It's not very clear in OP, but is reported better in other places.
> Apple employees attempted to mislead the Court by testifying that the decision to impose a commission was grounded in AG’s report. The testimony of Mr. Roman, Vice President of Finance, was replete with misdirection and outright lies. He even went so far as to testify that Apple did not look at comparables to estimate the costs of alternative payment solutions that developers would need to procure to facilitate linked-out purchases.
> The Court finds that Apple did consider the external costs developers faced when utilizing alternative payment solutions for linked out transactions, which conveniently exceeded the 3% discount Apple ultimately decided to provide by a safe margin. Apple did not rely on a substantiated bottoms-up analysis during its months-long assessment of whether to impose a commission, seemingly justifying its decision after the fact with the AG’s report.
> Mr. Roman did not stop there, however. He also testified that up until January 16, 2024, Apple had no idea what fee it would impose on linked-out purchases […] Another lie under oath: contemporaneous business documents reveal that on the contrary, the main components of Apple’s plan, including the 27% commission, were determined in July 2023.
> Neither Apple, nor its counsel, corrected the, now obvious, lies. They did not seek to withdraw the testimony or to have it stricken (although Apple did request that the Court strike other testimony). Thus, Apple will be held to have adopted the lies and misrepresentations to this Court.
As a man, is there anything I can do or avoid doing in the workplace to make it easier for coworkers like you? Let's assume I don't know and don't suspect anything specific about my coworkers. I just want to know if there's anything that would be pretty easy to implement, that would make a difference.
Mike Pence rule. Don't ever be alone with a vulnerable person without a neutral third party being present, it wreaks havoc on the threat-detection instinct. As the saying goes, "you're not paranoid if someone really is out to get you."
He asked how to make things easier for his vulnerable coworkers, not how to cover his ass.
Honestly, my suggestion would be to be open about your own experiences and the impact they've had on you. (Not necessarily abuse, but just offhand comments like 'oh, it's silly but I can't stand yelling because my dad yelled a lot' or 'I don't drink because my family's had issues with it', etc.) Be open and clear that a.) you don't judge people for being 'weird' and b.) you accept things other people need even if you don't need them.
Don't be overly emotional about it. Just accept their human needs in the same way you would if a coworker had a disability. Oh, that person needs more space between us? Alright. Not any different than a hard of hearing coworker who needs me to speak up a bit, or a visually impaired coworker who uses zoom on their computer.
My saying, "Hey, I have a bit of anxiety so I'm going to gather myself for a moment; do you think you could step back and give me some space and we could try to pitch this conversation a bit quieter?" shouldn't be much different than my needing a stepstool. I'm short. It happens.
If you treat the people around you as individuals, then people understand they can ask you for what they need.
> Honestly, my suggestion would be to be open about your own experiences and the impact they've had on you.
I'd imagine that many people would disagree with this. Dwelling on people's supposed 'weirdness' is not a healthy attitude (least of all when the 'weirdness' is our own) and would not be seen as "open" or "accepting" by many, but more of a signal of entitlement. If you think that the other person would benefit from something, just behave accordingly without dwelling on it, and people will hopefully realize that they can ask you for these things with no fuss.
Billy Graham was the originator of the concept in his ministry [0].
Not only does it help prevent things from happening that could be a problem later, it helps prevent even accusations of such, if it's well known that the person involved holds to this rule and expects others to hold them to it as well. Say what you will about Pence, love him or hate him, nobody is accusing him of sexual misconduct - and that's the point of the rule.
This can disadvantage those people in other ways though. Just trying to get work done, it helps to be able to drop into someone's office without arranging for a chaperone. Or stopping by somewhere without checking the number and gender of people who will be there ahead of time.
That's a very dehumanizing statement to me. I would never want to work at a place that doesn't treat its employees as humans. That doesn't mean I condone sex at the workplace, but I would not accept to be treated as less than a full human being.
Humans are not automata, and I don't aspire to be one, not even for "just" 8 hours a day.
The way you are expected to interact with humans in the VAST MAJORITY of situations is closer to how you are expected to interact with coworkers in a professional setting, than to a speed dating event or a crowded bar after midnight.
We're not having orgies in the street. In modern society you are expected to treat humans in the vast majority of situations without "sex" being relevant to the topic of discussion, whether it's on the street, in the grocery store, on the tram, or in the library.
Acting like this is not clear feels like an exercise in pedantic loophole seeking to justify sexual harassment. ("How are people even supposed to meet each other if I'm not allowed to <blank> to women in <blank>?")
First of all, the "VAST MAJORITY" of human interactions are irrelevant (cashier, bank clerk, passing people on the street). Given how much time you spend with coworkers, they'd qualify as friends, or acquaintances at least.
Also, there's a large gap between "professional behaviour" and "orgies in the street" or "sexual harassment". For example, I don't mind talking about menstruation or condoms with friends (who I'm not having sex with, nor have/would I ever try) but I don't think those would be appropriate topics for most workplace situations.
Your life must be quite different from mine. My casual conversations with my friend group - who are 20s and 30s liberals, mixed gender - are not office appropriate. I would certainly not bring any of the regular political debates into work either.
The amount of sex related conversation in my friend group is, from my perspective, normal but entirely inappropriate for work. Even my female barber talks about her sex life during haircuts.
At work I keep my sarcasm set to near zero, avoid politics, religion, and sex, and generally keep a narrow focus. Work is an artificial environment, but my coworkers don't get to choose me. It is on me to behave in a way that is beyond reproach.
Remember the context: OP literally advocated for never being alone with a woman without a third party present.
Yes, I have conversation with friends that are not work-appropriate.
And I also have conversations with coworkers that are casual and work-appropriate. Yet they can be friendly and reference current events (which are inherently political), religion (e.g. acknowledging ramadan fasting), sexuality (gender of partner), or the existence of sex (parenting). OK that last one is a stretch.
But still, you can do all this without needing to firewall your entire personality.
Ironically, the tech industry has provided an alternative solution - cameras recording everything everywhere. Dash cams to provide proof of what happened in collisions, workplace cameras to reduce liability for employers and also helps protect employees, home cameras also for liability reduction as well as protection against police lying about what happened…etc.
Ensure that there is more than one woman around in your company. Ensure your workplace policies are friendly and flexible for people who need mental health days, address family time, get pregnant, need sanitary equipment, parent children or other dependents, etc. Ensure all the women at your company have opportunities to work with and have women co workers, or women friendly gatherings like lunches, and be open to feedback to change policy accordingly once you have enough women coming together during their talks that they can suggest changes collectively.
Being the sole woman in a company of men when means your superiors are men, your peers are men, and the only recourse you may have if any of them act inappropriately towards you is to report it to another man.
Edit: respect boundaries and consistently remind that if they have a boundary they are free to enforce and you will respect that. Boundaries come in the form of more than “please don’t x”. They are also “I prefer x” or “can we y”.
> consistently remind that if they have a boundary they are free to enforce and you will respect that.
The clearest and most effective way of doing this is to proactively establish and propose safe boundaries for the other person's benefit. This is the underlying dynamic behind many rules-of-thumb of ordinary courtesy and politeness (often wrongly dismissed as some sort of useless, obsolete 'traditionalism'). Not everyone is so assertive and comfortable with themselves that they should be expected to verbalize their boundaries to you, or even to understand them proactively.
Fellow man, here, but I think I have something of value to add:
Learning to be open and friendly, and developing a sense for when someone doesn't want to talk to me has been an important part of growing up. I try to identify signals that a person wants to end their interaction with me, and respect their wishes immediately and in a friendly way.
Being "open and friendly" is no good when someone literally has shell shock(!) (aka PTSD) from interacting with people like you. You'll need to behave in such a way as to demonstrate to them that they can intuitively and securely trust you not to be an immediate physical threat, nor to pose any in the foreseeable future.
The quick rule-of-thumb is to be courteous and respectful but also establish very firm physical boundaries, even erring towards being less friendly as opposed to more. You also need to proactively signal that you will stop interacting with them at the slightest sign of their discomfort; keeping interactions short and to the point is an obvious way to do this, even though this outwardly looks "rude" and "unfriendly"!
Developmentally caused PTSD and shell-shock/war/later event PTSD have some differences.
For instance, those of us with developmentally-caused trauma often view every person as a threat, because we were abused by our caregivers. (In my case, my mother.) This is because we need our abusers to survive, so we're used to abuse being a necessary part of life and something that can happen at any time/during mundane interactions. We don't feel like anyone is safe. The only person my nervous system trusts is my baby sister. Trying to get me to recognize you as safe isn't going to work, because nobody is safe to me.
I realize that not everybody is a danger and my feelings are the result of my failing the parental lottery and not a commentary on every person I meet, which means it's my responsibility/job to retrain/calibrate my 'who is safe' sensors. It just takes practice and some patience sometimes.
People refusing to interact with me because they have different genitals than me isn't going to help, especially when most of my hobbies are male-dominated. It just conveys 'Ha, you're not a proper girl, so you don't deserve friends. Go learn to like clothes and boys if you want to hang out with people'.
Now, if you've been burned in the past by people using their mental illnesses to blame you for not understanding social cues, or had that used against you in the past, and you don't feel comfortable in mixed-sex interactions, that's fine, but that's a need of YOURS, not the women.
> Trying to get me to recognize you as safe isn't going to work, because nobody is safe to me.
This makes plenty of sense, but then I'm not sure why you're expecting others to be physically friendly with you. Having a "friendly" interaction with someone generally presupposes some degree of physical quasi-intimacy that would seem to be quite incompatible with "not feeling like anyone is safe" to be around. This doesn't mean you can't be friendly in many other ways of course, but these interactions will nonetheless be quite different from what folks might otherwise expect.
This is very interesting to me because this might be a huge sex socialization difference: I'm friendly, including physically, with people I would rather not be at least occasionally.
There's a couple of reasons for this:
1.) If you're a young, small, female, people will be in your space whether you want them there or not. Keeping it "friendly" makes sure that it doesn't turn violent. (Note: This isn't just from men: My go to example of a person disrespecting my space was a woman in undergrad who, upon meeting me for the first time, picked me up because I was so small and 'cute' to her.) Luckily, I'm over 30 and an old hag now! 10/10 do recommend. V. helpful!
2.) As a female, I'm expected/allowed to offer comfort to people, and that includes physically, so I'll do things like hug my friends when they're sad if they like hugs because I still want to support them even if I have PTSD. Or I hug and take care of my little sister because I know touch is important for her mental health and I value that. I also occasionally offer childcare/ have nieces and nephews or am in gatherings with children, and they touch.
I generally let people, and people know that I/Aunt Mezzie needs some quiet sometimes.
I also have MS and malfunctioning nerves; I view them similarly. "Wow, my brain has a lesion and now I can't feel my feet what." and "Wow, I'm traumatized and now I can't relax around people I like what."
> If you're a young, small, female, people will be in your space whether you want them there or not.
It's precisely when you're "young, small" etc. that this is not OK. These people are not being "friendly" to you, they should know better. And you're quite free to remove yourself physically from the interaction if they keep invading your boundaries.
> so I'll do things like hug my friends when they're sad
At least then you're initiating and thus controlling the interaction, with an acquaintance who's OK with it. It's not anything that you should be forced to do, but having one's boundaries be actively transgressed upon would likely be more stressful.
This wouldn't be Hacker News if someone didn't comment that ACTUALLY a random walk of n steps will get you sqrt(n) in some direction, which is much better than log(n). I guess my special skill is being pedantic.
I've come to realize that 'exponential' is so often used to describe anything nonlinear. This would be the exact corollary. Good to pick up on it. I'll look out for this too now.
Just curious, how did you arrive at sqrt(n)? I spent all morning thinking about this in 2 dimensions and I came up with sqrt(n^2 + d^2) where d is the displacement from the original position on the y axis. (Pythagorean theorem)
Central limit theorem. You get to √(n² + d²) if you take n steps to the right and d steps up. But if you take n steps randomly to the left or right, you end up at about α√n steps in one direction or the other, on average, because the distribution of your final position is a Gaussian around your original position whose standard deviation grows as √n.
Try it:
>>> n=1000; sorted(abs(sum(random.randrange(2) for i in range(n)) - n/2) for j in range(128))
As you increase n you can see the distribution of final distances widen by its square root.
As it happens, in two dimensions the distribution is radially symmetric, and its radius is still proportional to the square root of the number of steps. This accounts for the astounding isotropy of lattice-gas automata, whose particles are doing such random walks simultaneously, and for the depressing popularity of Gaussian filtering in image processing, because the Gaussian convolution kernel is the only anisotropic separable kernel, and can be closely approximated in each dimension very cheaply with a different application of the central limit theorem.
As does "when did Louis Armstrong set foot on the moon" and "when did Richard Nixon set foot on the moon"?
JFK, on the other hand, apparently "set foot" on the moon on May 25 1961 and "land[ed]" on the moon on September 12 1962, and Arthur C Clarke some time in 1968
Asked it when Keith landed on the Moon to see how it juggled those inputs, and to be fair it gave me a beautiful excerpt about an Apollo engineer called Keith who worked on some of the scientific equipment left there!
There's a good chance Netflix is behaving rationally.
Shows are like startups. The payoff is a very skewed distribution, i.e. median and mean are vastly different. After one season, I'd argue you have a pretty good estimate of the earning potential for a show. Maybe you're even off by a factor of two or three, but since the goal is to find a show with 10x or 100x the viewership, you're better off canceling a show with median success.
Actually it's probably a lot easier to predict the payoff for a show after one year, than for a startup. Startups can take multiple years to find product-market fit; shows rarely pivot dramatically.
[Update: I got the facts wrong with the following example, as someone nicely pointed out below! I think the general principle still stands.] Tuca & Bertie, for example, was canceled after one season, but the same people went on to make Bojack Horseman, which was a much bigger hit. Bojack would not have happened if Tuca were renewed, and Tuca would never have gotten as popular as Bojack.
The opposite is true. If you are a freelancer, healthcare premiums are an above-the-line deduction, which practically has the same effect as a business expense. This is better than a regular deduction because you get it even if you don't itemize deductions. See https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/home-ownership/deductin...
disable "always voice", and click a bit below hard palate, slightly to the right towards the lip (below the at in palate), so there will only be a small gap for the air to go through
The model also lacks mouth width/lip shape, which is crucial for differentiating between Swedish vowels (for example i vs y, which have most of the mouth the same except for y has the lips protruding and i is more of a smile).
