1_2__4

Stop carrying water for multi billion corporations, and stop thinking consumers are frightened children who can be fooled with simple explanations.

It’s insanely powerful only for its size and energy usage. There are so many cut corners and micro-lies when it comes to mobile that make all the specs sound good but at the end of the day they are far, far more crippled devices than any desktop or laptop computer. They tout things like processor specs but the entire computer matters, and turns out when you optimize for power efficiency and battery life a whooooole lot of computing power is simply not there for you to use.

Okay, fine: "Why is a kernel module writing to my BIOS"?

FB's.

That's not even a little bit true.

Whenever I run into an argument for something society-wide like this I do a little though experiment: Imagine the world as the argument suggests - in this case that public transportation is the norm. Now imagine I came to you and said, hey, what would you say to a personal conveyance device? Small and cheap enough to park at your residence, can carry you and all your friends/family/churchmembers/whatever as well as their cargo, and there's an existing, nationwide system (highways) they can use to literally get anywhere in the entire continental US, door-to-door, with the only requirement that you pay a little more.

Virtually everyone would dash off their shitty trains and busses in a moment and hop into cars. Even if you told them it would lead to mass congestion they'd point to people whose job it is to stuff people onto trains when they get too full. If you told them it would lead to pollution they might be swayed, but then if you told them electric cars were basically right on the horizon that would seem like an acceptable trade off.

You are arguing for a world that for most of the US would be considered objectively, demonstrably worse than the status quo. Just because you and your personal social circle lives in urban areas and doesn't need or want cars is virtually irrelevant to the national conversation because you are a tiny fraction of a minority that is not going to get any traction as self-driving and electric vehicles become the norm.

Public transportation in the US has already hit its apogee. Nobody wants it outside of dense urban cores, and the nation is largely not urban cores, nor will it be just because you wish it was.

Because ad targeting is so the advertiser can show you want they want you to buy, rather than what you want to buy. No part of the process is oriented towards finding what you want and giving it to you. It’s for finding out who you are so they can exploit you.

NY Post, Washington Examiner, The Daily Wire, and a blog written by someone whose bio starts out "An internationally renowned expert in the field of health and nutrition...".

Perhaps you have sources that aren't part of an insane right-wing echo chamber? Oh wait, no, of course you don't, or you would have posted them. Must be some of that Deep State infecting the MSM (am I doing this "right")?

I love Macs and I love desktop computers (I'm old). I have a maxed-out 2013-era iMac. I'll piss away money on the stupidest things, but this is just insane. I can't possibly wrap my head around spending that much money for an all-in-one computer in 2017. It's like Apple wants to pretend it's still 2012.

> Movies, while extremely popular, don't generate that much money

But movies are part of Intellectual Property, which is the US's biggest export (in real dollars).

Citation needed. That’s a lot of very specific numbers.

The whole blog is basically just a Facebook feed.

It's almost as if the game is built specifically to be unwinnable. What an odd coincidence.

LOL indeed. Your (poor) argument could be used to justify televisions running in the classroom 24x7 too, just to shake loose that awful "frontal instruction".

This honestly sounds like snake oil. It’s even got all the requisite buzzwords.

They have. The fact that it didn’t work should inform you about how politics works today

Wow. Four whole years. That’s amazing and obviously disabuses anyone of any notion of conflict of interest. Yep. This puts the issue to bed forever thanks for clearing it up.

Ask yourself which is more lucrative and you’ll have your(depressing) answer.

My counter argument is I’ve tried to take this advice multiple times in my life and each time came to the (re)conclusion that I will never be able to think of it as anything but lying and manufactured conflict. Some of us just don’t have brains that allow for that kind of thinking, at least not without severe anxiety and discomfort.

I can’t sell. I’ll never be able to sell. I think that makes me feel like a more honest person. I’m okay with that trade off.

Let's all sit and reflect for a moment that Apple was the first (and for a long time, the only) company that used to get sleep/wake "right".

So assuming this is yet another VC-funded firm being pushed to only go after "whales" and cull undesirables... Who are the whales, and who are the undesirables? My tinfoil hat says adult art is made up of more/smaller pledges and they're hoping this will run them off the service. That's typically why companies do this.

For me the biggest PITA lately with Go is dealing with json. Exhaustively listing every potential field in order to type it is maddening.

Those protect people not citizens. You’re right that’s not how it’s popularly understood but it’s why we have Gitmo: it’s an attempt to apply a thin veneer of legitimacy by pretending it’s a military proceeding (as if theres exceptions for those in the documents you mentioned) and keeping it as far outside the purview of judicial legal analysis as possible.

And people say this is necessary when we built thousands of starter homes in decades past and somehow developers still made scads of cash.

You vastly underestimate how far that money goes in the regions where these graduates are hired.

I like how you carefully catalog the theoretical damage a recent court precedent going the other way would have inflicted, and just as carefully ignore the actual fallout we’ve already seen from it.

Your anecdotal evidence beats out a professor, sure.

Hmm. Could it be perhaps that cheap prices and bare-bones service isn't what the majority of people wants, and that since that happens to just be the most profitable thing for airline companies to offer, they pretend that's what the customers are demanding?

I mean it's not as if there's no precedent for that kind of behavior. The idea the airlines are entirely subject to the whims of consumer demand seem laughable at the surface.

Maybe phrased another way: What evidence do you have that this is what customers want?

This is not even a little bit true. What you're implying is that businesses are required by law to keep all internal communications in case someday there's litigation, and that is just flatly false.

Deleting data once litigation has been initiated is tampering/obstruction. Deleting data when not under litigation is the company's choice, with very few exceptions. Many companies explicitly require all communication be ephemeral - email, messaging, etc. it explicitly only preserved for X days and then deleted entirely from all systems.

In business individual productivity is not necessarily the most important thing. Companies are about collaboration and communication and if the tooling doesn’t support that then it’s at odds with the company’s needs. Maybe those two finance guys are less productive but now it’s auditable, regulatory compliant, redundant/backed up, and resilient to either of those two people leaving. That seems like a win for the company even if it’s not a win for employee productivity.