fweespeech

> This is diametrically opposed to the First Amendment’s intent.

No, it wasn't.

The assumption at the time was _money_ was the only barrier to distribution. Much like the reasoning behind Citizen's United (as much as I loathe that decision).

And the problem here isn't really the OP, but the fact I find it scary people are happy with the idea that they are comfortable with Visa/Mastercard/Amex being able to deplatform _anyone_ on the internet in the US.

And before you claim that is hyperbole keep in mind:

A) They've cut other companies ability to process credit cards for speech-related reasons.

B) Any registrar or hosting company would cease to exist if they did this. The only real exceptions are Amazon & Google who could realistically defend themselves due to size. And given both are willing to de-platform the same types of people the credit card companies will, it has been a non-issue to date.

So yeah, I'm not comfortable with that. It isn't that I'm a fan of Nazis and Racists. Its this constant attack on free speech isn't "just" about Nazis and Racists. Its about words on the internet that offend people.

https://www.forbes.com/2003/05/01/cz_sl_0501porn.html

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/03/payment-processors-are...

I'd much prefer a situation where first amendment protections were built into financial processing, domains, etc.

That was Voat.

Gab is the same but Twitter.

But for all their bitching, they are still active on both in large numbers. Both platforms really only engage in token bans.

Reddit (among other platforms) have knowingly enabled neo-nazis and racists for years. They, like Twitter, really only react when called out publicly by media outlets with large scale distribution.

Gab is only viewed special case because the founder stupidly marketed it as a "free speech absolutist" sort of place.

Yeah, and they aren't the only one.

Companies like https://hetrixtools.com/pricing/uptime-monitor/ are slightly more expensive but still alot cheaper.

> a change in the types of questions I tend to ask as I have become a more experienced programmer.

That is probably 50% of it. I find myself using google to solve problems about once a day these days.

When I first started, it was easily 5-10x that.

> I have a hard time telling whether this reflects a change in developer culture online over the years

SO no longer really tolerates hard questions that an experienced programmer asks.

For the past 4 years, every question I've had that I couldn't find the answer to I've had the question closed or the answers being badly flawed. Admittedly, my sample size is only ~12 questions.

The reason for this is they really, really want to restrict the playing field to questions that are jr to mid-level with clear, math/code correct answers.

When you get into more complex problems, there is usually trade-offs involved that cause moderators to close questions. (i.e. How do you X as securely as you can while still enabling Y use case that breaks the most secure option available? This isn't ideal obviously but the trade off is acceptable.)

The other problem is this discourages answers for "new" stuff because they'll often close questions as duplicates even if you are asking about Version 8 and the answer from 2 years ago is about Version 7. The problem is, if you are experienced, you already know how to solve answers for Version 7 (because you've used it for 2 years) while Version 8 is new.

> but it certainly is not a job for everyone and the rub is the folks who WANT to do it the most are often the worst at it.

This is correct.

As someone who has run forums for a number of years, I can honestly say I've fired 70% of the volunteers for exactly that reason. They wanted to impress their clique and use the power. In reality, it is more about using that power as little as possible except for things that might create a legal issue. (i.e. DMCA)

The other 30% I got rid of were due to activity. (i.e. Would go inactive for 30+ days without notice)

I directly reported to a manager, who in theory, was responsible for my performance/etc. It was his job to play the "good cop" unless I was really fucking up.

However, on a day-to-day basis I was reporting to a project lead (IT Director for an OpCo) for all practical purposes for the duration of the project I was on. "Bad cop".

In theory, this structure is good for the employee if your homeroom is willing to call BS on the guy running the project. You end up with 2-3 managers evaluating you (depending on scale/# of projects) rather than 1 which can help even things out to "fair".

However, if you are in my situation (direct report to CTO) vs. (home room, who is far down on the ladder relatively speaking)...the home room manager ends up protecting himself/career and doesn't push back. So you end up (for all practical purposes) being a direct report to the project lead until the project is done.

On the whole, its a better management structure than most places and as long as you don't end up on a bad project it greatly reduces problems.

If you end up on a bad project with a bad manager well...it really depends if your home room will defend you or not. 50/50 shot at protection is better than the 0% you get at most places.

Up to a point, yeah.

However, if it impacts them negatively in any way (i.e. They overpromised) you will find that respect doesn't help.

Danaher / Danaher Labs - assuming you can avoid having a bad manager.

Our home room would regularly scold us gently for working late / weekends. The problem was, the home room wasn't really in charge.

- Alpha male posturing

- People expect you to care about your job.

You have to live in the world and resist anonymously.

I would suggest converting to a fixed dollar amount and fixed amount of equity. It encourages people to make choices that are efficient. (i.e. $200k -> 20%)

You also probably want to organize group discounts for basically any common service you can. (i.e. Insurance...but not just health. Business related insurance products. Hosting/CDNs will often offer discounts for larger groups/dollar amounts)

It probably will be easier to get those sort of discounts if you have a fixed start/stop date for an entire group as well since you can buy in bulk up front. (i.e. Jan 2019 -> Jan 2020)

> Well here's your chance to agree with Donald trump: he made everyone sign an ethics pledge that they would not lobby within 5 years of their tenure in government. https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/28/execu.... getting Congress to pass a law that puts some teeth behind the promise is another question.

You are mistaken if you believe that is a campaign promise he actually kept.

https://www.vox.com/2017/6/1/15723994/trump-ethics-waivers

> But he immediately began to staff the administration with people whose work seemed, on its face, to clearly violate the terms of the order. Rather than publicly grant waivers of ethics rules with a clearly stated rationale, the White House was simply routinely waiving ethics rules in secret so nobody knew how many waivers were issued or for what purpose.

> Trump has finally provided documentation, and it shows that the ethics rules are plainly meaningless. He’s granted five times as many waivers in his first four months in office as Obama did, which cover key figures in the administration like Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, chief strategist Steve Bannon, and counselor Kellyanne Conway. All told, 17 waivers were granted to members of the White House staff, and we still have no idea how many waivers have been granted for other executive branch agencies or whether anyone is even keeping track.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-lobbying-ban-wea...

> Trump's ethics pledge, issued as an executive order on Saturday, includes a five-year "lobbying ban" that falls short of its name, preventing officials from lobbying the agency they worked in for five years after they leave, but allowing them to lobby other parts of the government.

It is the weakest "lobbying ban" since Bush Jr.

Small claims court goes with demand verbiage oddly enough in some states. So context matters.

It is quite scary that it works, even on people I'd normally expect to be more discerning.

The flip side of that is they can't really hide when they fuck up.

Yeah, but many people would choose not to pursue a business that sells out a large numbers of people on ethical grounds. That doesn't even get into his corporate backstabbing and other acts.

Simply because he can exploit a large quantity of rubes to make money doesn't change the fact its not exactly an ethically sound choice.

> I do not know him personally, to answer your question, but it does appear to me that the rather superficial ramblings he offers in articles and blog posts and interviews are at least skewed to the idea that he can do some good in the world, even if his idea of good is perhaps different than yours.

Every "liberal" CEO does that and tries to make themselves sound generous and empathetic. It is good for their income, it is good for their corporate image, and its good for the professional prospects.

Even his charitable acts are largely grandiose tossing of money that frequently fails due to a lack of even basic research. He doesn't genuinely care and its pretty damn obvious when people who donate a couple grand put more effort into researching how well its used than he researched pretty much any of his charitable attempts.

Facebook is a company that _badly_ needs public good will to remain in operation because if people lose faith they'll abandon the network.

I genuinely do not understand how people fail to realize these sorts of things are a combination of ego, self-interest, and political leanings rather than genuine desire. If they were genuine desire, he would have retired from running Facebook like Bill Gates and focused on charity.

> Why not? Zuckerberg is clearly a smart man, and he seems to be as qualified as any one else. Infinitely more qualified than the current occupant of the office. Just because you don't think of him as a politician doesn't mean that he won't do a good job.

I'm pretty sure we'll see a Zuckerberg Presidency the same way we see Facebook being run as a business. He'll do the minimum to keep people happy and then quietly sell you out behind closed doors.

Intelligence is important, but intelligent people with very little in the way of ethical standards are far more dangerous than they are helpful.

It is a protection racket that shifts the risks and costs from the financial system to consumers.

Banks carry the risk like they do for credit cards, consumers carry $100 of the risk and the risk to their credit rating.

I might be biased by the experience my friend from high school had up until he completed his service and got himself honorably discharged to make it stop.

It started out voluntary enough but the lack of a sex life led to that sort of problem.

> Feeling alienated by your colleagues and bosses, feeling constantly underappreciated, or feeling ostracized by them.

Lol. I find it funny I got attacked and censored for describing that and then being told it isn't related to burnout lol.

Which means the one under the UCMJ is open to blackmail from their spouse if they fool around in a marriage in name only.

Yeah. Totally a reason to stay married in name only.

They don't but it takes two people to make a marriage.

"Staying married in name only" means anyone under the UCMJ can't have sex _ever_ if its a marriage in name only.

Because adultery is something you get smacked for by the military legal system.

It's far less likely real technology and far more likely massively undersold capacity in a Tesla.

Laptop and phone batteries are physically close to heat sources + are used frequently to substantial degrees of discharge + frequency of charge cycles after substantial discharge.

Which is the most dishonest way to try to insult someone so 10/10 on that.

> After investigating the AdNauseam extension's behavior and the results for web publishers, the extension has been added to the Pale Moon blocklist with a severity level of 2 (meaning you won't be able to enable it unless you increase the blocking level in about:config to 3).

They block it by default but you can still disable the block manually. Its hardly an unreasonable form of protest.

To be honest, the legal environment in Central/Eastern Europe in regards to speech would be a greater threat to me than the environment.

> People's aversion to moving, especially after a major disaster, boggles my mind.

Social connections, networks that enable employment, and a lack of serious financial reserves (which will always be true for ~50% of people) are the main reasons.

And no area is immune to disaster and lacks challenges.

The "low natural disaster" areas have a total lack of warning before disaster strikes, heavy snowfall that can cripple normal services, deserts with poisonous creatures, or some combination of those three.

For the most part, to be perfectly honest, as long as you are capable of picking up and moving on short notice...hurricane country is actually safer due to the amount of warning you get.

You may want to look at MWS then. It's the same batch processed feeds and XML over https instead of sftp.