Wait, didn't our version of Google also fall into the wrong hands?
756 karma · joined May 13, 2017
At any given moment, this is the income/wealth level of the medium social media account owner. Naturally, as those with fewer means come online, this limit decreases.
The purpose of this limit is to define the level of income/wealth, above which one will have to send an inordinate amount of time trying convincing everyone below the limit that it is not one's fault that the rest are currently below the limit. Everyone below that limit will be angry.
Once everyone in the world is online this limit will be defined as 0.
Pertaining the "atom bomb", Oppenheimer was instrumental in managing the Manhattan project... Einstein was sent a letter that described, at a high-level, what was going to be worked on, asking whether it seemed legit; he replied, essentially saying, "yeah that should work".
Einstein's only contribution to science was the photoelectric effect, which also leaned on the prior efforts of Alexandre Becquerel, et al.
When you're young you get excited each time a new breakthrough is happening. If you manage to grow up, you get tired of the pattern, and the signal to noise ratio starts to look like a good statistical P value.
~ government-funded leftist "newspaper"
Side versus side, always.
Society engages, largely, in a series genetic fallacies, as a means of filtering information. If it instead dealt in facts, a lot of the problems it faced would be resolved.
There is no left or right. There are just people who choose to believe one information source or another, mostly based on team affiliation. Then, those people engage in fallacious arguments with people who identify as being on the other team.
Take away team affiliation and a "far-right" individual may, in fact, just be somebody who believes in free market Austrian school economics, rather than a "fascist racist who hates women" or worse.
Take away team affiliation and a "leftist communist" may just be somebody who believes that healthcare should be paid for by the government.
Take away the labels and you are left with a couple individuals who would probably be willing to debate the merits of their positions against each other.
That's what they do. That's what inflation is. We work hard and save up $100,000, they (the 1%) turn that into $25,000 in 25 years.
No kidding though, Poe's Law applies to this article. This shit has gotten out of hand. A List Apart used to be a serious publication; ideas like progressive enhancement and responsive CSS came right out of that publication.
The fact that many folks think this is a good idea paints a bleak picture of the future of web development.
The web worked well before (circa 2010, jQuery, Ajax, etc.). It was just too complicated to make very dynamic pages.
We don't need more inventions. We need to use the inventions we have correctly.
Instead we got Angular, et al.
The ability to connect DOM elements to state management is great. This was another piece we needed. Unfortunately, this piece was introduced along side a pattern and framework. The former lent credibility to the latter two. This same thing happened when rails came out; rails introduced the ORM to the masses, and offered MVC along side it. The vertically integrated synergies created by these parts allowed rails to soar. In that case, it was a good thing; Rails changed the web for the better, by a long shot.
The rabbit hole that reactive took front-end web developers down over the past decade has been more than destructive, because it happened just in time for the largest growth in new web developers ever. Primarily, this is the reason it was able to happen (the overall reduction in aggregate experience).
These frameworks have taught us a lot of really great individual things, but as whole they have ruined many parts of the web, and they've destroyed the discipline of developers. Now a basic CRUD application is dynamic enough, for many developers, to warrant the use of such frameworks.
You can say what you want about how tremendous this reactive framework or that reactive framework is, but you cannot deny the fact that 75% of websites have hundreds of percent more bugs, and nearly half the web renders a blank page for multiple seconds before anything shows up to the end-user. This is worse than the 1990s. Honest to God, I give up on more than 1/3 of e-commerce transactions these days, because some form of UI fuckery breaks my will. When I open a link and the whole page is white, despite seeing that everything has loaded, I literally close the tab before even having to see the monstrosity that they've created. What's worse is that many developers will create a reactive website that literally does not react; it just changes pages and re-reacts every time a new page loads. SMH...
</rant>
I mean, your second and third paragraph could be the introduction to an internal presentation about "why we at Amazon should embrace, extend, and extinguish OSS". The things you listed are precisely why Amazon would want to destroy OSS, Because OSS is a threat to anyone offering proprietary software, and anyone who has built their empire on OSS will inevitably need to shift to proprietary software to retain relevance in a world where OSS software "eats the world" by, for instance, commoditizing the infrastructure layer...
In other words, just in time for AWS to become less relevant due to the enormous gains in open source infrastructure as a service tools, Amazon will swoop in and help to destroy the most useful parts of the open source economy.
It's easy to look at this with a naïve optimism and think "but these are the exact kinds of things that helped AWS grow to begin with", To which the obvious reply is "yes, at the bottom end, but Amazon has been focused on enterprise more and more over the past five years, and licensing agreements with other big tech companies have changed the offering and the prospects of future offerings". All you have to do is look at YouTube to see another example of this. YouTube built its user base on small contributors, but as soon as it reached a plateau it began to focus on the old guard, main stream media, Hollywood, etc., unfortunately for the little guys. This is the same pattern every company takes once they get big enough to play competitively with the big boys.
This is all, of course, only my opinion.
In my opinion, this is the inevitable conclusion of Amazon's sudden increase in direct involvement in OSS projects. With cases like elastic search close in the rearview mirror (I know that there were reasons for this, but it was a start), It's hard not to come to this conclusion.
Once the Amazon tentacles have reached down into every major staple of the OSS economy, it's difficult to predict the end result, but one thing is for certain, it will benefit Amazon more than it benefits anyone else, lest Amazon breaks its promise to its shareholders.
Amazon has demonstrated a pattern of controversial vertical integration, by using internal analytics to determine which of their own merchants' products they should undermine. To believe they would not do the same thing in their largest and most important division would require tragic ignorance.
This is all just my opinion
A joke, right?
I can’t speak for all states, but the last midterms in FL alone had 10 referendums, some of which changed the state forever in big ways, constitutional amendments, etc. (e.g., allowing felons to vote, permanent tax changes, etc.).
If you think that doesn’t represent a low enough bottom of that slippery slope, you’re out of your fucking mind.
Prior to the mid-1800s there wasn’t even a popular vote; people voted for their representatives and the representatives chose the president. This slippery slope of republic -> republic with a popular vote -> republic w/ referendums -> full democracy will be our undoing.
Perhaps Trump was put in place (by somebody in a smokey room) to get the political left (who were previously notorious for promoting free-speech) to beg for censorship. Perhaps this viewpoint is cynical, but it certainly mirrors the end result we’re seeing.
Then I arrived here in the comment section and discovered your refreshingly accurate comment; I knew, immediately, that I did not need to have my own “independent” thought, because you summarized my feelings perfectly.
I was put off by the essay so much; seeing your comment at the top gives me hope.
The first step in taking advantage of a group else is convincing that group that they’re victims.
Unless BitChute is hosted in Google Cloud and this is just a Google Cloud problem, I have a feeling something major is being censored.
The more you look at it the more symptoms you think you have. It’s simply impossible to reconcile the number of people who have been diagnosed with it and have zero symptoms with the number of people who have been diagnosed with it and somehow have dozens of symptoms ranging from heart failure to brain damage to hair loss, smell loss, vision problems; the whole thing reeks of absolute bullshit.
I think what they[1] have done is figured out a way to tie a label, namely COVID-19, to any ailment that anyone already has, in order to scare people to death.
Am I being careful, in case my assumptions are incorrect? Yes. Careful for myself and people I know and for strangers. However, I do not have to believe in this anti-scientific religion, and neither do you, in order to be a good person. I think we are far enough along now and have enough data that you have to be pretty gullible to believe COVID-19 is all the things they[1] claim it is.
P.S., no successful mRNA vaccine on the schedule, despite dozens of years of research, but somehow we created a 90% successful mRNA vaccine in six months? I’ve got a bridge to sell you, if you believe this.
1. just they...
Ask anybody in much of the Midwest where they will choose to buy groceries and they will answer Walmart.
This kind of reasoning is not an argument against the philosophy behind antitrust regulations. Rather, it is emblematic of the situation that monopolies create for themselves, by using their economies of scale to create pricing that cannot reasonably be expected to lose any competition over customers.
The same economies of scale benefit consumers and the economy as a whole as long as the business behaves in a manner consistent with the shared values of society. As soon as they decide to behave differently, though, society is at the mercy of a monopoly because they have consumed the entire market.