libeclipse

I enjoyed this, well done! I’m just speaking for myself (but I know many of my colleagues agree) when I say that I don’t feel great about the source of our revenue. That being said, developing a rendering engine is very expensive (apparently even too expensive for Microsoft) and I’m not sure what the alternative is. Ironically, every time we do try to diversify (pocket, directory tiles, snippets etc), there is an even bigger backlash than the one about Google.

:: https://lobste.rs/s/b6jkt4/i_was_wrong_about_google_facebook...

The appearance of supporting privacy may not be mutually exclusive with openly invasive behavior, but actually supporting privacy is. I don't see the point you're trying to make but it seems as though your stance is that it's OK for X to appear to support privacy while actually invading it??

"True privacy" isn't the concern here. Data breaches and hacks are a security issue, this is an ethical one.

> the truth is I understand why they have to do things that way, if they don't get published, they don't get money to continue work that should theoretically be beneficial down the road!

Scientists optimizing for what is likely to be published (read: what is likely to earn money), sacrificing elsewhere. Maybe if we payed them enough so that they don't have to do this to survive, then we wouldn't have this issue.

That is pretty impressive.

I have mine dual-booted, Windows 10 and Arch Linux. Windows is great for gaming and Netflix and Arch has great support for the XPS 13.

The only laptop that I would recommend.

How would you accomplish something like this?

It could barely sustain a connection, never mind actually doing anything. So I cut up the neck of a bottle, covered with aluminium foil, and even added a little reciever at the focus point of the dish.

Signal bars went to a solid usable III.

I'm not convinced that this is asymmetric. You could easily extend the argument to include that the absence of bad wouldn't be good "because there'd be no one to be deprived of the bad things". There are many other examples of this kind of logic in the piece.

Overall, it seems to be a pretty subjective and self-contradictory philosophy, at least the way it is presented and defended (by the person being interviewed) it is.

How do you expect to solve the bitcoin problem? Stop mining?

Sounds like a slippery slope argument.

In the UK, Virgin Media have a deal with Twitter and don't charge for internet traffic to Twitter. Three do the same with Netflix and a bunch of others. Net neutrality is already breaking.

Excellent write-up though.

If someone can accidentally delete that volume of your money, it's not that someone's fault, it's your fault.

The fact that the earth is an oblate spheroid is a scientific fact with just as much certainty as the other claims are.

Being neutrality minded doesn't mean you can't outright dismiss false beliefs.

Damn. That's something like 179 100 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 J

That's an insane amount of energy. It's equivalent to what you would get if you converted the entire mass of the sun into pure energy.