I'm sure you have seen the graph showing productivity increases aligned with incomes suddenly diverging in the 70's and incomes flat lining while productivity continued to increase linearly. Given the stark change, I don't think it was necessarily due to increased global competition. Where did the money that would have gone to improve salaries end up going? Having incomes flat line for the middle class for the last 40 years is not a good sign. Perhaps the money has gone to the billionaire class, but I am not sure. What is your take on that.
>Given the stark change, I don't think it was necessarily due to increased global competition.
First, there's no reason wages should track productivity. If the reason for productivity was capital investments for equipment (computers, machines, etc), then the return for labor makes little sense. Those gains should and would return to capital since that was the source of the gains.
Next, incomes are not the proper measure of benefit. What you should track is called total remuneration which includes benefits and cost to employ, which BLS tracks, and which have tracked much closer than the pop graph.
Also, most of those graphs I have seen use a different deflator for income versus productivity. When this is fixed, they again are much closer. If you link such a graph with proper sources I can show you.
Here's a post working through some of these issues for a commonly posted graph [1]. There's also papers at NBER claiming the pop graphs are wrong for similar reasons.
>Having incomes flat line for the middle class for the last 40 years is not a good sign.
Why not? Given that that it is not flat for women or minorities over that period, and there was increased global competition, automation and computers replacing lots of old jobs, I think it's great that wages haven't dropped overall.
It also hides that there have been incredible benefits given to workers that are not in wages. You need to look at BLS cost to employ as the metric. Starting around 1970 all sorts of federal regulation has been passed making workers safer and shifting a lot of benefits to employers.
Also median wage hides the fact workers have gotten younger as boomer retire. Younger workers earn less since they're earlier in their career. It is a fact that for each point in a career median wage has increased.
Would you say that women entering the workforce starting in the 70's may have contributed to the overall flattening of wages? (The workforce essentially doubled). So while their incomes increased, the effect was to flatten the total average?
>The Zen of Go is looking at individual persons and deciding whether it's net positive to cut them now, or 6 months from now, after their next performance review.
Your conclusion is nothing more than a hilarious ad hominem attack on the language.
Much of your complaints simply do not apply to many use cases for people when developing a server side web application. Just because Go does not have such features you are used to using in your high level language does not make Go a bad language. I also find it funny that you dislike the simplicity of the language because it apparently empowers "blue collar" types (uhk, how gross!) to do the jobs you are used to doing.
A certificate is a secret. The longer you have a secret the more likely it is to be learned by others. Expiry is about risk mitigation, the shorter the expiry the smaller the risk.
Here risk is exposure of the key or the certificate being compromised. If it takes X time to break a certificate then an attacker will know your secret for expiry - X. We’re being hopeful that 13 months is unattractive to attackers given the current values of X even at the nation state level, and with cryptography we always have to look into the future not what’s capable today. There’s also a “herd immunity” thing going on if we all have shorter expiry as there are no easier targets and the attacker has to become much more focused.
IMHO there’s also benefits in rotation your cert more often. If you do it once every three years it’s more likely the folks who did it last time aren’t with your company or just plane forgot what they did. I think 13 months is still too long, I’d prefer every quarter because it forces the investment is a control system to facilitate rather than half-automated manual tasks. But that’s not what this proposal from Apple ios about.
The original ballot was 3 yr -> 13 months with ballot 185 which did not pass. Text reason[0]:
> The validity period of certificates represents the single greatest
impediment towards improving the security of the Web PKI. This is because
it sets the upper-bound on when legacy behaviours may be safely deprecated,
while setting a practical lower-bound for how long hacks and workarounds
need to be carried around by clients.
Another reason I see is that your HTTPS certificates aren't invalidated when you don't renew a domain name, so an attacker could potentially MITM HTTPS if they previously owned the domain and had a valid long-lived certificate. The browsers all want automation and 90-day certificates, but that's the polar opposite of what CAs want.
>Do you want ISPs to inject random crap at the top of your website?
If your ISP does this, or if you are on a sketchy network somewhere, then maybe you should not use it at all. Get a new ISP, or use a VPN if you are that worried. If the webmaster is not sharing sensitive information on his casually maintained static website, then that is good enough reason not to use HTTPS. I know it sounds... uncaring.
It is true ordinary people, who don't understand the risks could get MITM'd and never suspect a thing. For some reason I still don't care enough to put HTTPS on my shitty old flash game website. I just can't be bothered. I think that is good enough of a reason. Blame should go on the ISP who are MITM'ing their customers.
Sure, but when the biggest (or only) ISPs in many countries are doing it, and you can prevent it by taking out 15 minutes to set up Let's Encrypt, that's on you.
Nope. They can get a VPN, or fight against their big ISP or government to stop such dubious practices. Your point of view seems to come from a standpoint of infantilization of these users.
You really do have to wonder about the sincerity of such an article, especially coming from such a prominent publication as the Economist. Why don't they just admit what they are instead of using subtle propaganda to influence people into their political ideology? Even more concerning is how half or more of the people in here seem to actually agree with it.
"Demoralization now reaches such areas that previously, not even comrade Andropov and all his experts would even dream of such a tremendous success. Most of it is done by Americans to Americans; thanks to a lack of moral standards. As I mentioned before, exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who is demoralized, he is unable to assess true information, the facts tell nothing to him. ... Only when a military boot crashes into his fat bottom, then he will understand."
The Western world has maybe 20-30 years left before serious political upheaval turns our way of life on its head. Call me a cook conspiracy theorist or make fun of my old quote from a kgb agent being pushed around in dubious circles today.
I think most informed Economist readers already are aware that they are, to some extent, being influenced by the “subtle propaganda” of the publication. I believe it’s part of their “thing”.
