choward

Wait, you used that as an example that China is doing the right thing?

It amazes me that for such a relatively simple thing everyone's knee jerk response is THE CLOUD!

The investment you put into learning a piece of software isn't free.

Might I suggest NixOS. Same benefits. Auto-updates are disabled by default. But even if they do happen it's not going to try to mess with currently running processes. In fact, the old version will still be installed just no longer to default. You could even run both simultaneously (using two separate config directories otherwise you get warnings). Snap seems like a huge regression in the Linux ecosystem.

"Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better"

https://twitter.com/wef/status/808328302213689344

Obsidian is still closed source, right? I thought they were talking about open sourcing it at some point.

> This inherently limits reach and therefore reduces the burden of misinformation

I have no interest in any social network who's primary concern is limiting the spread of information. I don't care if you are scared of "misinformation". You want to restrict the spread of "good" information because you are scared of misinformation? That's the wrong solution to the problem. The correct solution is to spread your "good" information and education people on how to think critically. Censorship isn't the answer to stupidity.

It seems to me that a lot AI is used as either tool to solve made up problems or as a bad solution to real problems. This seems like the former. Who is the target audience? I'm baffled.

And how would you determine that's it's worse? More AI?

There should be different zoning and taxes for different types of homes. A primary residence only zone for example. There is a huge difference between primary residents and vacation/rental homes and their role in society.

In the same way "ride sharing" is a loophole to have a taxi company without the regulations, Airbnb found a loophole for running a hotel company without the regulations.

The homes rented out for days at a time should not count toward the housing supply and only be allowed on designated areas just like hotels.

Ha. I knew something like this would happen eventually. Isn't limitless scalability one of the biggest selling points of using "the cloud"? If you have to buy your own computers anyway why even use the cloud? You could try using different clouds providers but eventually the clouds run out.

Which brings me to another important point. If we run out of computers meaning supply can't keep up with demand, then who are the winners? The people who own the computers. Cloud providers and self hosters. Because of the high demand cloud providers can raise their prices and that's directly converted to profit since expenses remain the same, i.e. price gouging. Good job all you cloud loyalists who use the cloud for everything.

The amount of people who are okay with being lied to by corporations is very concerning.

Fair enough. But if the government is giving these companies suggestions, I find it hard to believe they wouldn't follow them. The government can retaliate against the companies in several ways.

I just came across this. I'm not sure about this source but the emails look legit.

https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/cdc-told...

> Personally, I think the word "censorship" should be reserved for governmental suppression but that ship sailed a long time ago.

This is the exact same argument used all the time to justify censorship. Most people agree about government censorship being bad and corporate censorship being fine.

However, what people miss is that this is government censorship. To think what's going on now isn't government suppression is completely naive. There are several examples of the US government influencing social media to have them censor. They admit it all the time.

Here's an example:

https://news.yahoo.com/psaki-white-house-flagging-covid-1856...

And this came out more recently:

https://www.mintpressnews.com/meet-ex-cia-agents-deciding-fa...

If your plotting something illegal like a coup, that's already illegal. However, if you want to question the results of an election you should have every right to do so. Look at 2000 and 2016. Both those results were questioned and people weren't censored. What changed?

Our election system is far from perfect. The only way for it to get better is to talk about.

> a) easier/cheaper to buy them, and

Sure, that's what make then pull the trigger to buy the company.

> b) more attractive for someone considering themselves a philantropist, given that they are by many considered to provide a vital service to society.

I find this hard to believe but I'm very skeptical when it comes to the narrative of the "philanthropist".

I agree with that. I just mean I'm pretty much never directly interacting with Facebook so I don't have to think about them. People who use Facebook every day are constantly experiencing the terribleness directly. So yes, I hate Facebook, but luckily it's not a direct part of my life so I don't have to think about it.

> if you take your suggestion to its conclusion, no "philanthropists" would own a media company, so who does that leave?

Everybody else? The problem is that these billionaires have too much power. There are a lot independent journalists. They are constantly attacked and censored by these big media companies. The run hit pieces on independent journalists and label them conspiracy theorists without giving any examples of misinformation.

Another example is how billionaire owned YouTube only considers big billionaire owned media companies as "authoritative sources" and promotes them in the algorithm.

There are many things that are labeled misinformation and get censored when reported by independent journalists. But then all it takes is one corporate media company to claim the same thing and now all the sudden it's okay to say.

In summary, when you ask "who does that leave", it leaves a ton of people which is why billionaires try to attack them.

This article itself is undermining democracy. It reads like an ad for now censorship.

The Atlantic is owned mostly by "philanthropist" Laurene Powell Jobs since 2017. Why is it that philanthropists are always buying up media companies? It couldn't possibly be to promote their own ideologies. They always happen to push for censorship also.

Billionaires buying up all media companies and censoring debate is a far bigger threat to democracy than some people chatting online.

> Nobody hates Facebook users more than Facebook

And nobody hates Facebook more than Facebook users. I don't use Facebook and because of that I don't have many problems with it. Same goes for the people that don't use Facebook that I know. The only people I see complaining about Facebook are Facebook users.

> At the same time, if governments fail to efficiently tax their populations they end up having to go to war to plunder the resources they need to maintain their countries instead.

This is a pretty bold assertion. Do you have an example of this happening? If a country has all the resources it needs then it's not going to have to plunder resources. If it doesn't have to the resources it needs it either has to trade for them, borrow, or plunder as a worst case scenario. It has absolutely nothing to do with taxes.

Also, with your logic, how do you afford an army to plunder resources if the reason for plundering is because they didn't "efficiently tax"? To go to war to plunder some resources, you need the resources. You can tax all you want but if you don't have the real resources you can't build an army.

Taxes can put resources you already have to work but it can't create them out of thin air.

Solve what problem? I'm no fan of classes but I don't know what problem you're talking about specifically.

And pretty par for the course when talking about "journalism".

A more simple way to put it is that the politicians are hyper focused on the minor things we disagree on and complete ignore the things we mostly agree on. This division helps keep people hating each other and not focusing on important issues while also keeping their donors happy since they love the status quo.

Exactly. The government will declare certain companies as too big to fail then bail them out. We need to let failure happen otherwise we are rewarding corruption.

It's not like if a company fails all their capital just disappears. Another company can emerge or another successful company can grow. If an airline fails, the places and infrastructure don't magically disappear.

The government gave the airlines a ton of money during covid so they could keep their staff and be ready to go when people start flying again. Instead the companies took that money, bought back stocks, gave executives bonuses, and encouraged early retirement. So now of course airlines have a staff shortage. But, hey, at least they made a ton of money, right?

I'm not saying the government should have done nothing when they forced businesses to lose revenue. But just giving the money directly to those at the top is the worst possible idea. We shouldn't just be giving out the people's money to the rich and get nothing in return.

The issues you call partisan aren't really partisan but they are made partisan by politicians and those with power.

A large majority of the country is for making marijuana legal at the federal level. Most people don't like corporations and billionaires funding our elections. Most people are against gerrymandering. Most people are for legal immigration. Most people agree that out healthcare system is broken and way too expensive. Most people want education to be affordable and effective. Most people care about the environment. Most people don't want people to be jailed for petty things or people wrongly convicted.

The things people disagree on are the way these issues are framed by politicians and the powerful and the proposed solutions. However it's easy to agree that all of these things are a problem. I'm not saying everyone agrees but a lot more people agree on things then you are lead to believe by those who benefit from keeping the country divided.

Your claiming anything wrapped in a module block is a module. My point is that they aren't "real" modules. I know it's debatable what a module is but Ruby's don't meet my definition. Here's why:

Let's say a file had a module in it. It can behave differently based on context.

For example, let's say I have a module A that requires modules B and C. Module C could use module B without explicitly pulling it in because modules are just globals. However, if a different module just requires module C but not module B and no other files required B either, then module C would break when it tries to use model B. If modules weren't global B, would have to require it to use it directly regardless but since it doesn't it's easy to get unexpected results.

In ruby a file doesn't have to declare the modules it uses which is why I don't consider them modules but just global namespaces. So if another module that got required earlier happens to require B, then B can be used because it's just a global.

I'm summary, modules in Ruby aren't modules but just global namespaces.

I'd go further and call it the neoliberal party. Business isn't necessarily evil. But selling out the people to huge multinational corporations is evil. Giving away our resources and institutions to corporations while screwing over small businesses is a problem. These are the same corporations that are their donors, that they buy stocks in and get cushy jobs when they retire.

Expanding NATO isn't a progressive stance. It's pro-imperialism.

And those "arrests" weren't even real. They faked being in handcuffs. A publicist even announced on Twitter the "arrests" were going to happen beforehand.

> Didn't you learn anything after 2016?

I learned that the Democrats rig primaries. What did you learn?

Both parties are the same. Their donors are the same people. They just target their theater to different groups. These politicians are all phonies and until everyone sees that we're going to get the same crappy results.