I wouldn't disagree that decomposing a system in this way before implementation is a net positive, however I think different stake holders view plans like these very differently. If you discover partway through development that the library you planned to use for a feature will not work and as a result have to revisit your plan, then some stake holders see that as a failure or delivering late because to them the original plan was an iron-clad guarantee whereas to developers that's just an expected part of the process where not everything can be known ahead of time
I quite like the idea of a ratcheting mechanism, something like copyright for a few years is free, then the creator must pay an increasing amount of money to extend it every X years up to a maximum of the creators lifetime
It's unlikely to ever happen as it would require a lot of political wrangling, but I think a system where you only gain copyright protection or the ability to sue for damages by submitting your work to a repository/archive would be beneficial (either for free or very low cost). Then when copyright has expired the archive can make the work available to the public
For the purposes of opening a bank account or for getting a loan then it would be considered identity theft. Pretending to be someone else online though? That's perfectly legal free speech in the US as far as I'm aware
So you'd be happy if people created social network profiles pretending to be you and posting whatever they want people to believe you said because of free speech? Sounds pretty weird, are you sure you don't have a law against such abuse?
I thought free speech was me saying what I want, not a free pass to mislead people to believe I said something I didn't.
I wouldn't be happy with it but that doesn't make it illegal. In some countries it might be considered libel/defamation depending on what was said, but those standards vary wildly between/within countries and are to my understanding generally not considered criminal
And permitting lying or misleading speech is a pretty core part of free speech, it might be socially frowned upon or disincentivised by terms of service/moderation/other methods, but it's certainly not illegal
Actually, the user was benefiting from the blue checkmark of "verified account" and changed name and photo to "Elon Musk", that's got to be clearly a violation of twitter verified account terms, don't you think?
It probably is against the ToS, but it's also perfectly legal first amendment speech, which undercuts Elon's claims that he's turning Twitter into a free speech platform. Seems more like a Elon-sanctioned speech platform
I'm not a big Twitter user but am often bombarded with right wing content on other sites like Reddit and Youtube no matter how often I try to tell the site/train the algorithm that it's not content I'm interested in seeing whatsoever, the idea that conservatives are being silenced when I (a left wing Brit) am constantly seeing their content is frankly ridiculous
> the idea that conservatives are being silenced when I (a left wing Brit) am constantly seeing their content is frankly ridiculous
It doesn't matter if you're "left wing" or not - The algorithm decided that certain people should be steered toward that content and others away from it. So the content is not reaching people organically or through merit. Rather, you're selected based on a hidden formula that nobody gets to see, and certainly doesn't serve the interests of the viewers or the uploaders. If you don't understand how that is censorship, you're missing the point of the whole show.
As a member of NAFO I get bombarded by Pro-Russian views every single time I refresh my timeline it seems, and I never like any of it or follow any of those genocidal maniacs or their cheerleaders :-/
Wouldn't these points also apply to the internet itself? Large monopolies in infrastructure, having to teach people what domains are, diplomatic conflicts between nations over access to information/infrastructure, prolific spam and scams, etc.
The internet did grow out of telephony so perhaps it's not surprising that it shares many of the same qualities, however I think these government vs private debates often ignore that the failures and shortcomings of these systems are usually a result of both bad government intervention and bad private actors, not solely one or the other
> Wouldn't these points also apply to the internet itself? Large monopolies in infrastructure, having to teach people what domains are, diplomatic conflicts between nations over access to information/infrastructure, prolific spam and scams, etc.
Yes, many similar problems have indeed arisen, but the point is that they are being solved by many private actors, and not by regulation.
Email spam is solved by spam filtering. To the extent that spam filtering isn’t adequate, communications simply move away from email to other messaging services that have better permission models. To the extent that messaging services are not private enough, communications shift to E2E encryption. To the extent that domains are confusing, people shift to search and apps. The list goes on.
Anti-spam legislation doesn’t regulate the technology. It legislates the behavior of the spammers.
This is no different from say, assault, which doesn’t regulate hammers and baseball bats, but makes it illegal to hit people with them without their permission.
Your comment seemed to be claiming that, at least in the example of email spam, only technology (filtering) addresses it, that there is no role for regulation. I was disagreeing with that.
My understanding of phone spam regulation is there is some that legislates technology, namely forbidding completion of connections of spoofed phone numbers.
Very much agreed. I also take issue with the 'received wisdom' that eking out productivity from people at any cost to their physical or mental health is actually producing more benefit over the long term, it seems more likely to me that it's just externalising the increased societal/healthcare/other costs for short term benefit
Personally I quite like the settings change, perhaps I didn't spend enough time with the old one but it felt rather clunky/disorganised to me. Whereas now they're roughly approximate between devices there's less for me to remember. I'd agree no one expects a computer to work the same as a phone/tablet, however when it comes to such basic things as settings having the same interface and syncing things where it makes sense is a positive for me
Also, if you can distance yourself from the visual changes, you'll notice there are far more customization than there have ever been.
The fact that I can remap caps lock more easily than on a Linux machine, for example, blows my mind. Window tiling also works out of the box with 3rd party apps. Meanwhile, Ubuntu switching to GNOME broke Compiz settings that many used for those features.
Poster won't know how good he has it until he switches to something else.
Also, if macOS and iOS converge into appleOS, won't that mean we finally get a MacBook we can touch and hack?
Depending on your view of things, everything on Linux is a "third party app" ;)
On macOS there's a crude one: hover over the green stoplight, and you get first party tiling (via fullscreen), press alt and you get snapping. I do wish the latter would get default shortcuts though (which you can set up yourself in the keyboard shortcut settings). The only reason I install Moom is that it supports mouse snapping, because the 1st party one + MC covers 98% of my tiling use cases.
To each his own, and I do use i3 on Linux, but I found that attempting to set up such "true tiling" ways results in much kludginess on macOS, the same way that attempting to make Linux mimic macOS largely fails. It's a bit like importing vim keybindings in various apps: you could only pry vim from my cold dead hands but for me the approximation of vim is worse than no vim in apps that are not vim, it just constantly trips me up. Therefore, I choose to use each tool for its strengths, and accept its failings.
My point is that "out of the box" and "with a third-party app" are at odds with each other. OOTB means OOTB, nothing else - i.e. in this scenario that phrase can be left out because it's incorrect.
I recently ran into this setting up a laptop for work and how user hostile this step had become made my blood boil. There is no option to setup an initial local account unless you intentionally provide bad input to the Microsoft login page, I ended up just wiping the machine and installing Windows 10 from scratch
I'd really like to able to send invoices to Microsoft and other companies like Dell who pull this bullshit for wasting time in my life to work around this stuff (and I wonder how much potential productivity is used up by these practices)
I think they mean that it's code they're not having to write/test/maintain themselves because presumably if you pick a good enough library the quality of code/features are better then what one individual or team could do
While there are issues with this approach like the article outlines, personally I believe it to be better then the alternative of countless developers reimplementing the same feature sets over and over because honestly that just seems like a waste of human time and talent
To further drive the point, almost everyone seems to be conveniently missing a great benefit of libraries: they tend to be greatly battle-tested, most of the successful ones.
The moment people start realising their own (and most likely crappy) implementation to solve problem Z and discover they didn't consider X or Y or W scenario and haven't even tested for those, most of them will hopefully understand what "balance" and "trade-off" actually mean.
You never actually need 90% of the functionality a library gives, though... With some notable exceptions (cryptography). Most times I've excised a library I've only needed to implement a small part of what it did.
That's true, and there may be valid reasons to remove a library and reimplement that 10% yourself such as for performance, stability or educational reasons. However if the library is performing as expected, does not using 90% of it make it any less valuable? If the problem has been solved in a satisfactory way and remaking it doesn't bring benefit or solve a problem then it seems wasteful to spend the human time to do so
