How capable it is do you think at this moment. I guess we need 30 more years for software to get better, so less than 20 thousand children dies in the Gaza genocide.
reading a love letter to hitler. What? It doesn't say anything about the skin color?
> Tommy Robinson, is a British anti-Islam campaigner and one of the UK's most prominent far-right activists with a history of criminal convictions. [0]
> An AfD politician was fined 6000€ for posting crime statistics.
No, she was not fined for posting crime statistics [0].
> Kaiser published a tile on her social media accounts with the text "Afghanistan refugees; Hamburg SPD mayor for 'unbureaucratic' admission; Welcome culture for gang rapes?"
> [media posts] reinforce the "negatively abbreviated representation" and fuels an atmosphere of fear and rejection. In explaining the verdict, Halbfas also made it clear: "Those who attack human dignity cannot invoke freedom of speech."
She was found guilty of reinforcing negative stereotypes and by doing so she "violated the human dignity of a distinct group of Afghan refugees".
Where is the line between having anti-immigration politics and harming refugees? If free speech means anything it should at least protect political opinions, and that includes politics many of us find distasteful or racist.
Dragging somebody through the courts and fining them heavily for a simple social media post is pretty extreme. If her post was deserving of a €6000 fine what kind of commentary will get you fined €1000? Which opinions will get you a visit from the cops and a stern talking to? Who decides where the line is between acceptable political opinion and unacceptable hate speech? How are regular people supposed to tell the difference? Or are regular people just expected not talk about controversial subjects at all if they can't afford to pay a €6000 fine?
> Dragging somebody through the courts and fining them heavily for a simple social media post is pretty extreme
Simple cute social media post where she equates afghan refugees to gang rapists.
> Which opinions will get you a visit from the cops and a stern talking to?
Racist ones that leads to violence. Argument started from "going to jail in europe for posting memes" to "posting statistics" to blatant racist xenophobic stereotyping punished via financial penalty. Free speech crusade came all the way to this goal post.
Free speech must include unpopular and even grotesque speech. That's not moving the goal post that's the entire point.
It's no coincidence that the laws used to punish people for speech are exceptionally vague. There is no clearly defined benchmark of harm. In fact harm does not need to be demonstrated at all. Simply asserting without evidence that a blog "leads to violence" is sufficient for those who don't believe in free speech.
Calling such posts grotesque and unpopular is quite euphemistic. They are aggressive and dehumanizing. And the determination on what should or shouldn't be protected as free speech doesn't happen in a vacuum: these attacks were targetted at a minority which is already regularly assaulted violently just for going about their day, because of violence-inciting shitposts like that. Of course you can't usually prove that post A led to violent crime B, but simply pretending like telling people over and over again that some group is criminal scum isn't going to lead to more violence against them also can't be the solution.
I also think that such laws almost have to be kind of vague by necessity, because the agitators will just try and be clever for plausible deniability. The idea is that a judge will rule on it, and the accused gets legal representation to defend their case. Of course you can always find some case where you may think the ruling was too harsh (or too lenient), but overall, the system seems to work pretty well. You really have to dig deep to find one or two iffy cases.
"the Rotenburg District Court concluded that Kaiser had taken the quoted information out of context in the post text and knowingly risked that the tile would be perceived as incitement to hatred by an objective observer. Additionally, the rhetorical question violated the human dignity of a distinct group of Afghan refugees."
I am. She got a court date and she got legal representation. She got the chance to convince the court that she did not intend his post as an incitement to violence, and she failed to do so.
I strongly believe that inciting hate and violence against others should have consequences. And I'm glad to live in a place where society decided that there is no place for such things. We're not talking about political opinions here, but hate speech with clear intention to cause harm.
>My question is, did you change anything on your strategy after you were set on selling? Or the goal was still the same, optimize earnings?
Once I started the process of preparing the company for sale, it did change a lot of the strategy.
For example, one of the things I'd been thinking about was how to allow users to purchase recurring subscriptions to their TinyPilot Pro software licenses rather than having to remember to re-purchase every year. But once I started the sales process, that basically became non-viable because it meant I'd be investing thousands in software development, but it wouldn't pay off for another year or so, so it would weaken our profit and loss statements and result in a lower valuation.
There were a lot of things like that, where I had to reject any investment that wouldn't pay off in three months or less.
The other thing that was a bummer about preparing to sell was realizing that everything effectively becomes so much more expensive. Normally, if I want to give someone a $5k bonus, it costs me $5k. When I knew I was about to sell and wanted a 3x multiple, the $5k bonus effectively costs me $20k because it's $5k for the bonus itself and then -$15k for the sale price on a 3x multiple. I could try to argue that the $5k is "discretionary" and therefore not part of SDE, but I think the buyer would be in their right to argue that it's not discretionary, as it sets bonus expectations for future years.
> I'd been thinking about was how to allow users to purchase recurring subscriptions to their TinyPilot Pro software licenses rather than having to remember to re-purchase every year.
I actually hate the 'flip' side of this. Over the last few years I've lost track of the number of services/providers who think it is just fine to renew annual subscriptions (in some cases $400+) with zero warning of upcoming renewal. It's not the amount of the service that bugs me, but the fact that that isn't a small chunk of change, and even a "Heads up, we'll be billing your card in a week for your annual subscription" email seems too much to ask for, to some.
Everything was always that expensive, it was just less obvious.
What if you had moved to outsource the office tasks sooner? Could you have better invested that time and stress elsewhere?
The $100k per year improving hardware? Was that the best way to spend the money? Maybe it would have been better spent on marketing, or investing in reducing production costs with better tooling. Whatever the differential from what you spent was lost at 3x.
Gains often compound over time too. Cost reduction begets cost reduction.
Of course, thinking like this results in madness and moral hazard. I’ve seen companies do crazy, catastrophic things gearing up for sale.
It's so solid, you don't even get syntax highlighting in pr reviews. Solid single color like I'm reading a legal document.
You want to write suggestions in your pr review? You can only select a single line and you will have to write a regular code block not a suggestion block.
Your comments and discussions over that line? Gone, after a force push bitbucket acts like it saw the blinding light from men in black.
reply