Gunax

Well, I thought it was interesting.

I think you articulated the vagueness very well.

One other example I was thinking was product placement. Are these characters eating pizza? Or is it Pizza Hut®™ pizza?

See also: SunnyD, IHOB

Well I am banned from /r/libertarian for wrong think. I didn't know about other subreddits though.

This is a misunderstanding of enshittification. It isn't just 'some product is bad'.

It's offering things for free or cheap to build buy in. Then rug-pulling away the free tier to reap a profit.

This was very entertaining. I had a rough idea of the timeline before, but had never thought about it in this way (that is, a ladder).

Perhaps then it becomes 'You have reached your weekly maximum 19.5 hours. Come back next week for more work.'

That's correct. My criticism is that he bends this into a criticism of tech in general. As if they somehow denied him the ability to rent a car from somewhere else.

I do not understand this at all, but it looks cool.

From a comment:

> juvenile and silly. So much wasted time and resources. If you need to take legal action against another company, then do so. But please leave the users out of your shenanigans. It’s unprofessional.

I think I disagree, at least to an extent. They are leveraging an open source tool. They made their business built around that tool.

And as for the innocent users--this is such a small impact to users that I am not to worried.

It's a very jaded view, but I think I agree in the general sense.

In 2008, Facebook was hailed as a tool of democracy, since it was leveraged by Obama's campaign. We heard glowing stories about how the internet (and Facebook in particular) was giving a voice to the voiceless. This was a new dawn in democracy!

And now that Facebook is leveraged by conservatives, it's now considered a harbinger of everything bad in the world. Yet, the Trump movement is just as much a campaign of the disenfranchised as Obamas (probably more so). People were angry for decades and no one cared what they thought.

I try to not make divisive comments on HN unless necessary, but I think I have to say this.

My feeling is that the left wing were actually correct about the internet being a tool of democracy. It functions very well at free speech and connecting groups. But they misattribute their blame.

Their problem is not tech per se, nor even big tech. It's that tech have people a voice. They just didn't like what the people had to say.

I think one reason this is so contentious is that it really depends on where you work.

I have worked at a bank and this is definitely true. I have also worked at Amazon and Meta, and it was significantly less true there. I don't think I knew a single ghost at Amazon.

But it was a common joke at the bank that 'that's Bob. No one knows what Bob's job is'. Straight out of the movie office space.

> Once old media started shifting its focus to the internet, they soon realized they weren’t any good at it. They couldn’t do what we could do, so their efforts were an unmitigated disaster.

Unable to compete with us on a level playing field, the old print media industries resorted to lawyers. They saw independent publishers getting a lot of traffic from Facebook, so they began threatening Facebook with lawsuits if they didn’t show their content more often, and our content less.

Can anyone explain this? How do you sue Facebook for giving bad recommendations?

Thanks! This is helpful.

Wow! Excellent analysis.

So if I am understanding this right, the inheritance gets its cost basis reset.

If that's true, then I think we should be attacking the stepped up cost basis instead.

Yes! That's perfect now.

This is advice to the creator:

I think there are unstated rules. Some are implied by the hints (eg 'you can fill water around a ship') but it's not clear to me at first why that hint works. It looks like ships can never share an edge, just based on the puzzles so far.

I am enjoying the game. Thanks for introducing me to something new.

Race gaps are a societal atrocity and a national embarrassment. It is the enduring humiliation of a society that yearns to displace itself from its history.

Mandating equality by removing opportunity only obscures the metrics. This is a hack to avoid accountability--if there's no data showing inequality then surely there is no inequality.

Aren't those all linear operations?

Design of the aluminum beverage can

https://youtu.be/hUhisi2FBuw

For everyone else, thanks for sharing! Normally i think sharing videos is bad mojo--the Internet is so personalized that favorites are difficult to share. But I really enjoyed most of what has been shared so far!

This is so disappointing. Zuckerberg's frustration is palpable. I sympathize in a 'no good deed' sense.

He spent millions trying to fix education. And what was his reward? At best the experiment failed. But we saw how the power structures felt threatened by his experiment.

And now I see presidents refusing to leave office and presidents' administrations pushing media censorship. Everyone should be concerned about this move towards Oceania.

What is a dynamic, adhoc query? Why does adding 1=1 support that?

I would love to try it, but I think the problem is hard enough to explain to an adult. I think it's difficult to describe the constraints. I've tried to explain this problem to adults and they just didn't really get it and the problem sounds like either a riddle or a bunch of nonsense rather than a physics problem with deep implications for the laws of nature.

I'm reading about this man but really struggling to understand what his philosophy is, or what he actually did it said that was racist. I feel like everyone is beating around the bush.

That said, my concern is that the label 'radicalization', itself, will be weaponized. Some things are inflammatory. That doesnt mean they should be censored.

George Floyd being murdered certainly radicalized people. As a result we had riots and even killings. But I certainly don't want BLM advocates shut down for radicalizing people.

Sorry I really want to understand this comment. Can you help?

> Since anything could only be brought in through diplomatic pouches it created an attack vector of one.

Are you presenting that as a good or bad thing? If there is only one attack vector, that makes it easier to defend against, right?

> One official let something slip, which meant a bug had somehow gotten into the scif.

You mean the North Korean or German official?

How can one write such a long blog post and barely even discuss the actual reasoning behind Trinko?

No, it's better to just lie about it and blame conservatives for a unanimous decision.

Ruling that the FTC did not have authority to impose such rules is hardly politicizing from the bench. That is, infact, exactly their job. Unlike, say, inventing a constitutional right to privacy out of thin air (but just try having a discussion about that without being shouted down).

Instead, what politicians, and particlarly left wingers, have consistently shown is their desire to decide market winners and losers based on their own political whims.

I just want to thank you for this effort post. It looks like the general thrust of 'pedestrian and cyclist fatalities are increasing' may be true, even if the particular examples given are not

Every few years there's a new strategy in teaching reading. And we find out that the last strategy was totally wrong but not to worry--this one is based on science.

I know nothing about this topic, but it always seems like window dressing on some deeper issue. How the hell can half of kids not read?

Very cool, simple, and easy. This is exactly what demos should be.