537 karma · joined April 24, 2016
I was once banned there 48h after a polite discussion on the economic costs (citing various sources) for "hate speech". I got too many upvotes so it was noticed. Appealing to a mod resulted in him "examining my posts on other subs, and given who you voted for the ban will be permanent".
Actual hate speech is one thing, but far-left mods of major subs are using the banner of hate speech to silence well-informed opposing views.
There are entire communities on Reddit which pride themselves in only posting to their "bad" sub on accounts strictly for that purpose.
I can't change my face. Faces are not passwords.
By making what you made, you've made it possible for LEA to categorize and fingerprint malware/open source anonymous software etc etc.
This will go unnoticed for many years, until the first big player gets busted by it (publically, because many more were busted before in secret).
Once that happens, it will become the standard practice to fuzz your source code with random methods to obscure the author.
In a sense, someone will have to make something that turns "regular" code into unreadable gibberish before compiling... because of what you wrote
Internet search has evolved past that of a free market entity; search is now a public utility as much as power and water.
You can't imagine a neighborhood without power and water. You can't imagine the internet without search. Google today is like the AT&T of old. When we bust it up the goal should be power-utility-like entities (bland, unbiased, purely functional entities with mostly technical oversight and immunity from liability)
The only ethical thing to do is technically (and morally) divest from google infrastructure.
It's immature word games at best, and insecure egoism at worst, to act this way in the face of overwhelming rhetorical truth. The vast majority of "old" people had zero use for the tech as we know it in their daily lives for most of their lives. As such, most of them have no idea what is going on.
This is common sense, well understood fact.
2. Sneer about no "professional sources" for positions, since few people value ideas over employment/tenure. Only people with nothing to lose publically air those opinions, those with things to lose keep them to themselves.
3. Imply that anyone who thinks in the non-approved way must be like those people/undesirables with nothing to lose, despite the silent ones having a lot to lose.
You can say this is all tinfoil, but my engineering ethics professor told the entire class he's had to make choices between "speaking truth to power" and his career and that in the interest of full disclosure he chose his career + funding. 250+ people in that room at the time.
This stuff is dangerous.
I'm determined to cut them out of my technical life entirely, I've even switched myself and everyone I know/support off their DNS.
I can't support their shady practices anymore.
"Maintaining" a PC is super easy...
Romeney had the intimidation factor of a house plant.
Which is fine, at least under capitalism you're allowed to criticize it.
You can't just say their political system wasn't responsible for this, especially when it's how these types of governments always end up.
That, and there's some really cool startups in stealth mode I've yet to see mentioned here, some breaking $10m in revenue and others getting funded left and right.
Atlanta is on the rise.