sdiacom

It is very dishonest to frame it as the suggestion that "your family members should get a lethal injection like the USA gives to criminals", as it strongly implies a lack of agency and consent on their part.

What's happening here, to put it in the same terms, is that "your family members should be allowed to choose to be administered a lethal injection, like the ones that are given to criminals in the USA, as a medical procedure, if and only if a doctor determines that this is a reasonable way to put an end to their physical or mental suffering".

Turns out it's not really that shocking and horrifying unless you choose to be dishonest about it.

Historically (before China's manufacturing boom) it was used cars that made their way to developing countries, and the infrastructure was built for those cars.

Which is to say, nobody made cars for them, but cars made their way there, and they still developed the infrastructure to support them. A solution to the problem will likely be found once there is a problem to be solved.

Faster charging times (fast enough that your vehicle is charged in the time it takes to enjoy a coffee and a bagel at the coffee shop adjacent to the charging point) would also be an acceptable solution in many cases.

Clearly someone is paying for additional investments into security. GitHub, that is.

This is all misinformation. OneCoin was never a cryptocurrency, it was a pretty website where you PayPal-ed your life savings into a black hole.

We can't even say that its price crashed, because there was never a market for it. It's closer to Madoff's securities than it is to, say, Terra.

I'm all for hating on cryptocurrencies, but this doesn't even qualify as one.

I agree that it makes no sense to discuss this as if it was a cryptocurrency, as it was only co-opting the language of cryptocurrencies to push a scam. No coin or blockchain ever existed, and nothing could really be traded, so it makes no sense to treat this as a shitcoin crash or an exchange collapse. It is much, much simpler and dumber than that.

However, on a different level... how is this really any different from all the cryptocurrencies that are also only co-opting the language of cryptocurrencies to push a scam, but that go the extra mile to make the grift realistic by creating a cryptocurrency in the process?

Think of, for example, Helium, which goes as far as to have a realistic-sounding business model behind it (it certainly fooled me) but in practice is just funnelling money from investors into their pump-and-dump shitcoin, and from miners into their expensive certified devices that they take a cut from.

Is Helium any less of a scam, or did they just put more effort into their scam?

Of course some tech companies are bloated, and of course some other tech companies must grow further. But the tune about what the tech industry as a whole must do seems to suddenly shift, depending on whether it's pump season or dump season.

Just last month, he was passionately defending Elon Musk's decisions running Twitter, on Twitter, from all those annoying plebs who dared to speak their minds about it, not even having ran any companies themselves.

The topic of "the article at hand" is, inevitably, his incompetence.

I think that, by leaving Twitter alone, he already has. If we've learned something about Elon so far, from previous episodes of the cursed news cycle we all inhabit, is that he's vindictive and petty to an irrational extent (calling rescue officers who don't agree with him pedophiles, banning journalists who report on the jet account, ...)

It's interesting how VCs suddenly seem to believe "tech companies are bloated and need to layoff staff", now that they can't just show up at a bank and get literal buckloads of other people's money with no justification or due diligence, but were all in on "tech startups must continually grow at any cost" just a few months ago.

Once again, society will be left holding the rich sociopaths' bags and dealing with the externalities of their uncontrolled gambling.

This is such a weird article.

Ostensibly, it's about Bluesky, but it spends most of its length on deriding Mastodon, seemingly with other people's hearsay and tweets as the only source of (mis)information on the matter.

It doesn't seem to say much about Bluesky itself, other than marketing blurb bullet points and praise to the fame of the people behind it. It doesn't seem to me like the author knows what Bluesky is. I certainly can't figure it out myself. It all reads like a "web3" "whitepaper", except I can't figure out what token it is I'm supposed to hodl.

But hey, whatever Bluesky is, it must be better than Mastodon, because a bunch of random people, who have never used Mastodon and have no knowledge of how it works, misread the documentation, freaked themselves out on their own misunderstandings, and tweeted scary words about it. How sad.

I'm done with replying to this, but just to be clear, none of this is an ad hominem, and a generalization is not a straw man. You should probably look up what those words mean, they're not just magical words you sprinkle on a sentence to win an argument on the internet.

> Had you read the entire topic, you'd see plenty of false info being posted

I've honestly looked through all of the original poster's comments and couldn't find any misinformation. Except for referencing r/lolphp, which is indeed mostly wrong about everything.

> You think the reaction is to learning another language? [...] Can you tell me how many possible outcomes exist and how come you chose this one in particular?

I thought so, although I see now that I was wrong. I still don't understand what else your response, saying "Do you want recognition for learning other languages?" to a comment saying "I no longer use PHP and I have learned other languages that I actually like", was supposed to be reacting to, but I take it that there are other possible interpretations that I'm not grasping here.

> you talk as if there exists de-facto "community". [...] it's just a bunch of people who use various forums and there's no coherent community

Obviously a community as big as the PHP community is always going to be, in turn, fragmented into smaller communities. Symfony is not Laravel is not WordPress. But that doesn't mean that you can't draw generalisations from it, like how you would say "the Python community is scared of big breaking changes". This doesn't mean that every single member of that community is personally scared of big breaking changes. It's a generalisation about the behaviour of a group that doesn't extend into a judgement of each and every one of its members.

> You, on the other hand, labeled me and entire PHP community [...] which apparently you researched somehow

I thought there was no such thing as a PHP community. I described a general vibe that I perceive from a given community, which I have extensively interacted with and been a part of. Unless it doesn't exist, in which case I suppose I haven't.

I then compare it to other communities, which I have also interacted with and been a part of, if they indeed exist. My perception nonetheless may be flawed, and it does not need to apply to you specifically.

> I wrote about features I'd like to see in PHP

It's great that what I said above does not apply to you. Your personal appreciation of other programming languages' features, in turn, does not change what I perceive as the broader community's culturally enforced commitment to willful ignorance.

To be clear, I never said that PHP developers don't know any other languages, and I don't believe that is true.

My comment was in response to you asking whether the other user (who as far as I can tell was not posting any false information about PHP, just pointing out that they personally preferred other languages?) wanted _recognition_, from you personally, for having learned some other language.

This is such a weird reaction to have to the idea that someone has learned, and/or would rather use, some other language. I hope you can see that.

Of course, it's not just you. I have never seen any programming language community that feels _threatened_ by the idea of other languages existing and being learned, in the way that the PHP community does.

Fundamentally, this is a learned social behaviour, which means that whether or not individual PHP developers know other languages does not matter. A community that treats acquiring additional knowledge as a _threat_, seeing learning from the outside world as a _betrayal_, will not be able to learn _from_ other languages.

As bringing new ideas and thoughts into the community is socially discouraged, it will only be possible for learning to flow in one direction: away from the PHP community.

Something that is extremely common in the PHP community, and pretty much absent in any other programming community, is this knee-jerk aversion to the idea of learning another language, and this sort of derision to those who do.

Have you consider that people who learn other programming languages are not doing so in order to claim that they're better than PHP programmers, but for their own intrinsic reasons?

It's such a weird, fragile ego situation. Does everyone else have to pretend that PHP is the only language that exists in order to placate your sense of inferiority?

I may be irony-poisoned beyond repair, but I genuinely can't tell if this comment is intentionally a parody of a Hacker News comment.

You have a point. A related question is, is being useless at being evil equivalent to being neutral? And is profiting of such useless evil, in turn, also neutral?

That is, if the VCs are intending to do something evil by turning a company into a growth lottery ticket, but they're so useless at picking potential lottery tickets that they might as well be setting their money on fire.

Then what is the moral standing of someone who collects a paycheck from that company, grabs some popcorn, and sits in the sidelines to watch bad decisions unfold?

Perhaps it's interesting to consider who the bad thing is being done to. Consider, for example, working for outlandishly impractical VC-funded ideas, where the main "evil" that's being done is conning venture capitalists into paying for the expenses of a company that will never produce anything of value.

The code base certainly looks the part.

Generally I would agree, but in this case, "Crystal user" isn't that much better.

Especially if you're already prefixing it with "GitHub-". Like, you're definitely not going to step over the HTTP standard headers any time soon.

That said, the overall concept is deprecated: https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc6648

Sure, but you can't use DeFi to trade fiat for crypto. You can use DeFi to trade crypto for crypto, or for crypto that pretends to be fiat.

Saying "centralised exchanges bad, DeFi good" misses the point that the main use case of centralised exchanges is not covered by DeFi.

It's the American dream. Always has been.

It's hard to tell, and it's certainly possible that this person genuinely enjoyed working with Musk and believes him to be a visionary. But if I spent half of my working years pursuing the erratic whims of an egomaniac, I'd have a very strong incentive in justifying this to myself with the belief that he is indeed an unparalleled genius, and not just a delusional rich man.

At that point, who he is is who I am. His public image and status reflects on mine.

I think a big part of it is that COVID has become an attention point in our lives, it entirely dominated the media cycle for months. There's something everyone wants to hear about and _we just don't know that much about it_, so the media increasingly plays telephone with itself in an attempt to report anything.

Various people gave their hopefully somewhat informed opinion at the time to different members of the media, who reported on it with different levels of accuracy, attributing often undue levels of confidence to it. And that quickly mutated into "the media's trusted sources can confirm that the experts definitely know the vaccine will have exactly these effects and will be effective for these specific cases"

I think it's worth questioning what influence there was in which narratives did or didn't get pushed, but I also think it's worth keeping in mind that the media is also just... fallible.

Six hundred euros a year gets you a no-copay plan for one person, all emergencies included. This is the top of the line, the most expensive individual plan available at this insurer.

A regular no-frills, some-copay insurance plan would probably cost around one to two hundred euros a year. So, yeah, two-ish orders of magnitude.

The vast majority of people who have so-called "good" health coverage in the US are paying one to three orders of magnitude more for it, compared to the price of private health insurance in countries with a public health system.

The best thing that could happen to people who currently have private health insurance and wish to keep it is that a public health system appears, forcing the private health insurance oligopoly to actually be competitive.

I don't think OP's comment is in any way representative of the fediverse.

Please elaborate? I'd love to hear your thoughts on it.

My perspective is that advertising sets a perverse incentive to create content that is indexable and clickable (machine-translated Stack Overflow answers, recipes with twelve paragraphs of backstory, fake download links for the latest Marvel movie) instead of content that is valuable.

What happens if we don't "fund the internet"? What if we let projects with genuine usefulness flourish on their own, being funded directly by those who want them to exist, and we let the advertisement-funded internet fall by its own weight?

Just like advertisement tricks you into buying things you don't need, the advertisement-funded internet tricks you into paying attention to things you don't care about. We're better off without.