somebehemoth

There simply is no evidence whatsoever that Ruby is past its prime. People are committing myriad logical fallacies: comparing go language to rails framework, anecdotes about Ruby monoliths, incorrect statements of fact about Ruby capability and more.

I like Go, but this is a terrible comparison and I’ve not seen a single comment make a valid point about Ruby’s alleged demise.

People that don’t know how to use and maintain Linux should not be the metric for Linux stability.

Linux will let you shoot yourself in the foot. That is not a Linux problem, PEBKAC.

Brave makes money from advertising. Not the same as how other browsers do it, but it requires trust to use Brave too.

Referral link controversy is easy to find and relevant to the conversation:

“Brave browser CEO apologizes for automatically adding affiliate links to cryptocurrency URLs”

https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/8/21283769/brave-browser-aff...

I agree and I think Chrome OS on chromebooks proves this is true for a huge number of people.

Propaganda is not defined by friend or foe. I get the joke about public relations.

> Not blaming it when my milk goes bad isn't "brushing it off.

Minimizing is a form of propaganda.

> Please tell me how I'd use a map as an analog control navigated by my hands.

Perhaps you should not be using a map while driving. My argument was not analog controls can do anything touch screens can do. Adding distraction via touch screen interface by definition decreases safety. You should pull over to a safe place and use maps in whatever way you choose.

I accept you can prove a touch screen is useful for map navigation. But map navigation is not something a driver should be doing while driving.

Why fixate on touch screen controls? Your argument is stronger if voice controlled software makes adjustments. As with cell phones, society has decide to allow hands free phone use despite the fact that this is definitely less safe than no phone use. No maps usage while driving is always safer than the alternative.

I don’t understand the false dichotomy analogies you are using when better analogies like voice control can justify a lack of analog controls. Probably because this kind of voice control does not yet exist?

> what does it matter if the other controls are physical or not?

Because the touch screen controls are not demonstrably safer than physical. Saving space on a dashboard or convenient navigation do not improve safety.

You declare a thermostat a solved problem. I agree. Luckily the existence of thermostat technology is irrelevant to the UX for setting the thermostat. Can’t I have a physical switch just as easily that enables automatic “AI” powered digitally masterful climate control? Why is the touch screen necessary at all for this scenario?

Is the argument that Musk will make Twitter less ideological? My assumption is that he’ll push for his own ideology. If so, nothing gets better unless you happen to agree with Musk’s ideology. If nothing gets better we’ve traded one echo chamber for another.

> Meanwhile almost all of the screen on my big screen car gets used every time I drive.

Which means your eyes were not on the road every single time you used this interface. Even if you had “wasted space” in your previous analog UI, none of that wasted space took your eyes off the road. The same cannot be said for the vast majority of touch screen user interface interaction.

Analog controls are superior for car user interfaces. Touch screens have a use case, but rarely in moving vehicles.

I’m not being obtuse. There is no argument that favors touch screen interfaces where human attention is the difference between life and death. Smart cars can have analog inputs. There is no need to choose between one or the other.

Buttons and knobs can be navigated by humans using muscle memory alone. This is a feature of humans that has minimal downside compared to forcing the focus of human visual systems to a use touch interface.

It is a false dichotomy to assert “auto” anything requires a touch screen interface. We have the technology for both analog interfaces and “auto” climate control.

People literally are priced out of macs. Nothing you say changes that fact.

> About the final point—are Macs really "high cost"?

There are zero low cost macs, while other low cost computers are abundant.

> If a Mac is $2100 instead of $700, that's only a few hundred dollars more per year, or $20-30 a month.

Your concept of what “average people” can afford is very convenient for your argument because you made it up. To most people a product that is $1400 more expensive is considered much, much more expensive. The fact that you have to invent a payment plan to support your argument says a lot.

I like macs, they are nice. But they are high priced and expensive. They can be both worth the extra money while also being too high priced for a huge number of average people.

Nice website and idea. Lose the pop up. Stop perpetuating this dark pattern and let people focus on your content.

> I don't see how anyone that can afford comparable PCs or UltraBooks would be priced out of Apple products.

And if they can’t afford comparable PC’s, then Macs are not affordable. There are many affordable non-mac options.

Perhaps, but this discussion would be moot if Apple did the same, “M1 GPU faster that RTX [under specific scenario]”. But they didn’t do that and here we are.

Laughing at other peoples' opinions doesn't make you more correct. Corporations copying each other to increase profit does not prove this is the right thing to do for all users.

No one said it was "hard hitting sexism" whatever that is.

I don't think you understand correctly.

> Democrats are as guilty as Republicans

No they aren't. Not even remotely close. I'm exhausted by "both sides". "Both sides" arguments cause apathy in people because what is even the point in voting if, "both sides".

> The primary purpose of sideloading apps is to get the app downloaded and play it for free.

I don't believe this is true. This is demonstrated by open source software on many platforms installed directly by end users without a curated store.

Maybe you mean people only side load apps on iOS for piracy purposes? I'm interested in learning more about this assertion.

> Tesla hid nothing.

They deceptively claimed that for additional money the customers' cars would be enhanced in the future with FSD. They then made that claim again each time they failed to deliver. They continue to make this claim and people are trusting it.

A lie hides the truth.

I've only just tried this out with 3 monitors so I could be doing something wrong. 1 monitor has an i3 style task bar at the top showing workspace numbers (one, two, three, ...). It works like i3 in that you can navigate those workspaces and move windows to them. I still have the win10 task bar at the bottom of the screen. I've stopped using this for now because although it works with multiple monitors, it is not obvious to me how to use the workspace navigation without causing windows to go to unintended monitors (in workspace one, I have 2 apps on far left monitor, workspace three they get moved to far right but are not retiled for that monitor's size.

It could be because I am running a mixture of 4k, 2k, and a normal monitor or I am doing something wrong.

I don't think there is anything as good as iTerm. ConEmu is not bad.

The feedback of "Android version of Firefox is unusably crashy on my phone" is not something any developer can take action on. There are no example sites, no steps to recreate. I agree it should be in the bug tracker, but adding anecdotes without specifics does not add much to the conversation nor does it help to move FF forward. Are we arguing all users of this specific device experience the same issues as this user? If not, not even the device model is helpful. As I pointed out, I was not trying to stifle feedback but to point out that for every "FF is too slow" complaint there are just as many "works fine for me comments" that are equally useless. How is FF slow, in what use cases, how cane we recreate these problems? That is worthy of a bug report and if that information is available submit it to FF to make the software better rather than complaining on a thread about Chrome removing a useful extension that FF supports fully across platforms.

You make good points but it sounds very silly to claim DNS adblocking is a waste of resources. One, to each his own. Two, no false positives in our home and 10%-15% of DNS queries blocked is definitely not the "wrong solution" for me and many, many others. Why trivialize legitimate use cases to make your point.

Furthermore, you can't install ublock origin on IoT devices and smart TV's so your claim of "waste of resources" is even more questionable.

Better still, why not both pihole and ublock origin?

I see this all the time and I think it is unhelpful to make these kinds of statements. I can make a counterpoint that I've used FF on Android for years and never experienced any issues whatsoever. I am not trying invalidate your experience, but want to point out anecdotes don't really paint a fair picture for either side of the argument.

For example, how do we know my good experience and your bad experience are not easily explained by hardware differences? If so, what does that say?

It can be forked?

As an American with an Italian last name I've experienced some of this personally. It is ridiculous. Oleksii is a cool name and I imagine how it is perceived here depends a lot on how you pronounce it when introducing yourself. My family has always pronounced our last name with an emphasis on phonics to make the name sounds "less weird" or easier to pronounce for Americans.

Interesting that this submission got flagged. I wonder why?

False.

"The Mueller report does establish that, in fact, members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/opinion/mueller-trump-cam...

Edit: Since the comment I am replying to is no longer present and I got downvotes for my comment: the person claimed there was "no evidence [anyone] conspired with Russia" so I linked to an article in the NYT by a law professor that contradicts this claim in detail. No evidence _is_ a false claim.

Replaced mbp with a loaded T580. Fantastic keyboard, runs Linux well. Sadly, the Mac trackpad is far superior.

The OP mentioned Google reading their email and does not mention the context of advertising you assumed. Another poster pointed out that Google no longer scans Gmail for advertising purposes anyways: https://variety.com/2017/digital/news/google-gmail-ads-email....

I understand what you are saying about all email getting "processed" however, Google is doing way more to process email than spam protection or else they would not need a massive agreement and a separate page listing subprocessors and further breaking those subprocessors down by region and noting whether they are internal or external to Google.

I think my point is simply agreeing that I think it is too bad Google does all this "processing" of user data and that GSuite offers some protection, but not enough.

I'm probably misunderstanding "read your emails" but the link you provided suggests that GSuite users are very much subject to their "emails being read" but with greater restrictions on who can read it and why (https://gsuite.google.com/terms/dpa_terms.html). Lots of text about following EU or other legislation, but definitely this text does not say, "Google does not process your email." There is an entire page dedicated to "subprocessors" who consume your email to provide services (https://gsuite.google.com/intl/en/terms/subprocessors.html).

I get that this agreement presents restrictions on how Google can process GSuite user data, but it does not prevent it from doing so.