generalpass

> The cull will include users who stopped posting to the site because they died...

Indeed, your tweets die with you. I wonder about really popular personalities?

I really don't have any experience with them.

I have experienced no ISP-related issues for self-hosted mail on Rackspace, Linode, and Vultr in U.S. DCs.

Note that I've heard Vultr in EU requires trouble ticket to open mail ports.

I'll admit to not even looking at these services in a very long time, but OKCupid had experimented with setting up the first date more spontaneously, but it was before ubiquitous smart phones so they didn't go very far with it, IIRC.

If you had the app on, and it knew you were in proximity to some sort of match, then it could notify each party and provide a message like, "would you like an introduction to so-and-so? You're both within walking distance of an art exhibit - meet a new person and enjoy some fine art!"

When I saw that all I could think, "Newt Gingrich, is that you?"

> How so?

Imagine there is a machine connected to someone and that if a button is pressed, the mahcine will kill the person it is connected to.

If the person who it is connected to presses the button, this is suicide. The assisted portion is that someone else has created and connected the machine, but it is still suicide because the machine cannot kill the person without the button being pressed.

If someone else presses the button, it is something other than suicide. In the case that the act of killing the person is classified as an "act of mercy", then it could be classified as euthanasia.

The article uses these two phrases as if they are interchangeable, but they are conceptually quite different.

Are they intentionally confusing euthanasia with assisted suicide? These things are completely different.

Why not raise awareness about webmaster practices among the general public?

Geez, even the Wikipedia article on the term states that is Marxist. I think you are substituting "Marxist" with "as written by Marx."

"Late state capitalism" is a Marxist term.

My guess is that it was a forced buyout? The terms of which are always painful for the forcers.

As far as the employees go, anyone working for a company clearly not making any money needs to move along. Whatever consequences you suffer are at your own risk.

And as far as what this might look like under socialism, the government would take money from people who have nothing to do with any of it and give it to all of the people involved in order to maintain an organization that nobody wants to do business with.

Given that the NAZI movement could be classified as a populist movement, it seems safe to say that most companies and most people in Germany would have supported actions taken by NAZIs.

However, my understanding is that the NAZI party did not run any ads for the 'final solution', despite Hitler's having totalitarian rule over the NAZI empire, thus, were facebook in existence during the period of Hitler's rule, Hitler would likely not have ran ads through facebook for the 'final solution'.

> How do you think, what is the chance that there will be legislature etc that will allow you to separate your email address from a provider and own it/be able to port it? Are there any RFCs that explore that idea?

Zero, I hope. We need domain owners to be in control of their domains.

> You might have seen a Facebook ‘like’ button on websites outside of Facebook.

Why not address this to webmasters?

> Although, if I do find negative reviews on a retailer's site, it does engender some trust.

A marketing friend of mine calls this "verisimilitude."

Because, without a doubt, Medium profiles are the way to meet your dream mate.

> Seems like he lacks basic social skills and expects women to date him because he owns his own house. He feels guilty and "like a monster" hitting on women because of this un-empathetic, objectifying, and entitled thought process.

What if his brief statement about financial stability is to deal with claims that he needs to first take care of himself because women aren't interested in highly unstable men who can't take care of themselves?

What if, no matter what he states, people immediately jump to conclusions which require assumptions with no evidence and include quotes that he didn't make?

> Sounds like this dude is insufferable and exhausting and probably presents himself as such on his dating profile.

In my experience, people making these kinds of statements often haven't any sense of humility, compassion or empathy, so it is likely you cannot understand even why he would make his post.

Further, this same personality trait also seems lead to online ridicule of people trying to share their experiences online.

> Edit: Before you start writing a treatise on the socio-economics of contemporary market-based internet dating in the age of diverstity.. just try the following:

1. Put up a crisp, clear picture of yourself dressed nicely with a smile. Put up a second clear picture of you doing some kind of interesting activity (hiking in the wilderness, doing art, playing with a puppy, etc).

2. Write a self-description that gives off vibes of you being a generally positive person, and relatively charming and perhaps a bit funny. If you can't be charming, you can at least be polite. If you're not funny, you can at least be lighthearted.

Edit: It is also consistent with this personality trait to assume that your advice is desired, and to then provide that advice.

> For anyone who dreams of making movies or who is just starting out, the situation at this moment is brutal and inhospitable to art. And the act of simply writing those words fills me with terrible sadness.

I don't know, it seems like Scorsese's critique is for people who might possibly get some sort of actual budget from a production company to make something, because his statements can't possibly apply to someone genuinely just starting out. Having an outlet such as YouTube where you can gain worldwide distribution for your zero-budge work seems pretty amazing compared to options during the period he compares things to.

[noun] bothers some people more than others.

Indeed, which is why did not blame the computers. I blamed the people who put them in charge. So, there isn't any disagreement here.

Years ago I once watched 7 minutes of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow on Netflix.

The last time I had Netflix it was still telling me that because I watched Sky Captain, it is recommending a bunch of stuff (that is similar to Sky Captain).

All I can think is, how about we pretend that never happened?

So, this isn't a problem unique to YouTube. This is a problem everywhere the computers are left to make recommendations for me.

If only being polite were all that is necessary to not get down-voted!

I've just decided I'm up-voting everything. I don't care if I agree, disagree, hate it, don't even read it.

Vote-inflation, FTW.

No, I have no ability to understand the difference between the real world and Tamriel.

A lawyer representing someone can have whatever person positions the lawyer desires, but in the course of representing a client, the lawyer can only be an extension of what the client wants to be represented for.

The same is true of anyone representing a shareholder.

The company's goals and constraints are 100% informed by the shareholders.

Libertarians, particularly the ones who actively chose to appropriate that relatively previously unknown phrase in the U.S., saw the issue, as related to economics, as being a question of under what circumstances is it just to grant another person or group of persons power to decide who gets what. Opposition to the position of anyone having such power over anyone else is in the direction of individual liberty.

IOW, they argued that there cannot be a just system where everyone is truly equal when some of the people have the power to apply force (government) that, when applied by those not chosen to have such powers (citizens), is "illegal." (E.g., taxes, war, imprisonment, drafting of laws, etc.)

The restriction of rights to non-whites was a policy created and enforced by governments. Also enforced by governments were the Jim Crow and other eugenics-based laws (including forced sterilizations, which disproportionately affected racial minorities). The 13th amendment was written to only ban private ownership of slaves - governments can and do still own slaves (prisoners perform forced labor that profits the state and other entities, not the harmed parties).

Access to opportunity is most heavily curtailed by governments, who make massive laws that heavily increase the cost to open new or even maintain existing smaller businesses. In Silicon Valley, we see an extreme version of a common problem created by governments where the governments act to restrict the building of housing, resulting in housing only being available to the extremely wealthy.

The term libertarian was redefined in the U.S. by activists wishing to continue the path toward individual liberty, but who could not use the term "liberal" because the definition of that term had been redefined in the U.S. to describe people desiring to move away from individual liberty.

No. They are organizations representing shareholders.

How can a company be libertarian? This doesn't make sense to me. A company is just an organization acting in some system. The system could be libertarian, or individuals could be prefer libertarianism, but not a company.

The companies could promote libertarianism, but given Mark Zuckerberg's public requests to have facebook regulated, I don't think facebook is an example of a large company that supports libertarianism, let alone anarcho-capitalism.

How many people do you think in Silicon Valley believe that individuals should have more power than any government? Or who believe that government is illegitimate? I don't feel I find very many of them.

I felt the previous generation of engineers and admin were more anti-authoritarian than they were libertarian.

Or, just accept that it takes a long time to build a successful business.