Certainly. But there's also responsibility of the group members to understand what kind of topics and conversations they're about to enter. Facebook is divisive. It's a stressful topic. The crowd shouldn't click on a link about the 100th crime Facebook committed if the crowd is not ready for the gun fire. The crowd inherited an imperfect world, and it's okay to take a stand, because if the crowd doesn't stand for something, they fall for anything. In certain cultures, "swear words" don't even exist. If certain words deeply offend the crowd, they shouldn't blame other people, they should turn inward using introspection and ask themselves why they're so bothered by certain words written on a webpage. It's not like I hate Mark Zuckerburg with every fiber of my being. I'm sure there's some cool things about him. I'd love to sit down and have him show me his love for the video game Civilization, or what kind meats he likes cooking, or how he designed his smart home. But the topic at hand is business and legality. And frankly, I should be able to take as many shots as I want at him in the public sphere. Just because he's not personally inflicting violence on other humans, does not mean there's billions of lives at stake here. When people enter the ring, political correctness is entirely useless. It's not personal, it's "business".
“If I don’t scream, if I don’t say something, then no one’s going to say anything.”
“I care. I care about everything. Sometimes not giving a f#%k is caring the most.”
“The truth that hurts is the same truth that heals.”
Touché, valid point. But someone's gotta break the Matrix once in a while... at the end of the day, this is just a text based website, and I'm hammering keys. It wasn't like I was walking down the street yelling obscenities. It's OK, to be aggressive sometimes. Everything in moderation.
I don't even care about the free speech argument. Ban the racists, great. All I'm saying, is that Cthulhu is not happy Signal is #1 in the app store right now. Big tech/brother/whatever will never be your friend. The zeitgeist wants to eat you. The drone in your window will see you downloading that decentralized OS (I hope that's just poetry).
I'm sure if this person just enjoyed tinkering on the hardware in their office and not spreading code for intellectual property they don't own, we wouldn't be here.
Basically they hooked gizmos to peoples' brain and found if they force people to read emotional words, their brain indeed feels some impact... cool. Thanks for that, great read.
Seeing some of the comments here being ethical concerns too for basically stalking people for legal advantage. OK, that's certainly overkill. But I'm fine with them using some legal force. I just watched "feels good man", and seeing Pepe the Frog's image morph through a decade is a wild experience. I'm not claiming that hacking a gameboy is the same thing, but I really think it's fine to protect your intellectual property however you see fit. Sorry, but just make your own game systems.
Devil's advocate, hear me out: Nintendo backlash is always dramatic. Zelda is my favorite franchise, so I've always followed this news. They are a large company primarily making recreational video games accessible for families and children. Whatever their mission statement is, it's simply not to cater to hardcore gaming. It's not part of their blood and the ecosystem they foster. Personally, sometimes I don't even think it's 100% for monetary reasons, they probably subconsciously think adults being overly obsessed with their kids properties is perverse. This twitter user has a filtered pokemon avatar (copyrighted) and said "[Nintendo] plan[s] your "death" and your next life probably." because some Japenese person made a legal flow chart. That seems wildly dramatic to me... some context too, I recently watched this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cSCLceDAjM by a famous youtuber I also felt was dramatic.
I personally am not concerned about murder or shock, but I think it's worth saying what many people think. Many games containing violence are probably made in poor taste. For example, it would be a red flag for me when meeting someone if their favourite video game studio is Rockstar Games and that's all they like to play. It'd be like saying their favourite TV genre is reality TV and they're proud to watch it constantly. It's OK once in a while, but I hope they often expand their horizons. Rockstar's modern games certainly have some value, but relative to many other games they feel like technically-impressive immature time sinks. My snooty point aside, violent video games seem not to correlate with aggression, but I suspect they at least correlate with some annoying personality traits. Some artistic masterpieces worth consuming contain a lot of violence, I just don't think that's the norm, so it's easy for outsiders to lump "violent games" together as a threat.
I was building a point of sale and online ordering system for my friend's pizza restaurant. DoorDash drivers would come in for orders, and no one had ever signed up for it. Calling them on the phone to cancel it was a nightmare. I hope they fail.
It's an impressive animation, and I hope you make some money on it. I personally would just steal your style tag and the book div/img tag and call it a day if I wanted to use it, so I hope your customer base doesn't have front-end web experience. You should try reaching out to book publishers with eCommerce sites. That would be great on some product detail pages.
Yet another extremely vague Hacker News article building controversy due to its failure to communicate anything tangible. Is this article talking about monolith deployment architectures or monolith code bases?
If it's about monolith deployment architectures, the use case is really important.
If it's about monolith code bases, you need to define what a monolith code base even means, because that could mean anything. Are we talking storage size, custom written code lines, framework architecture, or just the number of people and/or teams building the underlying technology?
I've only used Azure so far. I can see why a big company would choose Azure. Although as we move further into the tech era, we're going to see a decline in the size of companies. Internet services will continue to make it easier for small companies to offload pieces of work to other small companies. They'll get good quality results for reasonable costs. Then soon, these small companies are producing big company results, shaving off big company profits. Welcome in the hunter gather era of computation. Bottom line, if Azure stays around, it's just going to become what AWS already is.
The word "work" is not specific enough in this context, and this whole discussion lacks nuance. When we talk about "work" are we talking about renting your own time, or building something you have a stake in? Does a side project that may give you insight into your main focus apply as work? Does reading and curiosity count as work? I spend nearly every waking hour trying to be successful... is that work? I'd like to introduce the word "toil" into the discussion. Elon Musk may "work" 100 hours a week, but there's no chance he's "toiling" 100 hours a week.
CEO is different from employee with no stake in the company. Sure, he probably does spend 80+ hours on his companies, but he's enjoying it. He's not beholden to any expectations of a manager. He's spending time reading/exploring/chatting and including that as 90 hours of work. Musk has no line drawn between work and play. I think Musk flaunts this public image to encourage a breakdown of work and play, not to say you should spend 90 hours checking boxes your manager gave you.
I've always assumed the origins of marriage were religious in nature and that the only legal purpose was to join finances. But after doing a google search to not look like an idiot, it seems like marriage was started to legitimize children and that religion didn't officially get involved in marriage til around the 8th century. So I do have to say, my "idealistic" side is falling apart at this point. I still have my concerns about her having 5% of the credit limit of her husband based on current laws. The difference in credit limit here is so great that it seems at first glance to be a general calculation mistake. I don't think we can safely take sexism off the table (if their lives were swapped but not their gender, would DHH have received a credit limit that was 5% of his wife's?). Unfortunately, it sounds like we'll never know what variables were at play here and how they impacted the calculation.
This paints a great picture, thank you. You're not arguing whether she deserves it, but whether the law actually ties the two together properly. My point here however was to not only fix the algorithms but the laws too. Idealistic, I know.