The modern "need" (mania) of defining metrics have a deep root not in knowledge but in ignorance. Smart people can reason autonomously like Galilean scientific models, ignorant can only follow Aristotelian model.
That's also the reason today we have substantial ZERO innovations and capacity to produce new things.
I think you have a poor understanding of what metrics mean, and in case it’s pretty ironic since Galileo essentially defined the modern scientific method of observation, experimentation, and mathematization which birthed quantitative assessment.
I think not. I think I have a clear understating on how we trade Science for neoaristotelism because someone want brainless, managerial-driven, commercial-servant research instead of Science and culture.
A small example: take a young CAD/CAE/CAM engineer, ask he/she to design something for doing a certain job. Ask the same to an ancient engineer. Compare results.
The young will give you a well simulated part/assembly ready for first prototype, the ancient normally gives you small note and a drawing. Prototype the two: the younger one is generally far more complex to being build, costly and far less effective than the ancient one. And it's not a matter of experience, it's a matter of different way of thinking.
Today we spent enormous time in bureaucracy with ridiculous stuff from ITIL/Kanban to the last bit, we spent enormous time in detailed reasoning being on contrary incapable of see the big picture. That's why for instance in shipping company when a (rare) EU doctor (we have less reformed medicine studies than the USA) went in the USA local seafarers they put themselves in the queue for being visited by "real" doctors.
Perhaps my poor English make hard for me to clearly express concepts, sorry. How to do your nails it's simply far less valuable than how a banks or a car work in knowledge terms, however on YT&c it get far more financial reward than a video on banking systems, mechanics etc.
I don’t think it’s has less value on a case by case basis, but this is also not relevant.
There is a big difference between education/enrichment and entertainment and while some content creators might walk the line between them there is a pretty big split.
I would say pre-defining what is “valuable” is probably not the best approach because it too prone to selection bias, an instruction video on how to do nails to a beautician is far more useful than a video explaining correspondenant banking systems.
That said the content as a whole can be measured in terms of its impact on cognitive and emotional state and well being especially on large sample sizes.
We already know that social media voyeurism causes a lot emotional distress, we know that certain types of content can make you “dumber” at least in the short term.
And on a larger scale we can check the social and individual benefits for specific cases, e.g. how many individuals who watched a specific subeset of content turned their life to the better in say a period of 5 years.
You, me, any other. We all like to laugh but we know that life is beyond that. That's why we have schools that teach history, physics, chemistry, math, geography, ... instead of teaching nail arts, hair styling, parkour etc.
Also, if you travel the world a bit, you'll easy see how most "mean acculturated" countries offer generally a better life quality, life expectancy etc.
Actually, I have to shoot you down on that one. There are "beauty schools" that teach nail arts, hair styling, makeup, etc. Want to know something really interesting? The people you're shitting on that go into those schools, have a better placement rate of finding jobs and are generally happier than those that go into the "classical" education routes. Plus, the beauticians can make pretty good money too. Have you seen how happy these people are with their lives? I'd give up all my tech skills from beginning to end just to be half that happy with life.
Also, when you tell someone "if you travel the world a bit", it makes you seem like a stuck up cunt standing on a soap box that attended too many liberal arts classes and you're just regurgitating what your teachers told you since you don't have a single independent thought or experience of your own. Just sayin'.
At nazi times in Germany if you have joined nazi's party earlier and you participate in many nazi's related activities you'll get rewarded far more than "traditional citizen", perhaps with a humanistic degree... In actual Russian federation if you have the "right friend" and you keep saying that Putin is a good man you'll certainly get better rewards respect of a journalist that say government is corrupted and actual president is a dictator. In my home-country (Italy) if you have some friends in Catholic church or you are in some catholic association you have better chances to get paid more, have more customers, have less bureaucratic problems than a well known atheist or agnostic etc.
I do not say that nail art should not exists, only that reward you get from it should be proportionate to what you give to our society so I expect that a good plumber being rewarded more than a nail artist. Simple as that.
On different countries comparison, I'm living in French, have lived in Italy, Sweden, a bit of stay in USA, UK, CZ and Rus. I compare plus and minus I see in all that countries and that's my conclusions. Never attended a "liberal art class".
I get my nails done regularly because I struggle badly with compulsive skin picking and chew on my cuticles a lot. They clean up my ragged cuticles for me (so I don't get carried away doing it myself and make them worse), and the nail polish makes my nails thicker so it's harder for me to pick at my skin. I work in a machine shop and regularly work with acetone on the job, so regular nail polish I could do myself is not an option. I recently started getting the powder dip manicures because they're pretty indestructible and extra thick, and it'd be extremely difficult to give one of those to yourself.
Who are you to say nail techs don't contribute to society? Getting my nails done as harm reduction strategy for a mental illness is an enormous boost to my quality of life. I'm often in a lot of pain because of my cuticles or because I've got some picking spot I can't leave alone, and getting my nails done always comes with a sense of relief for me. I've gotten less and milder staph infections since I started getting them done regularly, too.
Don't poo poo on nail techs, man. Most fabulous, glittery "medical treatment" I've ever gotten.
If the primary motivation anywhere was to alter driver behaviour, a points based penalty system is all it would take. Monetary fines in traffic infringements are entirely for revenue.
Anecdote time: a friend from one of the nation's major universities was involved in a road authority funded study to evaluate the safety impact of newly installed speed cameras at several intersections.
They found there was none. Said road authority pulled the plug and pretended like the study never existed after that.
Anecdote of my own: In my country, monetary fines in traffic infringements are explicitly not for revenue. They mix into the total state revenue and form a minuscule fraction of it. The police sees none of it.
This distinction is made very clear, for example in a parliament answer by the justice minister: "...it is clear that the purpose of fines is not to increase the revenue of police departments but first and foremost to deter traffic violations and increase traffic safety."
> Anecdote of my own: In my country, monetary fines in traffic infringements are explicitly not for revenue. They mix into the total state revenue [...]
You're contradicting your own claim.
Just because someone in a PR position says the purpose is not to increase revenue doesn't make it so. It doesn't matter where the revenue goes, the fines generate revenue. If they didn't care about revenue, they'd use penalty points - with the added benefit of not fucking over the lower and middle classes.
Just because something is revenue doesn't mean that the purpose is entirely to increase revenue. That is the claim you made. I have presented a counter-example to that, where revenue increase is clearly not the only reason for monetary fines. We have the stated purpose of the legislation -- you can call that PR or whatever you'd like but the stated purpose is not revenue increase -- and you have the fact that these revenues do not benefit any police departments or anyone directly. Instead they make up an absolutely tiny fraction of the total revenues of the state.
Just for fun, I calculated this fraction for a given year. The revenue from all traffic violation fines accounted for a whopping 0.1% of the total state revenue.
So apparently the only purpose of these traffic fines are to raise the state revenue by 0.1%, despite the explicit stated purpose of the legislation and any evidence to the contrary. Does that make sense to you?
Is this one of those things where you just know you're right because you feel it in your gut and nothing can ever convince you otherwise?
Yes, I really do. Why don't more computers come with Linux pre-installed? If Linux is such a great replacement for Windows, why has it made very little gains in replacing Windows? Is it all somebody else's fault and has nothing to do with the usability of Linux?
There has got to be more money in Linux than Windows since the majority of servers are running it. The problem is Linux doesn't see user experience as anything that is necessary. When it does (ubuntu, et al) it thrives....but many of us have been waiting since the 90s for everything to "work" on Linux without having to screw around.
People love it when things just work and for many of them Apple and Windows do just that.
How about unstable apis to anything outside the kernel[1].
Or, more personal, on this laptop I get shorter battery life (I have it plugged in most of the time so it's tolerable), sometimes it doesn't wake up so I have to always shut it down (tolerable) and bluetooth headset doesn't work (I use wired ones, so tolerable again).
> Or, more personal, on this laptop I get shorter battery life (I have it plugged in most of the time so it's tolerable), sometimes it doesn't wake up so I have to always shut it down (tolerable) and bluetooth headset doesn't work (I use wired ones, so tolerable again).
I hear the same problems about MacOS on brand new Macbooks.
> Oh yes, the classic usability problem for the Average User, how could I forget
It becomes usability problem for your users when it becomes too burdensome for ISVs to port their software on your fractured platform. It the whole raison d'etre of technologies like snappy, flatpak or docker that now try to patch this problem.
Is there any point? It seems like you're convinced enough that nothing can ever change your mind. So I'm fine with just disagreeing and leaving it at that.
> Why don't more computers come with Linux pre-installed? […] Is it all somebody else's fault
That coquetry of ignorance wasn't cool on Slashdot twenty years ago, what makes you think it's acceptable here?
Microsoft's actions, for which they have been convicted in courts of law all over the world, have set back desktop computing by two decades. A PC clone with e.g. BeOS on it could not be had for money or good words, and the reason was precisely because they killed off competitors with their anti-capitalist, anti-consumer stranglehold on the vendors and markets before the competitors even had a chance to show their quality or lack thereof.
Linux' boon was that it by-passed that system, thriving from the figurative grass roots. It makes little sense – merely in order to take it seriously – to demand to be able to buy a pre-installed Linux.
I'm sorry if I come across as obtuse, but I just need to understand this clearly. Is it your belief that the low usage of Linux has nothing to do with Linux itself?
Unless they are cracking down on apps that do nothing but republish links and feeds. Most Reddit apps will let you post and engage; some HN apps will do that too (shout out to my beloved Minihack). This particular app didn't, so it's difficult to argue that it provided anything more than republishing links... something that surely should be done only by their News app now /s
I guess... but that still leaves pretty much all news aggregators. Google News doesn't let you do much other than read news from all over the internet. It's functionally exactly the same, only with a different aggregating algorithm.
Even the Hangouts client opens links which people send me in its own internal browser— a behaviour I actually don't care for, since I'd prefer it spawned tabs in the regular Safari app. But it's exactly the same thing this guy is getting in trouble for.
Have you done any research into how likely it is that a visitor from your demographic understands what "federated" means in this context? I ask because it's part of the tagline, so if you don't understand a key word in the product description you're probably less likely to show interest in it.
In this context, it means that content from this service is shared with other servers. This is different from decentralized - in a decentralized network, every client communicates directly with other clients, whereas in a federated network, clients communicate with central servers but the servers can interoperate . Email is a good example of a federated network - mail clients communicate with centralized mail servers, but mail servers can send messages to other mail servers. To extend that analogy, when you write an article on Write.as your browser sends that data to the Write.as server, but the server federates that data to various other servers - Mastodon instances, Pleroma instances, etc. This is what enables Mastodon et. al users to like, follow, and share content posted to Write.as.
Glad someone pointed this out. I had to Google it, then urban dictionary, then back to Google with an “open source” appended to the query, only after happening upon these comments. So far, I think it means “decentralized”
It does not mean exactly the same thing as decentralized. It is true that it is not fully centralized with one party controlling everything, but it is also not fully decentralized with each user running their own server.
Instead, multiple servers run by different parties share data with each other. End users can use the system without running their own server.
