duncan_bayne

> Many don't trust Intel processors and Cisco routers anymore

In fairness, my lack of trust for Cisco products pre-dated the Snowden revelations, and were based on the products themselves.

Nothing I've seen since has caused me to change my opinion.

https://hub.packtpub.com/cisco-merely-blacklisted-a-curl-ins...

The EU situation sounds much better. To be super clear, we ignored the legal advice, because we considered that it was much fairer to provide the best feedback possible to clients who asked.

Wow, okay, never experienced that myself.

OTOH, sounds like you made the right call on hiring :)

> How can you identify brain trauma with ultrasound?

Well, put enough energy through the ultrasound transducer and you can guarantee there's brain trauma present.

Not sure that's how you meant it, though ;)

Not just Asian! I live in Melbourne, Victoria. Until we had three children and sent them to a private school, rent and later mortgage was our largest cost by a long margin.

I strongly disagree. My experience with that has been positive, _especially_ when candidates request detailed feedback and I provide it.

Caveats: this is in Australia, and I believe we've had legal advice a few times encouraging us to stop, because it could expose us to litigation.

> at least insofar as they do not work on the kinds of things that I dislike Facebook for.

Why do you draw that distinction? Do you believe it's possible to work for Facebook without at least indirectly benefiting the company as a whole?

And the early colonies had their problems too. IIRC at least one colony enacted capital punishment for anyone caught abandoning the colony to join the native American tribes.

It's no crazier than an online bookstore doing it :)

I think both are an example of an aversion to deep learning.

Perhaps to put the question a different way.

What is the difference to me, as an individual, what happens to the wealth once it's been taken from me?

Since I'm not spending it to further my own goals (e.g. by charitable donation to a cause whose values I share), does it matter whether that money has been spent on something someone else values, or literally burned?

Can you elaborate, for the non-linguists? His prescription seems sensible:

    i. Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

    ii. Never use a long word where a short one will do.

    iii. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

    iv. Never use the passive where you can use the active.

    v. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

    vi. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

... but I'm well aware of how sensible an asinine prescription can seem to a layperson.

I assume so, and it's a lot less hilarious if you have a large family.

I'm not from the Middle East but my nuclear family is brushing up against the limit, and I have relatives whose families exceed it.

It just seems so ridiculously arbitrary for Google (on any Product Manager) to declare that, as far as their products are concerned, a family contains at most six people.

That is pirate morality, codified.

That is the most refreshingly honest description of progressive taxation I've seen in a while.

In other words: progressive taxation destroys wealth creation.

... what a surprise. People seem to think that Google didn't anticipate data hoarders, but in fact, this just seems like a standard hook to get people using a service. (Or a bait and switch, if you're less charitable).

If anyone here is looking for a Drive alternative, I highly recommend the open source, P2P https://syncthing.net/. I use it to synchronise files between Linux, Android, FreeBSD devices including my home NAS.

Nit pick - the best science at the moment suggests that radiation from Chernobyl killed just two hundred people, and Fukushima zero. Your point is a good one but the specific example turns out to be untrue.

It's almost like it's a bad idea to run hardware and software that prevents you from running software they don't approve.

As we keep on seeing time, and time, and time again.

You know, there's only one thing that bothers me more than political organisers spreading fear and misinformation through social networks.

And that's social networks becoming "Ministries of Truth", deciding for themselves what information is fit to be shared with the masses, and what must be suppressed.

I mean, all the evidence we've seen over the years suggests that Facebook is in no way, shape, or form trustworthy.

You do know how much tracking goes on right? It's far from just a matter of paying for ad free content. Hence I'm trying to migrate to PinePhone and get the hell off Android.

Some of the best motor racing I've personally seen was open class motorcycle racing. It was the 90s, so you had road legal GSXR1100s with the lights taped up, mixing it with 125cc Grand Prix bikes.

I don't get why you couldn't do similar with F1. Make it open slather: if it passes scrutineering, carries a driver, and is safe to be near on a track (no rockets) then go nuts.

Surely part of the expense in F1, and part of the fact that it is increasingly technologically irrelevant, is the incredibly tight restrictions on engineering and testing?

> Then if someone is acting up, it's only a matter of figuring out which unrelated laws they are already breaking.

Rand was writing about this in 1957:

"Did you really think we want those laws observed? ... We want them to be broken. ... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt."

> Why folks are so willing to carry water for corporations, by making unsubstantiated excuses for them, mystifies me.

Because if you don't keep making excuses for them, you're left with the alternative: doing a bunch more work yourself, which many people don't find remotely enjoyable.

Which reminds me, I need to go and try installing Axolotl on my PinePhone again :)

A reasonable person might also ask whether the source of the funding has any bearing on whether or not the Chinese government is attempting genocide.

Their position isn't Libertarian.

I'm a Rand quoting free market extremist, and I'm A-OK with this guy going to jail for fraud. Fraud is, after all, morally equivalent to physical coercion.

On a related note, most people who heap scorn on Rand seem to have missed the fact that many (most?) of the major villains in Atlas Shrugged are corrupt businessmen.

Hang 'em high.

Leaving aside the specific politics, this is one of many reasons I advocate for replacing voting with sortition (picking representatives from the electoral roll, in much the same way as juries are picked).

I have used many Git front-ends over the years, on Windows, MacOS, and Linux.

Magit is the only one that I've found preferable to just using the CLI tools.

This sort of thing must severely piss off people with legitimate mental health problems.

... and?

I've seen similar, in all walks of life. Politicians and civil servants are by no means immune to pettiness. Especially when setting an example might spare them work and money in the future.

That's because spying was his job (or at least, directing the spies).

The moral criticism here is that he violated the law he swore to uphold by also spying on his own citizens, and then lied about it.