jiofj

The text I quoted does not say that social networks need moderation, it says that social networks need state-mandated moderation.

>How closely the state should be involved in the moderation practices of private platforms is certainly a matter of some dispute and delicacy. Too far in one direction results in censorship like China’s, while a totally hands-off approach results in rampant abuse, as we’ve seen in the past.

Citation needed, I guess?

>AI cannot be programmed to challenge us.

That's funny because everything all chatbots do is say "I'm sorry, as an AI assistant I can't do that"

YES! Current lockdown mode proposition of all-or-nothing is inconvenient.

They clearly are not, seeing what's happening.

The API signatures were arguably the only thing that mattered.

Exactly, if you want someone to drive, go live in China. You'll have someone driving you somewhere, and pray it's where you want to be

No server is going to give you 25 gbit for yourself. Or routes are going to be congested. I have 1 gbit and almost all servers don't have that available for me.

This could be the case before the invention of currency.

>These represent objective costs.

That's the point, they don't. Nothing has an objective cost. What's the objective cost of one hour of work painting a house? Of one kilogram of rice?

They announced a new album but it won't come out until late next month.

(records began 80 years ago)

That would be funny because other apps such as whatsapp or telegram work better than imessage.

This also makes no sense because it's not in the interest of the "gatekeeper" to kill background tasks. It's done in the interest of battery life, ie the user.

>For example, now when a consumer sees an app doesn’t do well on their phone, they think immediately it is the app that is not really good. Very often it is not because the challenger app is bad but because the interoperability is missing because it is in the interest of the gatekeeper to make sure the experience is not the same.

This happens... when exactly? Do these people even know what they are talking about?

So basically you are saying that you have seen 130, that it works well, but you still stand by 120. Makes no sense.

Where I live the upper limit is 120. If you drive at 120 people won't stop overtaking you. It's done this way because they have those mobile car radars to give people tickets when they need money.

That's too lossy, and "despidiose" is trying too hard.

A limit of 120km/h in a good motorway is a bad joke.

The only purpose is to be able to give tickets to take money from people.

That's basically what I'm saying. We have nothing. It's shameful.

Didn't they see the balloon?!? https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Pv29dGQwIMI/UFcMD6hgcyI/AAAAAAAAF...

0 European companies named.

That doesn't answer the question, in case you haven't noticed.

They don't have a monopoly anymore.

This has nothing to do with "English and American bias", this is simply the result of most traffic coming from your country being bots because of the amount of compromised machines that there are there.

They could. They would lose, though

+1, his website on Windows internals is incredible. A great legacy to leave to the world: something that has helped and will continue to help thousands of people

If they don't want to moderate for whatever reason (including shortcomings in the moderation tools) that's ok - I also don't want to moderate.

What you can't do is close the community. If you care about it it makes more sense to have the usual spam here and there than to completely block every discussion. That's low and petty.

If the moderators of canning cared so much about their community they wouldn't have closed it I guess.

Maybe if you work for a company you don't put your heart into your creation, but if you have a popular personal project that brings you a lot of cash I'm sure you'll be as dedicated as him.

wget's "downloads recursively" is worth half the features of curl.