TheOperator

The fact you can't hardly buy a copy of word without having a copy of teams thrown in is what's the issue. You can't get excel with powerBI without also having to buy teams. It's more how Microsoft sells Teams than the fact that Teams exists at all that raises my eyebrow. Teams doesn't sell Teams, Word and Excel sell Teams.

Really saying that Microsoft won't let you buy their most popular products alone is just another way to phrase this situation.

Microsoft is much more capable of meeting any compliance demands around cloud data storage than a company like Slack is. Microsoft builds clouds for militaries.

One will recall that Internet Explorer was literally integrated into Windows 98, replacing the file explorer at one point, so Microsoft could argue they couldn't unbundle it.

WeChat and Indian "Super Apps" followed this model to grow to success. WeChat Pay in 2013 was basically like Facebook taking WhatsApp and using it to become a player competing against MasterCard/Visa.

Yes you can build a giant do it all monolith app to duplicate your competitions features and then crush them. The fact the apps are packed as a single program instead of via distinct programs isn't THAT meaningful and I'm kind of happy it isn't otherwise we would veer into lawyers designing programs more and more.

The Slack/Microsoft thing smacks of anticompetitive behavior simply because Teams is essentially free and on Microsoft's lowest cost plans and Microsoft is transparently attempting to crush Slack to death in a price war to secure a monopoly. The underlying quality of the two products is rendered a moot point.

I've seen no evidence niche subreddits in general are dying because Reddit's growth in general is so strong and a rising tide lifts all boats. I've seen niche subreddits climb in traffic steadily even as their overall ranking on reddit declines.

I just would have guessed new reddit would have started the decline years ago but the apex hasn't even been reached yet. Still I do think the apex is coming just because of the sheer user hostility of Reddit.

Old reddit users are last I checked in the Reddit traffic stats I had access to around 1-2% of active posters, and mobile overall is thumping desktop reddit several times over.

By the time New Reddit was launched old reddit wasn't even the primary way to view the site anymore. Nowadays new reddit crushes old reddit. Reddit doesn't need it's old users, it doesn't need you, and it doesn't need me. It could kill off old reddit today and it would be fine.

The free speech web has created the most peaceful least violent society in history. Censors on the other hand are found constantly endlessly and relentlessly at the vanguard of the bloodiest most extremist movements of all time.

What is this cost exactly? Censors have shown an utter and complete lack of evidence that censorship reduces violence whatsoever when you look at the long run and broader picture. They also love destroying the economy as well as art. Censorship at the end of the day always ends up being a particularly evil form of power politics regardless of the noble intentions it sets out with. Outside of a very narrow scope of things that ought to be censored (calls to violence which would include 8ch, defamation, fire in a theater, etc)

I started browsing the site on mobile without the extension on the new site because it makes Reddit's attempts to manipulate me more obvious and more annoying.

Using a CRM tool like this means generating data that is only usefully formatted when using the tool which makes its long term utility highly dependant on the tools maintainer. Calendar+contacts+notes are already standards, already very portable, already very mature, we've had gcal running for a decade and a half now. Unless you're intending to completely replace your calendar/contacts/notes somehow it's a net gain in overhead and complexity.

No some people have disabilities and stuff. People with Alzheimer's aren't simply suffering from not being close enough with their friends and family.

>Saving your friend's child's birthday in a database just so you can say that you remembered vs actually remembering their birthday; I feel like there is a huge gap between the two. I would rather have 1 genuine relationship, rather than 100 superficial, inauthentic relationships.

I would say you're looking at it completely wrong and you don't have to forget somebodies birthday that many times before you write it down because all it does is hurt everybody. Some segment of the population forgets these things EVEN WITH the inner circle of people they know.

I haven't seriously used the start menu since Vista only ever using it when the only copy of a file is saved to %AppData%\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs. I just hit win+keyword and hit enter to navigate around. I've only ever used the App Store for upgrading from Win10 S to Win 10 and I rarely even notice the ads are there.

I don't have any issue with the things you raised because they're just not serious issues. I'm more concerned with other problems like forced updates & workstation windows getting cranky without reboots & the batshit Frankenstein of new+old control panels in win10 & the fact that most computers in the world use unix-like operating systems.

Running at higher resolution literally has consequences like higher GHG emissions. So yes I think there is an argument that network neutrality incentivizes waste. Althoughh one could also argue 4k streaming helped prepare the internet backbone for mass teleconferencing.

Yeah I've been exposed to Pai and the man certainly is more erudite than myself. My view on network neutrality at this point is the companies pushing for those laws were always more of a monopolizing threat than the ISPs ever were. Netflix and Google loved network neutrality because it saved them lots of cash and they ended up getting an "internet fast lane" Comcast couldn't dream of by installing a massive CDN across the globe.

It seemed like policy that was supported mostly because it was pro-consumer and because honestly the ISPs are getting lots of taxpayer money.

Maybe you overcompensate and the bias is actually in the other direction? It's the subperceptual bias that's the real stinker not the stuff you notice.

The first thing that comes to mind is Hirevue[1] rating job candidates based on metrics like eye contact. Generally I see this product as automating the process of discriminating against people with autism and see it as deeply immoral.

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/22/ai-hiri...

The first post was using an article about mental illness to brag about their rags to riches story incidentally implying that mental disorders were a result of not trying hard enough.

This one is offering the much more woke opinion that life is like a patronizing disability porn hollywood movie that disordered people just can't change themselves alone. They need the help of the audience self-insert to unlock their special disabled potential.

>I know people are going to talk about income inequality, but isn't this obvious?

No it was not because one can name disorders like autism spectrum disorder where diagnosis is more likely with high socioeconomic status. In general this conclusion isn't that obvious because one would think a richer child would have more access to the medical resources to get diagnosed.

Which still amounts to subsidizing pollution in order to sustain economically unviable work. If more taxes are needed, raise taxes across the board.

So raise tax revenue across the board. Will that make the commuting lifestyle unaffordable? Well that might just be because it's not economically viable and heavily subsidized.

Working in an office should be taxed to mitigate the environmental cost of such a high carbon lifestyle. Why would we tax people for avoiding paying the carbon taxes associated with the office lifestyle?

Looking at political decisions as being as simple as just going with yea/nay opinion polls is overly simplistic. Those polls don't distinguish between voters who really care about an issue and hardly care about an issue. They don't distinguish between undecided voters and card carrying party members. Plus you also have to account for the almost obligatory attack by the opposition that somebody legalizing drugs is involved with them and/or obsessed with trivial matters.

The "upvote" mechanism is more based on attention grabbing than popularity though, which definitely leads to a different sort of dynamic due to the different incentives.

I had a colleague spend too much time there and start using degrading insults that were targeted against me in my presence around the height of /pol/s popularity in 2016. I caused a scene. I still think about it because of the way they embraced an exaggerated stereotype that didn't actually in any way reflect the people they actually knew with that identity for years. The stereotype was so different from the reality that I think at some point they stopped making the connection between the two.

I never heard anybody in my group of friends make a 4chan reference again, I can't help but think that incident served as an alarm bell that people were getting out of touch with reality, and people seemed to either stop using the site or started visiting it less. Human's historically have not existed in social environments like 4chan and I think the site, especially when indulged in frequently, can lead to a sort of psychosis.

Yet 4chans /lgbt/ board is filled with transgender people who don't seem to mind at all. On such a community they will bemoan things like a "Do I pass" thread on lets say, Reddit or Tumblr, because they will notice how the fact that the answer is invariably the same is an insult to their intelligence and self-insight as well as being painfully repetitive and pointless. I've observed that those from "Disadvantaged" groups are more drawn to 4chan rather than less and tend to see the negativity as a sort of filter to keep out users with an ego, who desire a community that gives it to them straight. 4chan for better or worse serves as an anti-thesis and refuge from the reputational internet and sticks around because nobody is offering what it's selling.

Targeted harassment on 4chan like shunning and ostracism aren't even possible if you're truly anonymous, only impersonal and vague forms of harassment are possible. Intersite harassment is possible because your hackernews of the worlds enable targeted harassment through the use of persistent identities, some communities like FaceBook explicitly introduced such identities for the sake of retaliation against the undesirable. I don't think it's a good thing for 4chan to be drawing people into its culture who didn't consent, yet the people who enabled targeted harassment are the rest of the internet who gave up on anonymity, and 4chan is merely hacking the system to harass the wrong people.

There's nothing dinigrating about a theory about a conspiracy being called a conspiracy theory and that reaction gets more and more curious the more I think about it. If you want people to take the idea of plots between the NSA and major companies seriously it seems counterproductive to stigmatise conspiracy theories.

I laughed at the Truth of this. Fox News honestly doesn't even register as a legitimate news organization for me most of the time. I actively avoid using them as a source. It's like getting upset over supermarket tabloids.

Yet this organization sure had an awful lot of blood on its hands with its recent pandemic coverage and yet all I ever hear about is papers like the New York Times. Rogan himself seems to have shown a lot of sympathy for Fox News worst tendencies on this matter. The last time I remember outlets like the NYT having so much blood on their hands was during the Iraq war and that reporting was about a generation ago, AND Fox was even worse than them even back then. Yet all I hear about is the perils of the dastardly MSM and their legions of partisan so called fact checkers.

>I'm reading a lot of comments here saying that CoCs are categorically bad. Which absolutely isn't what Jeremy is saying in this post, in fact he says just the opposite.

Him talking about supports a code of conduct was like listening to a shooting victim talking about how they support gun rights. It's like walking into his hospital room, him sitting up, and instantly going into a monologue about how the 2nd amendment protects us from tyranny. It reminds one of the the "Leopards eating faces" meme. If this post sold a code of conduct as a way to fight back against trumped up charges by being able to compare your behavior to stated rules, and expose arbitrariness, I think he might have actually made code of conducts sound like a great thing. Yet instead be defended CoC's by questioning the character of their critics with the line

>the anti-CoC crowd might jump on this as an example of problems with codes of conduct more generally, or might point at this as part of “cancel culture” (a concept I vehemently disagree with, since what is referred to as “cancellation” is often just “facing consequences”).

That's just such a bizarre and weird response given he did literally get cancelled regardless of if he likes it or not and is making a post arguing he's not just "facing consequences". He's like the person in the welfare lineup who thinks everybody around him is a lazy bum.

I'm having flashbacks to attempting keystroke automation which works 90% reliably until a field is added via an update and breaks EVERYTHING until you workaround it.

>version control, code review, unit testing, deployment pipelines, etc.

This is absolutely one of my biggest pain-points with "no-code" solutions. Even trying to track revisions to something relatively simple like a word document over time is a big pain compared to tracking revisions to source code or a configuration file. Trying to get a grip on how people are fiddling with a no-code product from the audit logs is incredibly difficult, never mind trying to track down a change from 1 year ago. Often changes won't appear on audit logs at all or they won't be explained in enough detail and the format of the logs will have little resemblance to how things are actually configured. You can use some no-code solution to modify a SQL query under the hood and the audit log will just say "THIS USER CHANGED THIS QUERY" and that's all the detail you get! It's frequently difficult to explain to your peers how you're going to change a system without showing them a bunch of screenshots and going "Well I'm going to tick this box and move the green rectangle over here and link it to the orange oval". Rolling back changes can often be impossible without rolling back EVERY change between now and when the first incorrect change was made.

I use code, and these problems just don't happen! It's only when people are using some wonderful "user-friendly" solution that things get so jacked up.

Because they're pretending that this next [high-level abstraction] will be replaced by another style of [high-level abstraction] as if [high-level abstraction] is nothing but a scaffold to let us ascend to the true productive glory of [high-level abstraction]. It ignores the fact that it's not unheard of for platforms which started out no-code later REGRESS and introduce coding features such as APIs because as it turns out, no-code is intrinsically limited in a lot of very significant ways.

When I use a "no-code" product it's usually not more than a few months before I start using it's API and adding small bits of code here and there to do things not natively supported by the product. You would have to have a puritanical fervor and a lack of sense to want to eliminate all semblance of code from a product made out of code.

It's almost as if after seeing you could add images to Microsoft word documents you saw an article coming out about how Written English was going to be replaced by Hieroglyphics and soon we could communicate with nothing but Emoji and talking about how the next generation won't be literate. The sentiment in this thread is mostly a reaction to irritating and implausible clickbait.