I have noticed a pattern these days - people publicly criticise certain behaviours and then they do exactly what they criticise. They think that majority of people won't actually verify that and such message will embed a positive impression about that person. Then you have people rather lie to themselves rather than accept that they were wrong, so if they later find out that those people actually were doing what they spoke against, they will dismiss it and rather keep the embedded good image. It's fascinating.
I wonder if there were any studies about that as it seems like so many organisations or people exploit this these days.
Well, Orwell had a thing or two to say about this in 1984. It's incredibly common in party politics.
If you are the party that always criticize something, nobody will believe that you are doing it. So, if you plan on doing something, you accuse our largest opositor of doing it, loudly and repeatedly.
If you own the media then you can sit back and relax. At most you'll get few days of moaning and things will go back to normal. Majority of people won't even know or connect things anyway.
If media are licensed, then they will never run anything that will upset government too much. I've seen this many times. Even if hostile nation's media pick up the topic and report it honestly, the government can dismiss it as a conspiracy theory or just say it is an attack.
Ultimately even if people see all the evidence, most of the time they'll pretend they didn't and stick with the status quo.
Things are obviously more complex than everybody just automatically not believing, and owning the discourse makes all the difference (although owning the press like a sibling comment says is overkill). But it happens again and again on politics, and rarely becomes a problem.
Hey, please correct this disinformation, its not a good look. Unaccompanied minor immigrants without documentation are safeguarded in facilities now, not jailed in cages.
It's true they existed before, but they were used in situations when an underage child arrived to the border. Or child was found with human traffickers. They weren't splitting children from parents for longer than 42h.
Trump was the one that made the cages full, by implementing the zero tolerance policy, separating children with parents and often deporting the parents making it difficult to reunite them.
Last I checked, Biden wasn't separating children from their parents at the border as a blanket policy and using them as leverage to get the parents to go away. Emphasis on BLANKET POLICY. Obama/Biden didn't put every child in a cage the way steven miller did.
So no, I dont' see hypocrisy here.
Its night and day. Trump's stewardship put these children in a lord of the flies scenario where they had to take care of each other and the leadership acting more like prison guards than caretakers.
I agree that Biden should close those things down but he cant just release the children into the wild. He got left with a timebomb and care has to be taken when dismantling it. Time will tell if he commits to transitioning these children to more appropriate living facilities and finding their parents (https://reason.com/2020/10/21/545-migrant-kids-snatched-by-t...) or relatives. He's been president less than 2 months. it will take time to see if he honors his commitments.
They seem to locate parents for 1/6 of them within a month where trump administration just thrown hands in the air that nothing can be done, when court ruled that the children should be reunited.
> ...it will take time to see if he honors his commitments.
"I will not ban fracking." ...bans fracking
"$2,000 stimulus checks for everyone." ...$1,400 checks for some
"I have an extensive plan for COVID." ...doesn't have a COVID plan
"We need to close the immigration facilities used to separate parents and children." ...Trump admin closes one site. Biden admin reopens it
"I will eliminate President Trump’s... MPP on day one." ...hasn't ended the MPP
So far, at least on the hot ticket items, he's not running a great track record.
He's done a bunch of little stuff, but the big things promised during the campaign have systematically failed, and several the exact opposite direction.
So, sure, let's see if the career politician honors his commitments. I'm not holding my breath.
Well, that "problem" presupposes an upward or stagnant trend, which are not demonstrably true. Then the admittedly harmful act of racism was used to accelerate resolution of "that problem".
Here's the problem with that:
- it was not demonstrated that other more productive forms of change were ineffective; in fact, history shows there has been tremendous progress in the absence of "racism to fight racism"
- it has not been shown that "racism v racism" has improved "that problem"
- it is yet to be shown the negative consequences of such a strategy, but history is full of examples of further suffering, not less
You call it "reasonable", and yet I find a complete lack of reason in its use. When challenged to provide reason, all responses I've witnessed reflect an attitude of, "I don't need to give you a reason/justify it".
To my mind, that is precisely absent of reason, so I challenge your assertion that it is in any way "reasonable".
A steady forward trend of progress seems quite reasonable. As long as you are not the one who was on the receiving end of past injustice.
In basketball, if someone gets fouled while trying to make a shot, is it unfair that everyone has to stand back while the person fouled gets to shoot free throws just because they are wearing the same color uniform?
It would be great if we could leave race out of the equation when trying to right past wrongs. Unfortunately, when a past wrong was committed based solely on race, given limited resources, the remedy likely needs to be based on race as well.
Okay, first up: make sure we're talking about the same thing.
I'm talking about hiring (etc.) quotas requiring the demographics of (e.g.) a workplace to be roughly similar to the demographics of the general population. Fuzzy quotas, so a two-person team doesn't have to be representative but a 20 000 person company shouldn't be almost exclusively white men in their 30s.
Everyone thinks they’re different. This other person’s bad behavior is a pattern, but my own is one time things. I’m certain I have my facts right about their behavior from skimming these articles/internet comments, but they are wrong about what I’m doing because they’re too lazy to do their own research. They don’t deserve it, but I do. They’re doing it in bad faith, but I’m not. Their behavior is inexcusable, but you’re missing context to understand mine. Or my favorite: their ends (which I don't understand) don’t justify their means, but mine do.
it is not new, it is called Projection. It has been around for as long as humans existed. it is easier to spot today because of internet and archiving tools that means everything you ever say or do is recorded for all time.
> They think that majority of people won't actually verify that and such message will embed a positive impression about that person.
That's pretty accurate, though. 80% of people are too distracted or lack the intellectual rigor to put two and two together, or even care about doing so.
The author misunderstands some of the complaints against Apple. In this case: (1) Apple is effectively a monopoly, much more so than shopify. (2) the author can still sell to customers your SAAS service, just not through the shopify store. (3) I could be wrong but I believe the shopify store brings lots of customers. For most developers on the app store, apple does not bring customers (this is why many people argue that apple might take a higher cut for those who find your app on a chart, and a lower cut for just using the link or branded search).
If they don't believe the inbound flow is worth it, then just selling direct to customers should make sense.
We don't know this specific scenario, but it's highly likely that the application in question directly reads or writes non-public data on their clients' storefront operations and accounting. In that case, there's very much a sense of lock-in. Shopify does not have an open API where anyone can access data given an OAuth token; it will not let this app use their API unless it complies with their terms. See: https://shopify.dev/concepts/apps#public-apps
In comparison to Apple, phone user : Shopify merchant :: app developer : this SaaS business. If I as a consumer think that Apple policies are too stringent, I can pay money to buy an Android phone. But the cost to me as a merchant of switching from Shopify to a custom site where I can choose who connects over API, once my business is underway and has built a brand identity, is absolutely prohibitive.
App approval processes are app approval processes, plain and simple. And if you make revenue share a precondition of using your APIs, you don't have open APIs.
> Shopify does not have an open API where anyone can access data given an OAuth token
We do offer a full GraphQL and REST API that can be accessed through private app keys (apps installed outside of the app store) or through the app store oauth tokens.
If properly motivated SaaS companies can switch from one cloud provider to another (AWS <-> GCP <-> Azure), a far more technically difficult operation, it’s eminently possible to switch off Shopify. It’s far from cheap or easy so the business may decide it’s not worth the time or money, but far more difficult technical migrations have happened. Be aware of your options - if Shopify decided to raise the price they charge 10x, would you really just roll over and pay it because it’s “absolutely prohibitive” to move of them? 100x? Your branding is your own, and Shopify does not control that - you do. I’m not saying you should move off Shopify for the fun of it, just that alternatives exist.
Here's an interesting angle: Shopify apps literally make money for Shopify even without the 20%.
Since these apps are mostly marketing (upsells, abandoned cart reminders, upgrades etc), they drive sellers' revenue = they literally bring more profits for Shopify, or am I missing something?
I don't understand how Apple can expect to charge 30% when the user is not buying from the app developer, but just using the app to purchase from a seller through the app developers app and store... Shopify doesn't have 30% margin to give to Apple, do they? That doesn't seem right to charge that to Shopify when they're not selling an app feature directly to the user.
Is it impossible to reach and provide your service to Spotify merchants without going through the Spotify app store? If yes it's hypocritical, if not then the situation is totally different than what is going on with Apple.
I agree with the case being different to Apple. And not sure why it is hypocritical. Not to mention Shopify holds no clear monopoly over e-commerce. Unless people want to argue the Shopify has a monopoly on Shopify App Store.
> Unless people want to argue the Shopify has a monopoly on Shopify App Store.
They're trying to enforce exclusive control over transactions made on their platform, which sounds a whole lot like Apple to me.
And also not unreasonable, IMO (since it's the business model their platform is built around), although their CEO trying to ride the outrage train for political points is pretty distasteful, especially when his own company is doing the same thing.
In US, one could argue Apple has a monopolistic position on Smartphone. Today, the iPhone has 66% market share in the United States, 75% of U.S. App Store revenues, and over 80% of time spent on the mobile internet.