Yeah it's definitely facebook that's the problem, as opposed to Google, Amazon, and payment processors. Definitely if I'm looking for a monopoly, my top concern is making sure people on the internet can chat without that familiar old household name "whatsapp."
The title is "Do Developers Discover New Tools On The Toilet?" but an overbearing mod changed it because he thinks he's Etiquette Secretary of the Internet, and probably also so he can plausibly pretend this isn't a website dedicated to Alphabet's PR.
In terms of giving people a reason for skepticism, simply telling the truth (for once) is a drop in the pan compared to all the bald-faced, dishonest, say-anything "activism" performed by various groups (e.g. the entire neoliberal media establishment) pertaining to global warming.
I think climate change is a serious issue and a threat to the species, just by the way.
Wow what a paragon of truth and levelheaded reason, posting some propaganda article that any dumbass can poke holes in and which every dumbass has poked holes in. I love society now, and all of its earnest regard for public discourse and truth instead of just commies, who think they know whats best for everyone, marketing their worldview at any cost.
The problem with the "abstract" keyword is it's more normative than descriptive. If there's not an actual useful abstraction involved, and/or if the abstract class doesn't actually represent a more abstracted generalization of a mental category, it's just code re-use.
Wow since you're so concerned and helpful, here's a tidbit: Everyone who has tried to run a personal mail server in past five years can't because of gmail.
Sometimes people have "bias" due to experience with reality, but definitely any result you dislike should be repeated again and again. It's obviously a big problem for science when reality is coherent.
Yeah there's so much nuance involved in figuring out whether a handful of giant corporations should be permitted to summarily remove a streamer from all social media because they dislike his political position. I like the part where the one giant walking hotpocket described how he's saving lives by discretionarily removing interpretable expression from public view.
Seriously, what a joke. This is how the internet turns into another extension of the ridiculous, culturally oppressive "entertainment" industry we were all trying to get away from. The fact these people want these jobs should disqualify them from having the jobs.
Probably because it's rapidly becoming the quintessentially evil corporation, and there's a correlation between not having a problem with that and being a ding-bat who belongs in a cult.
edit: I mean it. I'm a programmer and I would not work at Google. It would not matter what their offer was. In my eyes, people who work at Google are hurting their prestige as opposed to helping it.
I had to stop releasing music under creative commons because I noticed copyright trolls were trying to claim it was there's when some tried to use it as music in their youtube videos.
The whole point of releasing under creative commons is so the exact opposite thing happens.
And they've been trying to collect phone numbers for years. Any time an account is suspended, they try to require a phone number for it to log back in, for example.
Google is becoming a service that no longer performs searches and instead attempts to project reality back at me based on a keyword cue. This is how the AI takes over society.
I wonder if they might condescend to utilize the JVM so I don't have to compile JMC myself for another 5 months, or maybe at least they'll remove their circular links that infuriatingly obscure the fact JMC binaries don't currently exist. For the past 5 months.
Maybe you should just permit people to say "what are you talking about" as a form of "you seem to be confused" instead of trying to dictate which colloquialisms people use to express themselves. Your position on this is overbearing and absurd. FYI you have a history of being condescending over nitpicky nonsense to the point of incivility.
Wait! You're telling me that for the price of two coffees a month, I can have unlimited streaming on the go!?
How about if marketers want me looking at their ads, they can stop pouring millions of dollars into research about how to spy on me through those ads against my will.
I switched my browsers to using DuckDuckGo as the default search engine and almost miss never Google at all. Any time I do miss Google, I just manually navigate to Bing and use that instead.
This is the second comment I've seem where you being a hallway monitor is far more disruptive and annoying than whatever you're responding to. FYI making it clear that I'm being contradictory is better than a passive aggressive declarative statement, which is a position I shouldn't have to explain, but since you're apparently so concerned about how other people communicate, there you go.
The article is about how Google PR people are now openly advocating for removing the concept of a "URL" from web browsing for security reasons. What are you talking about.
"Google Takes Last Steps Towards Killing the Open Web by Making Everyone Register With Centralized Certificate Authorities Just to Run an HTML Server."
I sincerely hope I live to see this quintessentially evil corporation go bankrupt.