1_2__4

I'm not sure which is funnier, his comment or your deadpan response.

Do you have a better idea? I don’t.

No. Why would you think it is? Could you point to post-1980 precedent?

None of those have adult communities in the rounding error of the scale Tumblr does.

Perhaps that kind of distortion is a good thing. Perhaps the market isn’t an all-seeing all-knowingly omnipotent entity independent of the humans that created and participate in it.

IOW you should explain why “market distortions” are inherently a bad thing.

Representative government is our thing.

On one hand I love these and consider them good advice. On the ther they’re often used as a weak crutch for poor programming practices, usually by developers who believe any amount of money spent on infrastructure is worth it to avoid the catastrophic consequences of maybe thinking about performance in their code. They’re certain they never want to optimize too early, and they’re certain that every day is too early.

It’s relevant regardless of tenure or history because all indications are that he votes for Verizon’s interests, not the public’s.

This 1000%. The companies you mentioned don’t innovate on tech, they innovate on sucking up to executives and convincing them to buy things that the executive’s own staff recommends against. They have extraordinarily well-oiled sales machinery that deftly bypasses any kind of sanity checking inside the customer’s company and devote all their efforts to keeping it running.

I think any prognosis here is dire. There’s no going back from where we are.

I hate this argument so much, any along the lines of "people have always said this". It's not true that just because something has been raised as a concern before that it can't possible be a concern now. The world changes, as do the circumstances for engaging it.

You don’t see a problem with users being completely unable to predict with any accuracy how good the quality of what they’re buying is?

Remember that you can pretty much bank on:

. When a Republican politician accuses someone else of something, they're doing it themselves.

. When a Republican politician makes a claim on controversial legislation, the opposite of that claim is the truth.

You can claim this is partisan grumbling, or you can pay attention and realize this is far more true than anyone would want to believe.

What should happen is irrelevant to the conversation. We’re talking about what WOULD happen.

This claim keeps popping up. I’ve yet to see it include a citation. Maybe today will be different.

Are you asking if statistics are racist or sexist?

No, this is does not always happen. This is why we're here discussing this. Why are so many HN commenters so quick to just flatly ignore the fact that the very reason you're seeing this conversation in the first place is because lots of people agree with the OP, or believe it to be an important discussion? Your comment could be summed up as "Bah, humbug."

I feel like a lot of the arguments around immigration - including H1-Bs - boil down to two pretty straightforward opposing views of immigration:

1) "We" have built something great and unique, and we want others to be able to partake of and contribute to it, but the greatness and uniqueness of it is special and we want to preserve that. This is the more conservative view.

2) "We" have an environment where great things can happen, and so we want to bring people into it and add their greatness to it to make it even greater. There is nothing special about what we have, nothing that warrants preserving, and in fact change - constant, disruptive change - is naturally good. This is the more liberal view.

It bothers me that (1) is often conflated with racism, admittedly (the bothering part) because it's something I happen to agree with despite being mostly liberal on other issues. I DO think we here in America have a culture worth preserving, and while I want to open it up as much as possible to the world, I won't support doing so to the detriment and/or dissolution of what we have. I don't think constant disruption is naturally good; I didn't when I was younger and I don't think it is now.

But anything even approaching a whiff of something like "preservation" is immediately labeled racist dog-whistling (which seems insane to me). Any kind of "hey, maybe non-Americans are trying to exploit this and that's not good" is racism. Saying that perhaps as much diversity as possible even if just for diversity's sake in all things is maybe not the best thing - again, racism.

We need to recognize that there are real, non-racist and completely rational and informed reasons why people are uncomfortable with things like H1-B abuse, and that we don't all agree on what immigration should be or accomplish.

Are you paid for this opinion? I have to imagine yes.

To me, the thing that gives the game away is that every time a company talks about "AI" both current and near future in general terms it's blue-sky, the-future-is-robots glorious (not really) automated future. Then when they talk specifics it's "language translation" which is still pretty awful and "image processing" which has been the purview of AI for many many years with no indication it'll be breaking out of that box anytime soon.

Yes I know there's massive advancements in using ML to make things seem more advanced than they are. But at the end of the day consumer AI today is: Language recognition and translation and photo recognition and manipulation. Everything else is snake oil.

So pardon me if I don't start portending Apple's doom because they may have to spend a little more of their untold billions to buy an AI startup to make photo enhancements slightly more cool for the next version of IOS. I don't think there's a game-changing AI breakthrough waiting to happen that the big companies are all going to have to fight for market space with because I can't find any evidence of it anywhere.

Given the whole article is about how some people do care your dismissive comment is as pointless as it is incorrect.

This website is garbage. Look at their other articles. They’re not supporting free speech, they’re pissed they and their ilk can’t peddle lies as easily anymore.

Yeah anytime someone says GUIs are “easier” my question is always “for what?”. Not because a CLI is always (or even usually, depending on how you slice it) superior, but because a GUI makes some things better and some things a lot worse. So many use cases are not “easier”, they’re harder.

Or it's because more shady merchants (drugs dealers) accept BTC. Why does anyone think it's more in-depth than that?

..because admin permissions are just that? Once you've granted superuser that's kind of the end of any further effective gates.

> If video content would be so "hostile", it would have failed on its own already. People would flock to other places where they can read instead.

That is not the slightest bit true and is in fact the entire basis for the conversation we’re having.

Maybe from a tech perspective yes. From a marketing and PR perspective this was a disaster of epic proportions.

This is the Washington Examiner. They exist to be a conservative mouthpiece. Not a single thing they write is unbiased or even has any pretensions to be.

You offer not a shred of evidence to back up your claim. Why would anyone believe it?

That is some of the best documentation I’ve ever read. Clear, concise, and with just enough context and additional explanations to make the whole thing effortlessly readable.