WrongThinkerNo5

It does not strike me as a legitimate case to strip people of their human right to free agency and will by forcing people to do things they don't want to or may even be dangerous to their health and safety. It should be anyone's right to refuse going to dangerous neighborhoods, just like forcing drivers to drive out into nowhere where they have to spend their own money/resources to get back to the network, should be compensated by Uber if they want that feature.

It's rather abusive and tyrannical to force people to do things against their will or safety. But I am guessing you live in a dangerous neighborhood because you did not "discriminate" and are paying really low rents since you don't discriminate. Right? … exactly!

I thought we were all about equality? Are we now not about equality? I can't keep up.

And if a woman for some sexist reason can refuse a fare, why can't a man refuse a fare if, e.g., he does not like the destination area because it is riddled with crime and he is exponentially more likely to be robbed?

I find that claim rather ironic, because I feel like the primary reason that PDFs are "unfit for human consumption" is a formatting issue, not as much a technical or practical issue. The reason they are unfit to read on line is that they are formatted using past formatting standards that are meant for print … not inline reading.

There are of course some technical limitations to PDF that would prevent them from being mad "digital first", but even just changing page layout and adjusting margins and spacing and font for horizontal display (as most of our screens are) vs vertical layout as one would read a printed sheet of paper, would make huge differences.

I for one actually compensate for that in that I have a dedicated monitor that is vertically oriented in order to read PDF documents. Better yet if you can do it on a very high dpi screen. But even that is not ideal because although I actually like print formats, standards, and conventions (like margins, spacing, and structure), it's simply not relevant or applicable in digital until we get A4/Letter formatted tablets or desktop screens that emulate physical paper … albeit even that, inadequately. Nothing can really replace the advantages of paper, at least not until we get paper thin displays that have zero measurable response times on pen inputs … i.e., likely never.

I don't find it shocking at all, when you consider just how much farther advanced Apple is in so many different ways including disability accessibility (please let me know if you have ever seen a blind person that uses anything but an iPhone), inter-device sharing/airdrop, configuration sync across devices, etc.

It is curious how something like this gets published with inaccuracies like that Command-L will create an alias in Finder, when it is actually Control-Command-A.

Although it does not surprise me one bit that you express such a sentiment as it is likely the most common one from that perspective; it is the result of the whole tech industry and even economy that is and has long been a kind of extreme mania of permissiveness and pillage, with next to no push back that would have possibly moderated such behavior, both on a systemic and the personal level that this is an example of. I know that being faced with such a reality will both be instinctually rejected by many as it is a threat to their frame of mind and causes cognitive dissonance just even hearing it, and some will simply not even have the ability to integrate it at all.

What, just from looking at all the massive and excessive fraud and graft and "disruption", aka, destruction, of the economy that we have just alone witnessed in our lifetime that is any different than what Levandowski thought he could maybe also get away with on an individual level. He just didn't realize he had to diffuse what he was doing and not make himself an individual and identifiable target.

Just alone China has been pillaging and stealing in every conceivable manner over just the last 25 years or so; from all out hacking, to buying up tech companies and IP, to placing engineers in our Universities Inc., to basic industrial espionage, to immigration to place industrial spies in our tech companies, and on and on and on … to little more than the muted chirp of crickets.

What would make Levandowski think that he could not have gotten away with what he was doing when we have witnessed nothing but the very same kinds of law and ethical and moral depravity all across the board from top to bottom, left to right, and front to back for decades now? Tech companies have perverted and sold out our whole society as a function of even deeper graft and corruption for many decades now, I am not at all surprised that Levandowski thought he too could get a piece of action; he just made the mistake of not running in a pack like in DC or on "Wall Street" on in the tech sector. He stood out and strayed from the pack in a noticeable manner so they needed to pick him off to avoid wider recognition of what is really going on as we careen off the rails.

To put a point on it, it is precisely the utterly permissive, corrupt, and rotten state of not only the whole tech industry; but our whole society and failed and inherently illegitimate government that are the cause of someone like him thinking he could get away with what he did. Because let's be frank, it was a solid bed that he would have gotten away with it considering what everyone else has gotten away with for many decades now.

You are being pedantic and a know-it-all. You know very well what was meant by that. Just consider the comment to apply to all the the monopolistic cartel technology world dominating corporate companies. They are all part of the same world dominating corporation system that colludes in Davos and through the various other secret groups, as much as they even collude in public to conspire against us all, regardless of whether one thinks one is in their good graces by doing their will.

Ironically, the dynamic has shifted; we've all voluntarily installed microphones all throughout our houses and carry around tracking devices. They have no reason for you to leave and would prefer you stay at home where they can monitor you for any wrongthink you may verbalize. Best part, those people who refuse to bug and track themselves become interesting to additional scrutiny … because they clearly must be up to something.

You are fundamentally missing the point. That mentality though perfectly exemplifies the inherent and likely existential flaw in Mastodon or any other alternative technology that says "diversity" and "equality" and "inclusion" out of one side of their mouth, while out of the other side comes "your color and views are unacceptable and contrary facts are not allowed" … and it's all said, totally without even a shred of self-awareness of their tyrannical, let alone hypocritical nature.

You are unfortunately describing things that are separate from any "social network", they are unhealthy and detrimental behaviors that have metastasized and are manifest in society today in general, mirrored and amplified online where people can find whatever pity party echo chamber they fall into, which will then only be amplified through self-reinforced "moderation", aka censorship.

It's actually precisely why we need free speech more than ever, because those who withdraw into self-censored echo chambers need to hear things that are not their favorite things to hear even more than those who demand free speech. Not doing so will only end poorly.

Don't all plants grown with solar power?

"Just do more of this, but broaden the categories to include posting…" and here you are already thrusting yourself down the slippery slope. You went from "gore, rape, and torture", all of which inherently not easy to prove in and of themselves, but in just a matter of minutes you've already "broadened the categories" to "visually horrifying" (based on who's opinion?) and which is "known to cause PTSD" (known and determined by whom? Not even to mention that PTSD is a professional construct), but also including having to know where people do and do not expect to see something that is something based on the above mentioned ambiguous determinations.

It did not take you long at all to just vault yourself down the full on dictator slope. Next up, let me guess, you want to prevent people's access to the internet if they say things you don't agree with because "word are violence" and then "micro-aggressions are violence", simply because you have the control to abuse. Unfortunately that is already the situation right now, but it does not need to be made worse, because it will only thrust us all down a path of overplaying the unrelenting abuse that I can assure you people will not like the inevitable consequences of one bit.

Let me also remind you that the US has the supreme law of the land that supersedes all other laws, the First Amendment to the Constitution that states that no law may abridge the freedom of speech, regardless of whether you like it or not.

I suspect there is a certain interest group that has emerged and grown around this subject that has been elevating and promoting this issue in the public's mind. It would not even surprise me one bit that especially overseas contractors, because there are likely fewer penalties/prohibitions, are paying people to flood, e.g., fb with things like beheading videos in order to produce a cause for their services. It may be cynical, but like I said, it would not surprise me one bit.

I think what you are expressing a difficult time with is more of an effect from the uncertainty and operating under a state of what was supposed to be a short term emergency measure to "flatten the curve".

Unfortunately I think that it is also a symptom of poor adaptation to the supposed pandemic, just as much as it is uncertainty for how long this will go on that keeps people and organizations from rebuilding and reorganizing to permanently/temporarily adapt to the current situation. Humans do not do well under perpetual states of uncertainty, no marginally advanced life form really does. Every life form wants and needs predictability, certainty, and habits/patterns. Patterns are the core of life, as they are to the technology sector.

Most people were told we need to "flatten the curve" for two or so weeks and therefore we need to take emergency and short term measures. That was now going on 5 months ago, and without any kind of definitive event horizon for when everyone can "go back to the office".

We hear anything from "we will reassess in two weeks" … every two weeks … to "not until a vaccine is discovered" … which could literally be never, and everything in between. Just alone that ambiguity and uncertainty is causing stress and anxiety because people cannot even plan for their children's education schedule. People are still often operating as if it's a short term emergency, while it is becoming ever more apparent that it may be a permanent shift in reality, especially as companies realize or are pressured to cut costs with remote work that cuts out overhead costs that can be translated into profits or at least revenues to offset the massive costs/losses.

Again, I find that the uncertainty and lack of commitment is a far more damaging situation that may also even lead to severe shake-ups as companies that did commit to remote work and reconsidered and reworked their whole structure to accommodate that, start gaining market share.

What a smart business would do is to commit to some long term schedule as some tech companies already have, e.g, no changes to remote work before the new year, so that people have some certainty, and they would also start investing and rethinking their processes to support remote work to accommodate the things you illustrate as challenges.

This strikes me as a kind of leading or promotional/industry/PR wire story. This whole virus thing has only really been a thing for, what, about 4-5 months in total? None of the developers would have been able to find land, make deals, develop projects, get permits done under the lockdown, solve the staffing problems under this situation, and get new projects going that weren't already in the pipeline.

Please do correct me if I'm wrong. But also; so people are leaving the cities where they appear to have careers/work/friends and are heading to the suburbs during lockdown because of the virus situation, while businesses are laying off and contracting/shrinking/making losses and are going out of business?

I know several people who have moved out of cities over the last several years actually for various reasons, mostly the accumulating cost and declining benefits, especially with the consequences of political and government policies starting to impact communities along with the overall cost of living increases. This is not a coronavirus trend, even if that has only accelerated things.

What this likely is, is an industry PR story to place the thought into people's minds to move to the suburbs to, with slight panic, hope they can find buyers for all the buildings they were committed to build even before this whole situation. It's the same old developer industry super-cycle; push and pull, ebb and flow of urban and suburban development cycles, only exacerbated by poor material and low skill construction meant to last for one cycle.

This is a bit off topic, to put it lightly, but seriously, please read your comment again and reconsider how you talk to and about people. It is clear you have supremacist disdain for the creator out of a self-generated sense of superiority, but reality is that it is something you can or cannot use, so just ignore it if you don't like it. Maybe, if you are so much better, you could even provide some mentorship or guidance by providing constructive, i.e., useful, criticism; if it is warranted. But try to maybe address why you are the way you are instead of trying to degrade others as you externalize your issues.

I believe you should be able to say what you said and it should not be removed or even lashed with downvotes by the archetypal rabid reddit type mob, but I hope you really consider your words.

Even if you are correct on the face of it being just another one of those horrible bootcamper, why would you want to lash at someone who is trying to do things, who maybe didn't have the opportunities you had, or is just trying to improve and get feedback. Not everyone is as perfect as you.

With that; let's see your framework that is perfect and far better than Shoelace.

The oddest thing about this whole topic, especially in light of the current social unrest in the USA is that people seem to totally miss the fact that Universities, American tech corporations, and the whole American economy is a cynical human resource extraction operation that syphon off the best and brightest to keep the American economy going, where it would have an immensely hard time running otherwise. I see that as the core motivation for the Harvard and MIT lawsuit, keeping the flow of that foreign talent drug flowing, not some kind of emotive narrative about injustice or unfairness.

The American economy and society is essentially a kind of massive Ponzi scheme or con job (short for trick of confidence), where the foreign "human resources" are required to keep the scheme from collapsing. The day that China, India, Europe, Russia, etc. realize that they are being extracted of some of their very most important and valuable resources, their best and brightest, and they cut the USA off; it will cause massive panic and pangs of terror among the US ruling class that needs to keep the flow of fresh supply of the foreign best and brightest to prevent their con job from being exposed.

There is all this talk of slavery and colonialism and resource extraction of the past that has sabotaged and disadvantaged countries and societies and communities. In reality though it never stopped, it only took on a different and largely more profitable form like how a con artist may shift and move around and dissolve and form new companies as needed while the con always remains more or less the same.

The same cynical exploitation and extraction of resources from one society to fuel and enrich another has always remained in place even if the branding, labeling, and narrative around it has changed over time. If people want to "tear down the system of exploitation and abuse" (or however it is characterized) all they would need to do is stop feeding the American economy with their best and brightest, let alone even their hard working manual labor like Central America is doing, who are not available to contribute to developing their own societies because they are busy serving the American corporations to "Make America Great Again".

In reality, the US economy is so riddled with massive holes and flaws that it is like a sieve that requires a constant and ever larger flow of the best and brightest and hardest working and most motivated and driven just to keep the con going. If that were to seize up, if foreign countries and leaders realized how they were sabotaging themselves and stopped fueling the US economy, the energy and economic activity of the USA would immediately start draining out at a dizzying rate.

I would love for someone to correct me if I am looking at this incorrectly.

Is the complain about the DB of the website or the raw data is inaccurate?

The former I can shrug off as insignificant, the latter is mildly terrifying and makes you wonder how the hell we can trust anything the government does when they can't even take care of keeping track of triple billons of dollars of other people's ... namely, people who did not get any stimulus ... money.

But I guess the bureaucrats and kleptocratic government must have been ramping it up after the billions upon billions they "lost" in Iraq without a trace. This is probably going to turn into politicians and bureaucrats throwing up their hands when companies claim that the information is inaccurate and they owe nothing and the government cannot prove anything, a la, housing fraud.

With what seems to be nothing but criticism of policing policies, I would love to know what the ideal or even acceptable policing policies are, presuming that any policing will be accepted.

The most simple minded can be critics, but what is the alternative? What happens when the lawless mob and criminals want to break and enter your home and take your things and burn down your life? It's easy enough when it's the "others" stuff and homes and lives. But this is clearly a breakdown of equality under the law … equal laws that are equally enforced with equal penalties. Is that objectionable to anyone? I thought we are striving for equality. You cant achieve equality when some get away with breaking the law and others don't; and some get light sentences and others have even the clear case against them dropped. That's not equality.

I believe you are immensely discounting the totalitarian duopolistic nature of the system, a facade of "competition" between two not only ideologically aligned, but even essentially colocated centers of totalitarian and supremacist power and control over us is not choice, let alone freedom.

It seems rather naive to believe believe that "simply create/move to Android" is a viable solution. There is no easy or even cheap way to switch between Apple and Android if you don't like one or the other. It's simply not a viable, let alone reasonable choice/option And, again, both of the options consist of corporations that are so mutually aligned in basically all ways that they may as well be divisions of the same corporation; which they essentially are … akin to the various corporations the European aristocracy used to enrich themselves on the backs of their own serf/slave class as well as the people of various places all around the world.

If one looks back on history and laments what was done then … but does not realize that the very same strata of society are doing the vary same types of things using the very same methods and machinations to achieve it … is simply being herded by these global corporations that are dominating us all, just as they divide and pitch us against each other in order to control and distract us from the shackles they are placing on all of us.

You may shrug and dismiss lamentation about 30% vs 20%, but that's basically no different than saying; what difference is 1000% markup vs 900% markup in the company store of the mine/factory that you are essentially a prisoner/slave on with only theoretical/imaginary, but no real or practical alternatives.

We are in a kind of digital, online tyrannical regime and most people seem to not realize that as they are too distracted by the constant two minutes of hate being fed them by the tech tyrants who fear more than anything else that we all realize what they are really up to. As Zuckerberg once put it (I witnessed it myself) "I want facebook to replace the internet". Did he say that in support of self-governance and free speech?

I cannot quite discern whether you intended it, but "law enforcement wants to be able to use digital communication to discover criminals" sounds quite ominous, even if someone has never read 1984.

That is primarily a problem even at the best of times that law enforcement wants to create criminals whenever it fits their fancy; Even more ominously, if police had any greater command of the voluminous criminal codes and the incentive structure is changed, they could basically be charging/locking up most people they ever come across for any number of arbitrary violations of convoluted laws.

Maybe it is being a bit anxious, but with the full on surveillance state unfolding right before our eyes where wrongthink has you "cancelled", we seem to be racing, headlong into something not all that different than what Orwell envisioned would be the consequences of self-righteously benevolent tyranny … for our own good, of course.

I still remember that time when Zuck publicly admitted that he was aiming for Facebook to replace the internet, which was clearly promptly scrubbed from the internet (it is one of those regrets that I did not save the video even though I realized it was important, while not realizing we actually had memoryholes already). It seems more than ever that he is well on the way to doing so, as it becomes ever less likely that any kind of relief or resolution will come from captured regulators, let alone captured and bought off legislators. Pretty soon, real competition will be dead, it has little life left in it as is.

I think you are just dismissing the fact that people have genuine grievances, even if they are not only not expressing themselves properly because they probably feel utterly powerless, but also because they likely don't quite understand how their own actions lead to the current situation.

Is it not legitimate to point out that they either used an old looking 6 year old girl, photoshopped the heck out of that image, or the seat is not at all to dimension of the common airplane seat. Seriously, I have broad shoulders … not even the broadest … and I have a hard time just keeping my shoulders within my space due to the laws of physics being violated by the seat widths on these planes these days.

I don't think it is fair of you to just dismiss the growing frustrations towards legitimate issues, even if those expressing them are having to deal with the consequences of their own values that translated into what they supported and that then translated into actions and inactions taken by government and industry.

I hate to break it to you people, but between "free" money being printed by basically all central banks, unfettered "immigration", the sellout to China and India, environmental regulation and capture that will make flying ever more expensive once the environmentalists realize just how damaging flying is, affirmative action and diversity type policies that cause all kinds of inefficiencies and conflicts and collisions in systems, among several other things … will all only make this situation far worse.

Some way blather something about how new technology will develop new planes, but reality is that it will not lead to wider seats, only more seats wide. The designs are already baked into the production lines at this point and all fuselage designs ALL are designed to specs for getting more seats in width wise, not wider seats.

If people wanted wider seats, they should have pushed through legislation requiring certain seat widths on human rights grounds about 10 or 15 years ago. You would never be able to get anything like that pushed through unless some wily judge is willing to throw wrenches into the aerospace industry gears.