifying chromium to always report "yes" in that case? Or is the idea that we will add another widevine style opaque binary blob to our system that handles this with an encrypted response that can't be examined by the user?
The banks aren't going to make you whole when withdraw a thousand bucks from the ATM and send it to someone. These denied refunds follow the same principle. There are warnings all over every zelle implementation I've used saying that using zelle is like using cash, don't send it to someone you don't know, etc. But people still do it anyways.
Btw crypto is worse on this in every way and there is no system that actually solves this problem. I wonder if it is even possible to solve.
Is Zelle really like using cash? It seems closer to an electronic transfer than withdrawing dollar bills. With cash they have no way to know what I'm doing with the money but with a transfer, they know a little bit more and so they have more responsibilities (IMHO).
It is the intentional decision of zelle to be like using cash in terms of rollback guarantees. This is so that payees can accept it like cash. There's no way to balance the scales -- the payment system that can be rolled back has its own issues.
That decision is as exactly as legally binding as the signs on trucks disavowing liability for falling debris.
Banks might be trying to pretend Zelle isn't covered by Regulation E, but I haven't heard any good argument for why it doesn't apply, other than arguments similar to yours that they simply don't want it to.
Banks are not arguing that Zelle isn't covered by Regulation E.
Regulation E talks about liability for "unauthorized transactions". Those are transfers "from a consumer's account initiated by a person other than the consumer without actual authority to initiate the transfer".
If you initiated the transfer but were misled into doing so or provided the wrong payment information or whatever, it's still an authorized transaction from Regulation E's perspective; so you are still liable for it. The only exception is if you were induced by force to initiate the transfer.
People are welcome to challenge the banks in court. It will be no skin off my back if they win. But I guess the banks have good reason that believe that they can defend their practices successfully. If not it will be the end of Venmo, cash app, and zelle -- or at least the free transfer features of those apps.
The "good reason" is that it's an extension of how banks have always treated fraudulent debits until you show knowledge of the Reg E dispute process, so it makes it outside of first-level customer support.
And it won't be the end of free electronic transfers, it'll just mean acknowledging that those transfers aren't any more final than writing a check.
We have other payment systems like credit cards which work that way. The inevitable consequences are that permissions to receive payments are tightly locked down, and the network charges fees to help cover the cost of fraudulent transactions.
For large transactions this is somewhat solved by escrow companies.
In the end it all has to come down to trust. If all transactions were easy to reverse, we would see the opposite problem: scammers who pay people money and the. demand it back, claiming fraud.
Yep. Happens in the credit card world all the time. Porn is a good example of a business that has a lot of trouble functioning due to fraudulent chargebacks.
That is in fact the real reason some credit card companies won't let you pay for porn. Amex was preventing it for years before it was a PR/wokeness issue.
The scenario is, someone pays for porn, their spouse sees it on the bill and gets really angry, and the other person says it wasn't me, it must have been fraud! So they file a chargeback.
In a technical sense you're correct; in both cases the transactions are effectively irreversible. That said, I think there is an important difference:
Everyone (well, kinda) knows that a crypto transaction is irreversible; that's basically the point. Because of this, it is expected and normal to layer on extra systems to cope with the risk of not having an authority to dispute stuff to. Consider darknet markets: they use escrow and reputation systems to protect both parties.
But everyone (well, kinda, in the same sense as the above) also knows traditional financial institutions are "safe" and that transactions are reversible. That false sense of security means other security/resolution methods aren't considered, so when the centralized authority has a bad day the end user is out of luck.
But isn't an escrow system just another centralized authority? Sure, but at least I can choose what escrow system I want to interact with. The banking cartel behind Zelle doesn't afford me the same degree of choice, and using small credit unions isn't a panacea either because they farm out everything complicated to one or another of the payment cartels. Quality of escrow system is an important discriminator when choosing a DNM; I wish I could assess various traditional financial institutions' likeliness to rip me off as effectively.
If centralized financial institutions want to act like crypto in terms of irreversibility, fine, but I think the scale of the problem described in TFA indicates that some "are you suuuuuuuuuuuuure you want to send money to Joe Blow" popups in the app aren't enough to overcome that aegis of "this is a safe institution" floating around in the public consciousness. I see it as more a problem of false advertising than anything else, really. Copy from the landing page of their site:
> Zelle® works between U.S.-based banks. Which means, even if you bank somewhere different than your friends and family do,1 you can still use Zelle® to safely send and receive money straight from your banking app.
> safely
Obviously it's not a legal doc or anything, but I'd argue the service is both explicitly and implicitly casting itself as akin to a bank-provided service like a credit card, not something as wild west as cash.
If the service is truly vital it should be provided by the government, not Google. The government would also be free to set security policies and provide support at the level and cost demanded by the public. It is not and should not be the role of a private enterprise to act as a backstop for the fabric of society when it is not in their interests or their customers' overall interests.
The vital services are provided by the government, but require an email address. Some people have trusted Google to be their email provider, and Google is failing some of those people by denying them access unnecessarily.
I'm saying that if the public/government doesn't feel like Google's security policies are compatible with the homeless, the simplest solution is to set up a government-run email host.
But we should also expect Google to give a small crap about the troubles it's putting some of its users through, especially when this is so important to some of its most vulnerable users, and adding an option to disable 2FA is such a small feature for a Mega corporation.
umm you DO know that Gmail isn't only free email, right? Like, just use another one which doesn't force 2FA. Why is this become an issue? I don't get it
"Worker" is not exactly a pejorative term. In some circles it would even be considered a mark of pride. Although "human resource" is ironically dehumanizing.
Neither were ever used in a pejorative sense exactly, more with a sense of apathy and an even clinical sense that an employee is thought of the same as a widget or a building or a piece of machinery.
To me it's interesting that the Americans did not in fact edit sex out of any of the writings.
In the case of the wife in the bed, it seems like the American editor was trying to punch it up and bring into focus what they believed was more salient. Mistakenly maybe, but no sex was edited out.
In the case of the balcony scene, it's hard to guess what the editor was trying to accomplish. Maybe enhance the realism? It's a well known fact that most women do not orgasm via penetrative sex alone. But this is rarely shown in media, written or otherwise. I don't really see the need for the edit, or how the edit is characteristically American, because unrealistic depictions of female orgasm are by far the norm in American media. But perhaps the editor is trying to improve the situation?
Maybe the author means the Americans are making their writing less sex-y?
I'm guessing the pot smoking got edited out? But the clunker of a line is the bit about "both of us mysteriously unaffected by vertigo". Unless it was prior established that there should be vertigo, and vertigo is a useful metaphor for illustrating other elements of the overall story/something about the protagonist, that line contributes nothing and doesn't belong, especially followed by orgasm: an orgasm which included no vertigo? In tight writing, very phrase and clause of every sentence should serve a purpose toward the overall story, and hopefully frequently more than one.
Wasn't there another scene where the proprietor of the coffee shop had an orgasm and was screaming? And also some sex talk I remember. R might have been too much but I don't think pg13 would be unreasonable.
What do you supposed the legal teams are doing right now? Presumably there is some effort to make musk sign an even more iron clad deal before agreeing to a stay. Something like, "no condition that existed prior to October 5, 2022, material or not, shall be grounds for terminating the merger agreement." Perhaps they want him to remove the financing contingency given that if financing falls through Elon bears the majority of the blame for that.
I guess from Twitter's perspective it's fine if things go to a trial since they are going to win anyway. And every day that passes increases the torque on Elon and X holdings. They have him over a barrel so why not demand concessions to ensure that no more shenanigans occur?
Twitter doesn't want one, and would oppose a request for one. The judge in the case has been openly skeptical of Musk's delaying tactics and indicated the other day she thinks Musk let Signal conversations delete during discovery (https://www.theverge.com/2022/10/5/23389568/musk-twitter-sig...).
It should probably be signal boosted that when you are under a discovery documentation hold, the fact that services like Signal have auto-deletion as a feature do not protect those documents from Discovery and actively work against the user's best interests.
"But your honor, I can't produce those documents because they were on a conveyor belt into a furnace" isn't a valid legal defense.
It is if you don’t have access to the conveyor. Otherwise, you’d be liable for documents lost due to acts of God. He can still be in trouble if they can prove he used signal specifically to avoid disclosures during discovery.
Upon receipt of a preservation order, those Signal conversations should've been preserved. Give an intern the task of screenshotting them all. The same rules apply if, say, you delete email after 30 days; you have to pause that process once you've been required to retain evidence.
In this increasingly stretched metaphor he was the one that turned on the conveyor - disappearing texts is an option you have to turn on, not mandatory and not enabled by default.
Some of the other parties to the conversations saved them. Then the court was like “wait a sec Elon, Mr. Whomever has this Signal conversation with you, where’s your copy of this conversation?”
The person you're responding to is almost certainly exaggerating, and moreover probably has a better handle on the vibe of their relationship than you can get from a one sentence joke.
It's nonetheless a shitty thing to do, independent of whether this person actually does it. People absolutely do the thing they may have been joking about.
I stand by the opinion that the behavior you endorse is the behavior you walk by. So, I believe it's important to call out casual "jokes" at other's expense like this. Just like if someone was like, "women, and I right?"
Ribbing your significant other over minor things is part of the dynamic of many intimate relationships. Usually both parties know nothing is meant. You don't like it and that's fine, but it's not generically shitty.
