dimitrios1

"Defund the police" was and remains wildly unpopular with almost everyone, especially minorities (as a reminder to any of those out touch reading this: there are large racial disparities in who is affected by crime, particularly violent crime) . It was quintessential "progressives are out of touch" ammunition, not only used by republicans (obviously), but also establishment democrats in competitive districts.

As another commenter posted, its about not allowing the creation of the data set in the first place.

We really need everyone in this country to go read "Nothing to Hide" by Daniel Solove, because thats how this crazy shit gets through in the first place: innocuous citizens go "Sure, I got nothing to hide"

technically, the diminutive τεκνίον would be more appropriate in this context. Teknon was more formal, and in its colloquial usage was used commonly in the stereotyped phrase "women and children", which in the ancient world was a symbol of low social status. The diminuative would indicate a different usage, more affectionate, friendly, etc.

This is one of those assumed truisms that turns out to be false upon close scrutiny, and there's a bit of survivorship bias in the sense that we tend to look at the technologies that had mass appeal and market forces to make them cheaper and available to all. But theres tons of new tech thats effectively unobtainable to the vast majority of populations, heck even nation states. With the current prohibitive costs (in terms of processing power, energy costs, data center costs) to train these next generation models, and the walled gardens that have been erected, there's no reason to believe the good stuff is going to get cheaper anytime soon, in my opinion.

I am not here to argue for a "side", to win an argument, nor provide a thesis defense with citation and references -- this is an answer you can easily get from ChatGPT. There's quite literally hundreds.

To add a wrench to both "sides" some of the most effective have been state/federal-owned /state/federal controlled corporations -- or generally, arrangements where you still maintain capitalistic economic incentives and drivers, but have government oversight and (effective) regulation. I think everyone would that is good, but sometimes it takes different forms.

For every example of privatization going wrong, there's least one example (if not two) of it going right.

But serious question -- what is the difference these days anyways? Our entire government is effectively privatized anyways from the local level up to the federal. We rely on contractors for almost everything that matters. We just maintain this facade that they are not privatized.

There is no uniform tactic for this type of marketing. They will compare against whomever they need to to suit their marketing goals.

The false dichotomy is that you need big government to have a society that does not go hungry.

I am not part of Trump's fan base, and I am in favor of taking action to reverse decades of negative trends I've seen happening as a result of American corporations selling their souls to the highest outside bidders. It's going to be short term pain for long term gain.

hard to tell which side you are talking about here TBH, because while one side has talked up a big game about what they may or may not do, the other side has been actively weaponizing our institutions against aforementioned side.

Still running CS2 from an old ripped disc over here. Does 95% of what I need.

Correct. "Huge" in the case of antitrust matters is big enough to act anti-competitively. It's much more broad than you think, and it sees a lion share of litigation done by the Feds.

For example, there's currently an ongoing anti trust case against "Al’s Asphalt Paving Company"

https://www.justice.gov/atr/case/us-v-als-asphalt-paving-com...

I get what you are saying at, but viewed in a another way, you just said that the fastest thing in the universe is really slow.

It's like trying to say Elixir wasn't influenced the most by Erlang

In my experience, the job hopping for an increase only works up to senior / lead level (or engineering manager for manager counterpart). Anything after that requires time in role having a consistent, positive impact, and building up a portfolio that you can then use to sell yourself at the company for one of the coveted principal / staff / otherwise distinguished roles.

Yes. Advertisement is a helluva drug. No one's IRC server has a billion dollar marketing budget.

Also Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, et all all started off pretty uncensored and unmoderated to build the moats. Then they started cracking down once the feds and political influences kicked in.

Again: The platform is IRC. The servers are the individual communities. There were hundreds of IRC networks. You were not blacklisted from all of IRC. You were blacklisted from a particular server. And in my personal recollection, you only got banned for something especially egregious, not like today where saying the wrong "trigger word" can get you shadowbanned, which is even more nefarious.

On top of all of this, bans were frequently appealed and overturned.

You were not kicked off the platform. You could join any other thousands of rooms, boards, etc. And you were only booted if you truly were a real dipshit.

This is where I really feel my age. Every message board and chatroom (bbs, forums, irc, icq, aol, et all) on the young internet was virtually uncensored and a 100% free for all, yet we all mostly got by. You went to the places you knew to go to. The communities mostly self moderated by kicks/bans. It worked really well.

So whats changed?

Well, I have my thoughts, but one thing is for sure, as soon as the platform itself tried to start moderating, that's when things really started changing.

This has been debated ad nasuem in America since at least the 60s. It depends on your philosophy both economic and political.

Actually, it's worse than that right now for many on welfare, as they face the "benefits cliff". Inflation is rampant and some low wage earners are getting modest increases to keep up with inflation, but this increase is subsequently pinching their benefits.

This is the fundamental problem with education: everyone treats it as some problem to "solve" with tools, and technologies. The issues with education are human ones -- interpersonal and policy -- not because it's lacking some tool or technique.

They just installed some state of the art AI-enabled, "smart" mega drawing screens w at my daughter's schools touting all the supposed immeasurable benefits it will bring, and most of the parents, including myself, just rolled our eyes.

Must incentives exists in perpetuity? I would say the next course of action is come up with incentives for the next thing that needs incentivizing. Once that's done, move on to the next, so on and so forth. If there's a lapse and now there's a lot of trash again, restore the original incentives, etc.

The prime criteria for being clickbait is if it is sensationalized, deceptive, or intentionally misleading. This strikes me as none of those things. It's the last sentence of a blog post.

I am not buying this argument.

America for better or worse (mostly worse) has a two party system that in practice functions as mostly a uniparty prioritizing defense spending, entitlements, and the economy, with some lip service paid to red meat/blue meat issues to ensure power is maintained. This means you can reliably predict what American policy will be in any given moment for any given president.

Besides, EU member states have had much more iteration on their governments, policies, regulations, and parties. It's not uncommon for a European country to have 7 different parties. And unlike the US, EU's don't hold their constitutions in a such unchanging high regard. Ours is purposefully difficult to change. France, for example, on the other hand, has changed its constitution twenty-five times since circa 1958.

edit: I took out He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named because it seems even here on the board of Very Smart People ™ we can't help ourselves when we see that name and ignore the rest of the point someone tries to make.

"I'm sorry officer, I didn't know I couldn't do that"

Comparing the time it takes for a prog language to spread from the 80s to today is a bad vantage point. Stuff took much longer to bake back then -- but even so the point is moot, as other commentors pointed out, it took off roughly the same amount of time between 2015 and today.

Quite dissapointing, because I found the authors book "A Mind For Numbers" to be good.

I work for a large enterprise and we use terraform open source atm, but I can pretty much guarantee we move to OpenTofu once the dust settles a little more.

It's not so dumbfounding when you uncover what Microsoft's real goals and aspirations are for Github.