Are you serious? I do the dishes and take out trash/recycling (and other regular cleaning work) as an obvious matter of course to not live in a total stinky shithole. But also once a month we pay for a real service to do a serious cleaning that gets into all the corners and under furniture and ceiling and descaling in the bathroom (hard water) etc etc, which my SO wants kept up with and I think that's reasonable. Between kids, pets, guests and so on more accumulates in a house then trivial regular clean up deals with. They're not the same thing; everyone is expected to do their dishes and contribute to taking out the trash or other chores, but not necessarily to putting on heavier duty protective kit and dealing with bathroom tile or oven accumulation. And obviously there's a fee for that (and putting it off to 2-4 months isn't actually necessarily helpful if it ends up meaning each cleaning takes much longer and thus costs more).
Not having used in forever nor ever run an AirBnB, I will say that yes, I can see it being annoying to get charged if you were just there overnight and caused no issues. And I strongly think that anything which is part of standard practice after every single visit should also be part of the upfront price not a "fee". Extra fees should only be for unique things, like someone actually creating a big mess that takes extra time. But I also think basic humanity that takes a few minutes is different from something that takes an hour and extra equipment. If you leave a sink full of dirty dishes or trash laying around that's disrespectful, gross, will get worse much more quickly then dust bunnies. I'd be ok with dinging someone for that. Cleaners aren't lesser people servants, they're specialist professionals there to help not be maids to spoiled brats. A hotel room (or BnB) mini kitchen isn't a full service restaurant. If you want that level of help that to me feels reasonable to say is extra.
Comes across as double dipping to me if the cleaning fee is exorbitant AND the guest is expected to make an accommodation spotless before checkout.
I'm not in any way saying it's respectable to leave "a mess" in an accommodation which charges a cleaning fee, but a small amount of dirty dishes in a sink (if there is no dishwasher) or not having washed linen is not in my view leaving a place "in a mess" as the host is expected to do a certain amount of cleaning regardless since trusting guests to do it would be reckless and this can be unreasonably time consuming for guests and challenging if they have small kids.
If there is _no_ cleaning fee and the terms were clear that full clean-up of the accommodation is expected, then fair enough, guest saves on cost by doing the work themselves and if they don't they deserve a negative rating.
I guess AirBnb has found that many hosts use it as an excuse to penalize guests or to claim it's not the host's fault if the place was not clean on arrival of the next guest, so it's just simpler for AirBnb to set a baseline of host service expectation.
Dirty dishes are meant to be in the sink, and trash is meant to be in the trash can. There's no disrespect to cleaners by leaving things where they're meant to be. It doesn't make you a "spoiled brat".
If anything it means more of the $150 cleaning fee actually goes to the cleaners. Otherwise the cleaners only get paid for 30 minutes of light dusting and changing sheets while the owner pockets the rest.
>Taking out a loan for something that depreciates as fast as a car seems like the dumbest thing a person could do.
...what? For most the world by area (so at least 20-30% of the population, even in Europe) arbitrary point to point mechanical transportation is a requirement for work/life at least a significant chunk of the year. Most will also either flat out need, or find quite valuable: 1) Having that capability on demand. 2) Being able to permanently customize it to suit their needs (be it accessibility, having tools and organizational systems onboard, or most basically having what can be transported along with them match their common/rare needs).
The most economical way to manage that in general is owning your own vehicle. But it's a large capital expenditure upfront. Getting a loan to spread that out over time is one of the most basic purposes of debt. The ROI is in the actual utility, not in some sort of asset appreciation. Which is how most economics is right? I didn't replace all my incandescent bulbs with LED bulbs because I expected to be able to resell them later for more money, I bought them because they deliver far more useful visible wavelength photons per watt, and with more precise tuning and far less toxicity and other concerns then fluorescent. If I needed to replace 10k bulbs and wanted to get a loan for it the economics would be pretty straightforward to pencil out even with the expectation the entire value of the bulbs would go to zero wouldn't it? Taking out a loan for an EV car isn't any different.
> The most economical way to manage that in general is owning your own vehicle.
It might not be the most economical way to manage that. Often owning a car is seen as a status symbol, and economically it would be more rational not owning one. But I doubt many people do a really thorough honest calculation - they don't have to, they can afford a car. In that way, a car loan is helping them to do the, strictly economically speaking, wrong thing.
> But it's a large capital expenditure upfront.
Yes, which is why in many countries the private owners are not the biggets market for new cars; instead, companies are, because they have the incentives to buy new. And private owners mostly buy on the secondary market.
>In 1875, Charles Darwin posited that some species from the genus Saxifraga—a group of flowering plants typically found in alpine environments—may be carnivorous because of their sticky glandular hairs, which can trap insects. However, there has been a lack of conclusive evidence to support this hypothesis.
Can you clarify how you got "But Darwin, if I understand correctly, classified the plant as carnivorous" out of that? Because it sounds like Darwin observed that there existed this feature on the plants that appeared adapted to carnivorous behavior, but didn't actually observe it in action (and of course he didn't have isotopic tracking to provide hard proof of molecular absorption either). So it was a hypothesis based on feature observation, and now someone has gotten around to proving that as fact via experiment. Not something radically new in terms of technique sure, could have been proved long ago in principle (this sort of tracking was core to what settled the original DNA/protein genetics debates), but still fun to read about and nice to see more getting learned about the species in our world.
Something else to think about, if some potentiating invention would have taken place a few decades earlier, it would have been quite likely that by 1875 there would have been effective isotope analyses available.
Also the further back you go into the 19th century, the more likely it is that the potentiating invention would be completely unrelated to nuclear chemistry.
Regardless, that same potentiating invention (whatever it is) is surely responsible by now for a whole lot more things other than nuclear science.
I think it's a bad sign when someone immediately resorts to strawmen and argument from incredulity in their counter-argument:
>If a consumer website decided tomorrow that it would only accept attested passkeys, it would lock out almost all of its own users, instantly. What website is going to do that?
The original didn't argue that, nor has absolutely anyone else concerned, nor has that been what has happened in historical examples people were concerned about. Because yeah of course that's ridiculous, it's "boiling a frog" by throwing it in already boiling water, that's not how it works. If anyone has freedom-reducing longer term plans for use of passkey attestation, the emphasis is on "longer term", being malicious doesn't mean being stupid. Step 1 is obviously getting people into the passkey ecosystem and out of passwords at all, which could well take years. And importantly as much as possible into closed passkey ecosystems. This is indeed one of the initial danger signs, because the author:
>iCloud Keychain, Google Password Manager, 1Password, Bitwarden
Is mixing together things that aren't like the other. Quick author, what's the EXPORT story for each of these ecosystems? Of those, Bitwarden can export a passkey into a plain JSON if you want. Do the others support that too, or at best only "app to app" encrypted transfer, creating a closed ecosystem? Already, can I get passkeys from iCloud/Google/1Pass into KeePass? Or is this restricted """for my protection :^)"""?
Author doesn't even touch on the lock-in that's already beginning. And right now everyone can technically claim "oh no of course you're not locked in! You just have to use an official option, or you can merely visit hundreds of sites individually and register new passkeys in all of them". Is it hard to see how players like Bitwarden would be pressured on continuing to offer plain export?
Then when most of the population is using passkeys everywhere in a closed ecosystem, now what is the response if friction slowly starts getting added. OK, you can still use what you like, but only export to other approved players. OK, you can still use unattested, but it's off by default now, "advanced users" can go enable it with this checkbox in the settings. OK, manual is still an option, but now it's buried deep and behind dark patterns and requires a text command. Hi everyone, we have statistics to show that only 0.85% of our users still use unattested keys. The support burden and security risk is now too high."
>IMHO, that also should be addressed from the legal perspective very strongly
Then do that FIRST (or at the same time). Don't give us, yet AGAIN, the tired bs song and dance about how you'll make things worse first and then totally someday address the other part properly, and oops what a surprise that turns out to be too hard nevermind.
>But forcing Safari for every Apple owner is certainly not the solution.
Objectively it is a solution though. Because it's been done, and it's been more effective than nothing, while meanwhile nothing has happened from a legal or political angles. If a better solution can be done down the road great, but a hack dealing with a problem non-optimally can absolutely be better then just having the problem completely unaddressed. And count me skeptical that any government is going to have the will or capability to actually address what a lot of us already hate about not just the Chrome monopoly but that entire approach (I don't in fact want my web browser to be a full lowest common denominator operating system with low level hardware access thanks). I dislike much of what Apple does now but I'm glad their selfish interests have happened not to align that way either. Until monopoly lock-in gets better addressed, one of the main ways to push back is via another monopoly lock-in that has different incentives.
>Because the minimum wage under US law for a tipped job is $2.13/hour and most find it socially and morally problematic to deny that person their primary source of income.
This is a common but incorrect meme and misunderstanding. Setting aside that the federal min wage of $7.25/hr is a universal floor and states can (and many do) go much higher, the difference for tipped jobs is that it becomes a "guaranteed minimum" instead of "guaranteed payment". Ie, for an untipped job, the employer must simply pay minimum wage or higher, period. For a tipped job, the employer must pay the $2.13/hr no matter what, but if the amount of tips the employee gets plus averages out to being equal or greater than $7.25/hr the employer doesn't need to pay more. However, if the employee does not get enough tips to reach $7.25/hr, the employer must make up the difference. So ultimately nobody is allowed to end up with less than minimum wage. The law just allows a different path to get there for tipped employees. If nobody tipped at all, employees would still get minimum wage (or higher).
Of course, it's completely reasonable to argue that federal minimum wage itself is disgustingly low. It doesn't auto-adjust to reflect inflation, and the highest purchasing power it ever had was back in 1968. Congress last increased it to $7.25 in 2009 and has left it that way 17 years later. Even by official definitions of the federal poverty line (themselves grossly outdated underestimates), minimum wage is below it. But it's still not good to confuse the matter by claiming any employer is legally allowed to let their employees end up with below minimum wage (that some certainly break the law is important too of course).
Edit: Straight from the horse's mouth (department of labor's FLSA page):
>The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires payment of at least the Federal minimum wage to covered, nonexempt employees. An employer of a tipped employee is only required to pay $2.13 an hour in direct wages if that amount plus the tips received equals at least the Federal minimum wage, the employee retains all tips and the employee customarily and regularly receives more than $30 a month in tips. If an employee's tips combined with the employer's direct wages of at least $2.13 an hour do not equal the Federal minimum hourly wage, the employer must make up the difference.
>Some states have minimum wage laws specific to tipped employees. When an employee is subject to both the Federal and state wage laws, the employee is entitled to the provisions which provides the greater benefits.
>Arguably, you'd still have better productivity had you not have to sign-in.
No, that is not arguable for anyone who takes more than a few seconds to think about it. Signing in has nothing to do with authentication, it's about things like "I want to have my own preferences set for showdead/noprocrast/etc. I want to maintain my own lists of favorites." Authentication & security are about making sure others don't access/alter your account or use your property or the like without permission, not about there being infinite resources and everyone being perfectly identical.
No, because someone else will then come along and mess up your configuration and destroy your work, either accidentally or just to be a jerk, which will set your productivity back significantly.
>You can easily have you own configuration without logging in.
Are you trying to gaslight/troll us now? Separate user accounts is precisely the mechanism of having your own configuration on a multiuser system. Log out of Hacker News right now (or open in a private window or whatever), and then tell us how to "easily" configure showdead/noprocrast/topcolor etc without an account. How do I sit down at my Mac or BSD or Linux machine and have everything the way I want with no logging in?
>I would love to hear about a world where security and productivity are not counter acting forces.
Well, it's this one? Or at least for a wide array of practices. To take a trivial example, can you explain how switching encryption from DES to AES (a clear improvement to security) is counteractive to productivity? Of course not, whether it's AES or ChaCha20-Poly1305 or ROT13 the choice of underlying cipher is transparent to the higher level user/application. Or how about reducing memory overflow bugs? That improves security, while also reducing a certain class of crashes. How is reducing software crashes counteractive to productivity?
Even if we take your silly example you clearly intend as a gotcha:
>For a start, most people would certainly be more productive if they hadn't had to authenticate themselves.
People have to identify themselves though in a multi-user environment anyway. Even completely putting aside any sort of security, we all of course have our own preferences for work environment, our own collections of data, etc etc etc. Duh. When we access a system (be it via GUI or CLI or web site) we need to say "I want to use xyz account" anyway. So the marginal cost to auth well can be zero. Using a password manager means "entering user name" and "entering user name and password at the same time" both have the exact same cost: 1 click of a button. Or if using a smartcard/USB PIV token or the like instead, it again can be the same effort: insert it, tap something.
Certainly it's true that sometimes there are unavoidable tradeoffs. But there's a lot of low hanging fruit where things can be made more convenient/productive and more secure at the same time.
No, I'm honestly engaging with the topic and your post, vs tossing around insults.
>The premise was not to enhance security, but to design a world where security and productivity are not tradeoffs.
And I gave you examples, including engaging with your own example/question. You claimed that "most people would certainly be more productive if they hadn't had to authenticate themselves". But IDing and authenticating are different operations, people would need to ID regardless even in a world where no security was necessary. So if the marginal cost of auth over ID is zero, then by definition that means there is no tradeoff between security and productivity. Something like a security key/card is an example of accomplishing that. Plugging that in and typing 6 numbers or touching it is not merely no extra effort vs typing my user name alone, it's literally faster.
And again to other examples, anything transparent to the user is, again, by definition not an impact on productivity. For another not merely "common" but "near universal" example, see full disk encryption (which is now often the default even with no authentication at all). FDE definitely addresses a few classes of threat scenario. What do you argue is the tradeoff in productivity?
>In this particular case the credit goes go the opposite side. They screwed up so much as to make this possible.
I'm sorry, but this is complete horse manure, albeit it's become a favorite fantasy/apologist/woe-is-me take on the right as the Trump disaster continues to unfold. But the opposition had NOTHING to do with Trump being chosen for POTUS. The Right had a perfectly decent choice: Nikki Haley. She had plenty right policies and no doubt would have made much of the left very upset, but she is also intelligent, sane, and cares to the normal degree about the country and basics of the constitution. She'd have been fine. She'd also have trivially creamed Democrats, and be holding Congress vastly better fwiw.
But out of the entirety of the US, only a single state (Vermont) voted against Trump. Every single last bit of the rest of the country chose Trump. There were no Democrats on the list for the Republican primary. Republicans could have sent Trump packing no problem, and then taken the WH and a bigger chunk of the House/Senate to boot. Trump being in the general and then WH was and forever will be 100% on the GOP.
> But the opposition had NOTHING to do with Trump being chosen for POTUS. The Right had a perfectly decent choice […]
So did the Democrats. They clung to the worst possible choice, and in the last minute replaced him with the second-worst possible choice. Absolving them of fault and putting 100% of the blame on Trump voters is the fantasy of the Left.
How did Democrats have the choice of Haley vs Trump?
>Absolving them of fault and putting 100% of the blame on Trump voters is the fantasy of the Left.
No, it's sanity of the remaining non-radical Right, and has nothing to do with the Left at all. The Democrats were not in charge of the Republican primary. Only Republicans were. Only Republicans were responsible for Trump being their coalition's nominee, all three times. They had every possibility to eliminate him with no Democrat input at all. They wanted him as POTUS vs every single other Republican possibility in a nation of hundreds of millions of people, that's all there is to it.
I was obviously talking about the Democrats' choice of candidate. If they hadn't tried to force-feed the worst two of the plausible candidates to the electorate, Trump wouldn't have stood a chance.
>Who do we think those costs will be passed on to....
Those costs are ALREADY passed on to everyone, that's the entire problem! Externalized costs are still costs, someone (or everyone) must still pay them. But when they're externalities instead of internalized, then they're hidden (which leads to gross inefficiency) and they're imposed on people who get no benefit and no choice (which is theft). Mass pollution is literally stealing money and life from a population and inefficiently funneling some of that back to the thief/thieves. It's as if transport companies were stealing 50% of the fuel they used to fill their trucks, and people came along saying "you need to pay for all the fuel you use", and then you argued against that saying "well who do we think those costs will be passed on to...."
When the costs are built into the price, then the direct participants pay, that filters out, and everyone can see exactly what they are and are appropriately incentivized to search for solutions to reduce them, same as every other cost that goes into a good or service. The Free Market is essentially a massively distributed constraint solver, and the "invisible hand of the market" is the cumulative billions of independent actions taken by participants in response to the system constraints and what they know. To function sustainably and efficiently, there has to be a high degree of information symmetry and cost internalization, or else decisions will obviously be distorted.
If one is worried about cost burdens, the best general place is direct unencumbered monetary payment to end consumers in need [0]. That is both very low administrative overhead, and still leaves them in a position to make the most efficient decisions for their own personal situation and fully reward producers who do a better job and reducing costs/improving quality.
----
0: Or arguably even better, a universal flat payment to the whole population, but the politics of that are harder.
>> "Commercial trucks should bear the fair costs to make it equitable" Who do we think those costs will be passed on to....
> Those costs are ALREADY passed on to everyone, that's the entire problem!
I think, you're confused about "the entire problem" - it's not that "costs are ALREADY passed on to everyone" it's about the alternative approach leading to the same result.
Actually, now the costs are passed mostly to drivers, in the case of making trucking pay more, they will be passed to all consumers, a minor difference.
> If one is worried about cost burdens, the best general place is direct unencumbered monetary payment to end consumers in need.
And the cost of that subsidy will be passed to? ... Again, everyone else of course. No change in actual outcome.
I'm not saying all subsidies are bad and I hate toxic fumes as much as anyone but solving these problems requires an approach much deeper than rearranging the chairs on the Titanic.
But if the companies actually creating the costs have to bear their burden directly—even if they can pass some portion of that cost on to their customers—that means they have a direct incentive to do something about it.
Prioritize routes that have higher-quality roads, rather than just going the fastest from point A to point B.
Maybe so, but it will also push smaller providers out of business and foster monopolization, the latter is usually more costly and less concerned about environmental impacts. As I said, when the system is chaotic, something is going to get in the way.
This idea gets brought up every time someone suggests adding regulations to prevent some harm large companies are doing—no matter how common-sense, no matter how great the harm, if you're adding regulations, that must hurt the little guy more; that must increase monopolization.
So I gotta ask:
What solution would you actually propose?
Do you genuinely think that the system as it exists today is the best it could ever possibly be?
Do you think we should be removing regulations? Sure, that would mean that big companies have even more freedom to ruin our roads and wreck our health, but hey, maybe an extra 3% of small businesses might be able to become profitable!
Because I'm pretty sick of people pushing the idea that any change we make to improve things is necessarily going to backfire and we're just too stupid and naïve to see it.
> if you're adding regulations, that must hurt the little guy more; that must increase monopolization.
That's the opposite of my position, adding regulations can work both ways, I meant it the other way around.
> Do you genuinely think that the system as it exists today is the best it could ever possibly be?
Again, the opposite of what I said. Improving the system requires systematic approach, fixing here and there without it results in a mess worse than before.
> Sure, that would mean that big companies have even more freedom to ruin our roads and wreck our health, but hey, maybe an extra 3% of small businesses might be able to become profitable!
Removing the income of "extra 3%" which is many thousands people for a rather minuscule, supposed reduction of pollution isn't worth the tradeoffs. If you can't solve the big problem don't mess with an already unstable system - fix the system first.
> Because I'm pretty sick of people pushing the idea that any change we make to improve things
We're where we are because of much emotion and many changes to improve things, to paraphrase, The road to hell is covered with many changes to improve things. This is what happens without a systematic approach to improvement.
Are you serious? I do the dishes and take out trash/recycling (and other regular cleaning work) as an obvious matter of course to not live in a total stinky shithole. But also once a month we pay for a real service to do a serious cleaning that gets into all the corners and under furniture and ceiling and descaling in the bathroom (hard water) etc etc, which my SO wants kept up with and I think that's reasonable. Between kids, pets, guests and so on more accumulates in a house then trivial regular clean up deals with. They're not the same thing; everyone is expected to do their dishes and contribute to taking out the trash or other chores, but not necessarily to putting on heavier duty protective kit and dealing with bathroom tile or oven accumulation. And obviously there's a fee for that (and putting it off to 2-4 months isn't actually necessarily helpful if it ends up meaning each cleaning takes much longer and thus costs more).
Not having used in forever nor ever run an AirBnB, I will say that yes, I can see it being annoying to get charged if you were just there overnight and caused no issues. And I strongly think that anything which is part of standard practice after every single visit should also be part of the upfront price not a "fee". Extra fees should only be for unique things, like someone actually creating a big mess that takes extra time. But I also think basic humanity that takes a few minutes is different from something that takes an hour and extra equipment. If you leave a sink full of dirty dishes or trash laying around that's disrespectful, gross, will get worse much more quickly then dust bunnies. I'd be ok with dinging someone for that. Cleaners aren't lesser people servants, they're specialist professionals there to help not be maids to spoiled brats. A hotel room (or BnB) mini kitchen isn't a full service restaurant. If you want that level of help that to me feels reasonable to say is extra.
reply