I know what you mean. I was forced to use emacs for a year. I found it an interesting coincidence the person who forced emacs on us had the worst carpal tunnel syndrome and couldn't type on a standard keyboard without extreme pain.
I know you can remap your keys but there's inertia to just go with what you're given.
I've also noticed myself switching between Mac, Windows, and Linux, that Cmd-C on my Mac is way less stressful on my hand than Ctrl-C on the other 2 machines. I should probably figure out how to remap those.
PS: If you're curious how emacs was forced, it was because the lead built the project's IDE/build/debugging system into emacs
Try a keyboard running QMK firmware. You can map a single key to multiple codes depending on the length of the key press. I use caps lock as escape if released immediately, and control if held down. Putting the modifiers in the bottom corner of the keyboard was a sadistic design choice.
It's not astroturf. It's pointing out you've been living with this stuff for years, Amazon isn't new and special. If you want the problem solved then it shouldn't be about Amazon, it should be about entire process.
If Amazon can't sell an "Amazon Brand" that competes with other sellers on it's site, the Trader Joe's should not be able to sell wine that competes with the other branded wine in it's own stores. Nor should Target be able to see it's Good Stuff brand (or whatever it is) that directly competes with other things it stocks.
Similarly, if Amazon is going to be barred from having people pay to be the top of search results than Safeway should be barred from having companies pay to have their items placed on the end shelves.
There’s no “entire process” you can target. You going to pass a law on how every company can raise prices? Impossible
No, the actual way is to go company by company and dismantle them. And by Starting with the biggest it sends a message to others that perhaps they should change before they too get broken up.
So by killing a few prominent hostages the system ends up changing “on its own.”
> No, the actual way is to go company by company and dismantle them. And by Starting with the biggest it sends a message to others that perhaps they should change before they too get broken up.
You will never finish if you go company by company, there’s just too many. Additionally no company ever stops anything until forced to. Your suggestions will not solve anything.
If they are all so interchangable, then I guess no one should care too much about them being split up either. Just need a high enough frequency of splitting to keep the market sane.
Are you suggesting free markets are a bad thing? If people think it’s bad, they can stop using the company. If you can’t convince everybody that it’s bad and they should stop using the company, then doesn’t this mean your thoughts are not the average?
I reverse this question to you, what is the solution? I have none but asking companies to change will do nothing. Forcing them to change is a dictatorship. So you tell me what the solution is?
1. Set the example by creating or joining organizations that are not based on Capital owning the majority of the organization (cooperatives, non-stock not-for profit etc..)
2. Increase taxes on non-labor capital growth to directly fund full employment programs Eg make "profit" impossible
How often do you write bash scripts or do you always write all automation in some other language? Just curious how much your conviction influences your behavior
I write code without static types all the time. Daily probably. I am "pro types" in a hand wavy way. My conviction is to no longer engaging in the debate.
Speaking for myself, I never write bash scripts if I can help it (though sometimes I can't help it). That isn't so much because of typing, though... it's because bash is a fucking horrible language that should have died 30 years ago. The fact that there's no such thing as types in bash is just one of many reasons why it sucks to use.
Getting fee isn't wrong maybe, but getting a fee by install is. They should instead ask for a percent of revenue. So if 1 billion people install my flappy bird clone but I only make $300k I don't owe them $15 million dollars.
I don't personally feel like I notice many ads online. Maybe they are subtly influencing me but mostly I seem to avoid them. Yes I have an ad blocker but I still see ads or open things in an guest or incognito window or something which doesn't have an ad blocker. I don't think I can name an ad I've seen in the last year. Maybe a few years ago there was that Nintendo ad that took over all of youtube. Maybe I've seen a movie ad on IDMB once that caught my attention. Mostly though, it's just background noise that I tune out.
The only place I actually notice is Amazon, since it seems to often insert things I don't care about
It's not just SF. Was in the Venice/Santa Monica area recently, every restaurant had a prominent sign "Restrooms for customers only. No Exceptions"
My impression is the USA is falling apart. Every year people get more rude, more selfish, break more laws, are less courteous, there is more crime. I'm not sure I believe the "crime is going down" stats. (hope that doesn't make me stupid)
The problem as I see it is people stop reporting crimes because they know the police will do nothing about it. I've had my car broken into 5 times. I don't think I reported it more than once. Further, some places like California, have declared they won't prosecute property crime under a certain amount so again, even less reporting. So, the numbers appear to be going down but in reality they seem to be going up (That's certainly my personal perception but maybe I'm being influenced by sensational news and personal experience. I definitely see objectively going up in traffic violations. People don't seem to give a fuck anymore. They just do whatever they want)
I have no idea how to fix it or influence people to be nicer and more respectful of the law. Maybe it's the bankers getting off from the financial crisis. Maybe it's the police being perceived as part of the problem. All I know is more and more I think I should go back to a 1st world country because this one no longer feels like one.
Further, some places like California, have declared they won't prosecute property crime under a certain amount
Most U.S. states don't prosecute property crime as a felony under a certain amount. In fact, more than half of the U.S. states use $1000 or more as the threshold for treating theft as a felony. At $950, CA actually has a lower threshold than more than half of the U.S. states.
so again, even less reporting.
It's crazy that you took the overturned policy of a single D.A. in a single city and FUD'd that into the policy of an entire state of 40 million people. That D.A. was kicked out of office the following election, and his successor did not maintain that policy. He tried again in L.A., and his staff not only refused to go along, they actually sued him over it and won.
I have no idea how to fix it or influence people to be nicer and more respectful of the law.
doesn't fix his car's windows for the 6th time, though.
It's not anything special. San Fransico is one of the top 5 largest cities in the US, maybe even in the world. So while crime may be average or even below average, it is going to feel worse because you will see more instances of it. Because there are more people.
It sounds to me like California is falling apart, not the USA—your experience doesn't match mine at all.
Where I'm at, decreased crime rates are very obvious. Our restrooms are all open, our grocery stores barely have any staff monitoring the self checkouts, and we barely think about locking our doors. People are as friendly as ever.
In a theead about public toilets you move within 3 sentences to a vague thesis that the US is 'falling apart' without any metrics to a definition of what that looks like, a framework that is simpke, vague, generalized with very little quantitative datapoints that I cannot help but simply disregard the rest of what you have to say as anything more than hearsay amateur opinions.
If you want to make a comparison between a pair of nation, state your specific metric and bring numbers. Ive had plenty of rude encounters in south america and europe
Have to agree with this assessment of that comment. Of all things to complain about, Americans are not rude on average. Really quite nice, possibly even overbearing at times. Tells me GP hasn’t travelled outside of the US and if they had, sat at resorts the whole time.
>Of all things to complain about, Americans are not rude on average.
on median, no. But the extremities make me think that he US falls below the arithmetic mean in urban areas. If you have 200 polite people and one person with a knife being swung around, guess what impression you get of that area?
We don't calculate "rudeness" in a mathematically logical way.
Nice. I'm not a huge fan of Taibbi anymore, but that segment rings true, especially about needing a plan B for mundane things. Basic, mundane things that you used to be able to just do and count on working, like sending an important document in the mail, or hiring someone to install flooring, or ordering food for delivery, or making a doctor's appointment, now have a reasonably high chance of just not working. And it's always due to human incompetence. Businesses don't pay enough -> they don't hire competent workers who care -> nobody knows what they are doing and everyone screws everything up.
It isn't just that businesses aren't paying enough (though I am sure that contributes) is that increasingly we are beholden to large entities and systems to which individuals are just fucking gnats and beneath the notice of.
As an example I've had issues where I've ordered groceries delivered online and had the driver tell us that they won't deliver to us because there isn't parking at our apartment, and I've left the apartment ten minutes later and seen their delivery truck parked literally a one minute walk up the block. We called and complained, and we got a voucher we can use to get some amount off of our next order. Sure. Ok. But now we are still without our groceries.
The thing is the person we were complaining to was front desk call center staff for a large supermarket chain. They have absolutely no ability to do anything to help us in a meaningful way. They do not have permission to tell the delivery driver to cross the fucking street, or to talk to the deliverer's manager, or anything like that. They literally cannot actually solve my problem.
Same with making a doctors appointment. It's now done by software, which helps things scale but when it goes wrong none of the people you personally are interacting with are likely to be able to fix themselves.
This is still ultimately the result of business squeezing every red cent they can out of every link in the chain, which leaves things brittle as hell/designed to work at scale but not necessarily be able to accommodate things even slightly out of the ordinary.
If the DA is known to not charge crime, then people will not report crimes that occur because they believe it to be a waste of time. In the year after a special election to replace a DA for being too soft, I expect the crime rate to go up as people test if the new DA will actually take it seriously this time.
If it stays up for several years then I would see a problem, but all I'm seeing right now is the expected result of a forced regime change.
I'm not apologizing for google, but think many people who are against all forms of this aren't really thinking the problem through. The same way newspapers said "stop linking headlines to us" and then once some popular service did and all their traffic disappeared they came back and said "oh, wait, no, you can link to us"
For the ads, a large portion of the internet that people want (maybe not you in particular but lots of people in general), run on ads. Arstechnica runs on ads, theverge runs on ads, slashdot runs on ads, the register runs on ads, kotaku runs on ads, tech crunch run on ads. To name a few sites that might be popular here
If those sites can't support themselves they'll more than likely disappear. If all those sites disappeared I feel like plenty of people (maybe not you but more people than not) would realize that they thought they wanted (zero disclose) lead to outcomes they didn't want
I feel like Google is genuinely trying to do something positive here. Provide a way of those sites to still target ads, still check if an ad was effective, still try to check for bad actors making fake clicks, but also be practically un-attributable to a single user.
Going through the actual specs, they really are trying to make it so you can't track and individual but sites can still function based on ads.
Is it in Google own interest? Yes. But it's also in the interest of sites people want which means it's also in the interest of the people who want those sites.
Apple on the other hand, would prefer you be tracked directly by having you download an app for each site where that app can track you way more than a browser with these features can track you.
> If those sites can't support themselves they'll more than likely disappear.
Newspapers and television (pre-digital) managed to survive just fine on advertising before tracking was feasible. There are also subscription services. Content is not going to simply disappear if tracking goes away. Sites that depend on tracking for their survival will adapt or die, but that's fine, businesses fail every day, and I'm certainly not sympathetic to businesses who depend on what I would call unethical practices.
The problem is when regulators ignore an industry for years upon years (capture). Entire industries can grow out of practices that would otherwise have been restricted. The longer it takes, the harder it becomes to implement sane regulation. Instead we just get used to what's most likely a shittier society (the political impact of tracking and nudging).
> For the ads, a large portion of the internet that people want (maybe not you in particular but lots of people in general), run on ads.
The internet I want is one with sites run by individuals doing it because they are passionate about certain topics, NOT because it can be profitable when you slap ads on it. Today, the former has a hard time gaining visibility because the latter has much more incentive to make sure you land on their content farm before other sites. Many people don't even know that the former exist. But that doesn't mean that we need the latter. The internet does NOT depend on ads.
> Arstechnica runs on ads, theverge runs on ads, slashdot runs on ads, the register runs on ads, kotaku runs on ads, tech crunch run on ads. To name a few sites that might be popular here
And Somalia runs on piracy so we need to make sure piracy remains possible? Fuck no. Those sites run on ads because that's currently the path of least resistance. They have alternatives.
> If those sites can't support themselves they'll more than likely disappear.
And for a lot of sites, that's OK. There will be replacements.
> If all those sites disappeared
They won't (at least not without replacement) as long as people have a use for the content they provide.
> I feel like Google is genuinely trying to do something positive here.
Are you perhaps interested in buying a bridge?
> Going through the actual specs, they really are trying to make it so you can't track and individual but sites can still function based on ads.
Anything that supports ads is decidedly bad. Slightly less bad is still bad.
> means it's also in the interest of the people who want those sites.
Nope.
> Apple on the other hand
is irrelevant. I can avoid apple devices but there is only one Internet.
Which carriers are these? I just went to the AT&T site, they wanted $30 a month for an iPhone + a separate $85 a month for cellular service. If instead I pick "wireless->bring your own" and go through the steps it was $75 a month so
A) Pay $75 a month for service
B) Pay $115 a month for service and get a new phone
Their bottom offer was $5 a month for an iphone 12 (plus the $85 month for service)
Curious which carriers offer free iPhones where there's no difference in price.
T-Mobile has a deal if you trade in existing phone but the phone has to be high-end and recent otherwise they won't give you the trade in value needed to cover the new phone.
You get the free phone when you create a new line, so it's easy enough for parents to just choose an iPhone as their kid's first phone (which is what they all seem to be doing).
Rude seems like a too strong a word for it but it's normal culture to fill someone's cup if it's empty and it's rude to poor for yourself without first filling your friend's cup, and ideally they'll ask for the bottle to fill yours once you've finished filling their's but it's common to just fill your own after filling theirs.
As for (2) I don't know any culture where if a friend asks you to meet up with them that there isn't some expectation you'll accept the offer and if you can't you'll at least try to make the friend feel you'd really like to but for whatever reason you can't right now. If you just responded "no, I don't want meet" I'd except after a few such responses you'd no longer be friends in any culture.
(2) is perhaps poorly and ambiguously worded on my part. What I meant to convey was: "It's rude/impolite to refuse your friend's offer to top your drink up" (context being: you're already out drinking).
I know you can remap your keys but there's inertia to just go with what you're given.
I've also noticed myself switching between Mac, Windows, and Linux, that Cmd-C on my Mac is way less stressful on my hand than Ctrl-C on the other 2 machines. I should probably figure out how to remap those.
PS: If you're curious how emacs was forced, it was because the lead built the project's IDE/build/debugging system into emacs