People have been saying this since day dot. It was very controversial for Debian to change to use systemd. The vote was close due to many arguments which are still being played out
This sounds horrible for user experience. That used to be Apple's claimed Raison d'être. It's sad how far they are willing to debase themselves to chase a few extra nickels. They are already one of the richest companies in the world.
Surely they should focus on improving the actual quality of their products (particularly software), and developer experience and documentation, rather than further watering down their quality.
This is going to leave a black stain on Tim Cook's legacy. Sure apple may be more profitable and bigger than ever, but its betrayed its legacy, and its users.
I think this misses something fundamental. Most of the colonies Britain created until the race for Africa were to support the Navy. During the 16th century they were efforts to create colonies to support trade (i.e. North America, India). Britain then needed a strong navy to support its merchant vessels who sold English goods all over the world, and bought goods from all over the world to Britain. Which is why colonies like the cape were created. It is this growth in merchants that brought riches. Those riches would not have lasted without a Navy to protect the merchants from piracy or privateers.
Colonies were not originally intended to be profitable, they were way points for ships to stock up on goods, water, men, etc. Leaders in those colonies on their own initiatives then looked to expand the colonies to make themselves a big name.
Thats just what the internet of the mid to late 90s was like. People rarely used their real name, there were hundreds of forums, some private. You could have different nicks on them.
Nobody knew you were a dog on the internet[1] until the rise of Facebook and linking your real identity with an online identity.
The idea that everyone has only one identity, one whole, is harmful.
People change over time. People change even a little based on who's around them. Even memories change as people see things in new lights.
The Internet of the late 90s and early 2000s was spectacular in that everyone could be as authentic and deep as they wanted to be, and as shallow and invisible as they wanted to be depending on context.
Firefox? Want to know how to really sell yourself. Be 'For the User', like TRON (but avoid that for copyright reasons and because normal people don't understand). The user should be able to TRUST that Firefox isn't selling them out, spying on them, or doing anything strange. That when Firefox creates identity sandboxes they're firewalled from each other to the maximum extent; including resisting device fingerprinting (just look generic and boring).
You could argue (it certainly has been argued) that the ability for technology to dissolve the usually more coherent identities that we take on daily by granting unlimited role play, trolling, and exploration is simply too much for a lot of people, and makes it hard to maintain a coherent sense of self. This is especially true of people who are “internet addicts” - not that the designation means a whole lot as I’m here at the gym talking to you on the phone.
Don’t get me wrong, I mostly agree with your comment. I think even more dastardly is the tendency for the internet to market new personalities to you, based on what’s profitable
There's also the inconvenient truth that a very specific part of the world was online in the 1990s.
Primarily more educated, more liberal, more wealthy.
Turns out, when you hook the rest of the planet online, you get mass persuasion campaigns, fake genocide "reporting", and enough of an increase in ambient noise that coherent anonymous discourse becomes impossible.
I mean, look at the comments on Fox News or political YouTube videos. That's the real average level of discussion.
The 1990s internet was definitely not more liberal! 4chan style forums were probably the rule. I can’t believe someone would say that, clearly you didn’t use the same internet that I did.
He didn't say the internet was more liberal, he said the people on it were.
Before you start forming your reply, think about the actual culture back then. If you take slashdot as somewhat representative of the 90s internet culture, it was basically anti-corporate, meritocratic, non-judgmental, irreligious, educated, non-discriminatory, and once 2000 came around tended to be highly critical of the Bush agenda.
4chan at that time and places like it represented more of an edgelord culture, where showing vulnerability or sensitivity was shunned, everything revered by the larger populace was ruthlessly mocked, and distrust of society and government in general was taken as natural. Calling them conservative would have been non-sensical.
Exactly. If I had to characterize the general internet (read: what would and wouldn't raise an eyebrow in an average forum) in terms of political alignment, it'd probably be:
That SA / 4chan (both of which were really post-90s) existed were in no way proof of an anti-liberal bent. Their very edgelordness was an implicit reveling in absolute freedom of expression (even if their later liberal-pro-censoring and alt-right splinter movements subsequently forgot that).
Thats an important point. You can't tell if the software you use is vulnerable to something like log4j without the vendor telling you, or doing lots of manual investigation.
SBOMs are supposed to help with software composition analysis. Basically, you as an enterprise have an inventory of what software you use, and their SBOMs (i.e. dependencies). I can then use this to automatically check which software is impacted by severe vulnerabilities when they are announced.
Airplay from youtube is broken for me. I airplay and instead of english, I get german and no way to change the language. This is not an isolated incident.
I took knowability to be, how well you know the properties of a particle? For example, if you could perfectly knew the position of a particle, then you would have no knowledge of its momentum.
I thought Hisenberg meant the more you knew about one property (i.e. the smaller the bound on the position of a particle) the less you knew about the other property.
I'm not an expert on this, so more than happy to be corrected.
> I thought Hisenberg meant the more you knew about one property (i.e. the smaller the bound on the position of a particle) the less you knew about the other property.
Yes, this is it, but remove "you knew"... just - property. The more one property is defined, the less the other property is.
The key I'm trying to get across is it doesn't matter what you, the observer know/don't know (i.e. measure). As temp ->abs_zero, momentum becomes more-undefined/fuzzier. Nothing to do with you measuring.
The "other" property is fundamentally undefined (i.e. not knowable, i.e. able to be known).
Maybe we're getting hung up on our shared understanding of "knowable" and I shouldn't have used it, but it is, technically, the correct usage.
irjustin is either redefining words to suit their purpose, or isn’t articulating their point well.
To even “know” position, one must measure it. Because electrons are always in motion, if you want to know their speed perfectly, you won’t know their position precisely. You’ll have a probability of where the electron should be, but no definite position.
That’s all Heisenberg has to say. It doesn’t talk about your observations changing the thing you observed, it doesn’t “cause” anything to happen, it is not dependent on the consciousness of the observer and doesn’t make effects itself.
I've written to the Prime Minister and nary a response. I'd call him and complain about his government's failings, and failure to respond in a timely manner to concerns and letters directed to him.
I'd call him useless, but lets be frank he is no worse than his peers, or recent prime ministers from both sides of Parliament.
TBH if you called me with general complaints et al. I doubt I'd bother replying either.
If there's any actionable issue that you want to raise a better starting place is with whatever minister has the portfolio that's relevant. Also write (and cc the minister) to whatever national reporters are covering that domain.
It's about finding the leverage to raise awareness and response to whatever policing, agricultural, medical, defense, et al. questions or concerns you have.
reply