Heard lots of similar stories i.e. for small businesses who can live without stripe's cool APIs, paddle is the way to go to avoid vat/gst/sales tax compliance headache
If you attempt to type your username & password while the page is loading, it'll keep trying to clear & refocus the username field. It forces you to wait for 5 to 10 seconds before you can use it. If you are typing without looking at the page, you will often end up entering a part of your password in clear in the username field. If you're impatient, you might even hit enter accidentally and send your password as your username to the server. Yahoo mail used to be like that, haven't used it in a long time.
Isn't there a huge problem with the resolution of the rift/vive being that of a monitor but it's got to render a monitor at distance thus losing pixels and being equivalent to an old vga monitor?
Looks like the screen in the video is about 1/3 of the view size in each axis. Rift resolution is 1080 x 1200 per eye, so about 360 x 400. That's even worse than VGA.
The Gear VR use your smartphone screen, not the Rift. That's a resolution of 1440 x 2560 for a Samsung Galaxy S7, which mean 1440 x 1280 per eye. The optic is also made to have more pixel in the center than the border of the viewport. I have no doubt that you can have a resolution similar to VGA with no issue and even better than that if you use a bigger screen. I'm pretty sure none of us had any trouble working in VGA back in the day either.
That... is awesome. Having done a Rift demo, that's the closest I can conceive of (right now) as real-life wizardry - a terminal for (virtual) reality.
> Barry Chang barely made it into the lobby when Apple’s security team surrounded and escorted him off the property.
I had to read it again to make sure I'm not making a mistake. Its unimaginable in some geographies. Evokes mixed feelings like : "cool, they can do that?" to "that's quite arrogant"
Also reminds me of a video where Steve Jobs met the council. The mayor was delighted like a teenager, showing off his iPad to Steve, asking for free Wifi : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtuz5OmOh_M ( t=19:54 )
This doesn't pass the sniff test for me. It makes it sound like a conspiracy when reality is usually so very mundane.
Companies don't do that unless people turn up randomly, start making crazy claims ("take me to Steve Jobs! I'm here regarding traffic congestion!") and start acting like an ass when they don't get what they want.
I would generally agree that someone like a mayor or governor deserves some default level of respect, but if he just showed up, unannounced, and "hoped to have a meeting" what did he really think would happen?
Most people, even mayors, make appointments when they formally visit another organization in an official capacity. They don't just walk in and expect to be seen.
> If he'd been a police officer investigating a crime,
Which means he'd have to have a warrant. If an Officer was "just investigating", they have to be invited or have a court order to get onto private property.
It's not quite that simple. If the police officer has probable cause to believe a crime is in progress, or the fire marshal believes a dangerous code violation might exist, woe to the dumbass who tries to escort them off the property.
Otherwise, yes, a police investigator needs permission, or a warrant, to go onto the Apple campus and ask questions or look around.
I agree. This is... worrisome behavior of a Mayor.
> Getting local politicians to battle Apple is hard, Chang said. He recently proposed that Apple – which is building a massive new campus its own employees nicknamed the Death Star, or more favorably, The Spaceship – should give $100m to improve city infrastructure. To move on the proposal, Chang only needed to get a single vote ‘yes’ among the three other eligible council members. He failed to get that vote.
What's his logic for this special Tax on Apple? It sounds like this guy is an anti-corporate loon, drinking too much Sanders juice or something. Sounds like the other council members are more rational.
I don't like this idea. Corporations should pay taxes and whatever, and not be treated specially just because they're the largest entity in the town.
A huge number of towns in America are basically run by one or two corporations. Cupertino is not unique in the slightest, aside from the fact that Apple is just a larger company.
But it really doesn't matter if you "only" have a $1 Billion market cap company headquartered in your small 30,000 town, or a $600 Billion behemoth like Apple. Its all basically the same: all your taxes are basically going to come from only one source.
------------
In either cases, you can run the town independently of the corporation. True: a lot of the corporation's workers will be your citizens, but keep the issues separate and keep things fair... and you ought to get what you need done.
The German city of Wolfsburg, and the state of Niedersachsen have done it with VW.
The solution: You just buy a large amount of shares of the companies that are started in your city. Municipalities get a far larger share of the profits directly, politicians have an incentive to ensure companies are profitable, and companies can’t avoid paying for the infrastructure they use.
That's an excellent point——can you imagine if the government of Cupertino bought AAPL shares in the 1980s? They sure wouldn't be complaining about tax revenues today!
This is an awful idea. Governments do not have the expertise to participate as an psuedo-activist investor. On top of that, what happens when the city's crown jewel goes bankrupt and those shares go to zero? Diversification is key. There's a reason why there were so many pension changes post-Enron. It's not good for individuals to be so heavily concentrated into a single company and it sure is not good for cities.
> Governments do not have the expertise to participate as an psuedo-activist investor.
Don't have an American bias when people share their cultures from around the world.
There are a lot of governments, and all of our experience with the American government basically means jack diddly with respect to the German government.
With that said, I do share your concerns, but I'm not going to make claims about a government I never visited and never worked with in my life that's roughly 10 time-zones away.
There's no American bias on this. If the world's activist investors employ extremely highly paid and numerous staff and maybe get things 50/50, what type of staff will a government employ that can do better?
Not all governments act like the typical government you know.
The German government, for example, owns several large banking groups, which act like any normal banking group – but their dividends directly go into the tax budget. (And they have to give loans at lower interest rates to the governments).
Normal bankers, in normal environment, and they’d probably never notice it was government owned.
My understanding is that Wolfsburg was built in order to house Volkswagen workers. There is a massive difference in planning a city around a specific need versus a well-established city investing in companies. While I still do not agree with governments investing in companies, I will say that it makes more sense if you are planning an entire city around it.
In all other cases, cities investing in companies are either going to take on a VC role which I'd very much argue that they are not capable of performing well (and introduces so much room for corruption) or will be investing in mature companies and likely without the balance sheet to make a dent as far as voting power goes. I don't see how either leads to anything productive.
And it means the municipal government provides funding for smaller companies, which gives those an advantage, and they don’t even take large risks either. It’s a win-win-win-win situation.
No, the idea that the city should have to provide roads, utilities, etc to a huge, rich corporation and get nothing back for their trouble is terrible.
Of course that would be absurd and unfair. That's why property taxes exist, to pay for local infrastructure. Apple pays a lot of property taxes in Cupertino.
Property taxes are based on the value of (and in some cases the type of use of) local property, that's reasonable because the costs incurred by the local government to build and maintain infrastructure is related to their use of land.
His argument seems to be that because Apple makes a lot of money they should also pay more taxes, luckily for him that's the way the system works! Apple also pays corporation tax on their income.
Unfortunately for him that tax is federal and not local so he doesn't get any more than any other local government does in federal contributions.
Creating the world's most successful company in your backyard, attracting high-value talent from all over the world, making Cupertino a household name...is "giving nothing back"?
Some of the people coming to Cupertino to work for Apple will buy houses in Cupertino, send their kids to school in Cupertino, spend the money they make in Cupertino, etc... Not to mention all of the extra jobs that need to be filled taking care of the buildings and the spoiled engineers, the hotel rooms for visiting emissaries and WWDC attendees, the construction jobs building those new houses and schools...
Edit: I don't want to sound like I'm saying "the town should be grateful for these scraps and nothing more", these are benefits to the town on top of the taxes that it pays.
That's a fair question. A massively successful technology company can locate itself just about anywhere it wants to. In fact, there are plenty of places that will offer very compelling incentives to a company like Apple to move into their locality. Why would they do that if it's of no benefit to the people? I guess you could argue that corrupt politicians will offer those incentives to secure bribes, etc., but here you have the mayor of Cupertino complaining.
Maybe if he described what these problems were, he's get my support.
But considering that he can't even get the support of his own citizens at Town Hall meetings, nor the support of his fellow council members, methinks he's simply incompetent.
And that the problems he describes are made up in his imagination. I can't imagine it to be too difficult to come up with a budget that says "We have to pay for X Million Dollars in the next year to fix the bridges and roads... or to upgrade our water pipes, or to deploy municipal gigabit-fiber. So here's a special +5% tax on all corporations in this Town"
And if the fellow citizens and council members think the plan is worth the tax, then they'll probably agree with him. On the other hand, if citizens are balling up his agendas and throwing them out during meetings... there's clearly a problem here. And it isn't with Apple. Its with the Mayor.
> Maybe if he described what these problems were, he's get my support.
I believe the city's infrastructure is struggling to cope with the city's growth. There was mentions of poor and congested roads.
> But considering that he can't even get the support of his own citizens at Town Hall meetings, nor the support of his fellow council members, methinks he's simply incompetent.
to be fair the article points out Apples image as a stumbling block to bring reform:
1) "In the case of Apple, people are so enamored with their iPhones that they can’t see the company. And year after year these companies are voted most respected, most trusted" - Matt Gardner
2) "he tried to organize a rally outside Apple. “But Apple has a pretty good image,” Chang said. “No one wanted to go"
> So here's a special +5% tax on all corporations in this Town
Chang has come up with such a proposal already, albeit it won't levy the extra tax on companies with less than a 100 employees.
> a problem here. And it isn't with Apple. Its with the Mayor.
That could be the case, though I'm leaning towards the Mayors side. This article doesn't go into much depth, and yield enough detail for me to come to a conclusion. I would do some background research but I honestly can't be bothered today. I have a feeling this isn't the last time we here of this, so i'll keep this in the back of my mind for future reference.
IE: Lets increase all corporate taxes by 3% in this city, to pay for a new road project. Here's the proposed road, etc. etc.
I mean, yeah, its hard to get approval from your citizens to build new roads. My area (on the East Coast) had to appease a ton of environmentalist types who refused to build a highway over any wetlands or swamps (ie: cheap areas), and the NIMBY guys who were being threatened with eviction.
But you propose a road (meet with engineers / architects, get some fancy drawings, write it up, build a website, etc.), you describe the costs (not just monetary, but also the houses you have to bulldoze, the "quiet" you have to disturb, meet with HOA communities to help gather support despite the costs), you raise a tax to pay for it, borrow some money with a bond and then it gets done. Its not easy, but its the freaking job of a Mayor.
---------
Why would the Mayor EVER have to explicitly reference Apple through this process? Only a complete dunce would do that, as it reeks of favoritism.
I'm reading through this entire piece, and its completely devoid of substance. The complaints are hilariously awful. I'm not sure if the Mayor is actually incompetent, or if the guardian is just awful at writing and completely focused on the wrong issues.
I mean, cripes. I've NEVER heard of a necessary road project being scuttled because of money. Its almost always the NIMBY people (to be fair, getting evicted from your family home for 50 years gotta suck because a road is being built through your plot), or environmentalists (Protect the swamp! protect the forest! Protect the grasslands!) who seem to get in the way. And NIMBY vs Environmentalists is a hell of an issue to work out.
(From near the end of the article) They (Apple) are already funding 18% of the city. I would argue that's dangerously undiversified already, and they want to increase the percentage?
How much of the city services do they use? How much of the city expenses is their "fair" share?
Try just walking into a telephone company like ATT or BT building unannounced and you will be escorted out even assuming you can get past the turnstiles, Exchanges (Central Offices) have even stricter security.
> submit ranking code to public github repo, the algo will be played by thousand SEO scammers to their advantage
Just a thought :
Ranking code could itself learn & adapt to each individual user (the learned "weights" could be sync'd online across your devices). Weighted signals from users can be fed back to the mother ranking algorithm (un-customized one). Basically millions of distributed deep minds[1], instead of a single one.
I can imagine there are a lot of holes in my theory, but we can't simply accept that open sourcing the algorithm implies that it can't be done.
