734 karma · joined November 27, 2013
This sentence seems wrong on multiple levels. One it implies that Europe has been trying to build competitors and failing. Europe hasn't been, Europe has been trying to tax and control Google and Facebook. Which they've been doing rather well.
It implies that Europe can't build these. Which is really messed up since both those companies have multiple offices in Europe. And that both those companies are largely built by non-us born people.
It fails to understand or at least tries to frame away from the value a site like Facebook has, which is its user base. Even for it's users the value is the other users. Nearly everyone is on Facebook, even if they don't use it regularly.
> I have a strong feeling that it might not be the case at all, given that Russia also has access to Google/FB, and yet they have their own viable and massively popular competitors (Yandex for Google, VK for Facebook).
Facebook got into its dominant position not because other countries didn't have viable competitors. It's that all the competitors were bought up by companies that ran them into the ground.
Russia like China is a country that doesn't aim to be best friends with the US and has propaganda to boost it's own countries offerings, while actively trying to build its own offerings. Russia has more investment into its own services. The US also has lots of investments into offerings from the US. While Europe doesn't really match up. And there isn't even really a specific EU silicon valley competitor, London and Berlin both seem to be in the mix.
My original point is, if Facebook and Google aren't there, there would be a replacement extremely quickly. The revenue these companies make show it's clear there is value in building these service and if the current providers don't exist other companies will want to take that revenue. The technical know-how of how to build these is there. The desire and a realistic chance of success of competing with established companies are not.
Military protection from whom? Russia? Russia is not in a place to attack Europe. And the US can barely protect themselves from Russia. Who do you think the US is protecting Europe from? Because the saviour of Europe seems to be Turkey and their willingness to keep all the refugees at their border instead of letting them flood into Europe.
And I don't think Europe relies on the US for trade. They export more to Swizterland and the UK than they do the US.The US are a massive trading partner, but to say they rely on them is a flasehood.
And let's remember the EU has banned American products before. Apple is the main contender for those bans.
This is true of all apps coming out of the US with the NSA. Should Google, Facebook, Netflix be banned in Europe?
> and we're entering a trade war.
The trade war started a while ago and I'm pretty sure China is winning it.
Well, it is. They're in a PR battle with Apple. And weirdly this massively rich company that is complaining about not having enough money is actually considered right by a lot of folk. What they're complaining about is pretty much agreed by everyone, the only things that differ is if Apple's wall garden is a good thing or a bad thing.
To be fair, if it was a project to get promoted it wasn't really a vanity project. If it was a vainty project I suspect they wouldn't have quite half way through.
> Really bad redesign for no reason at all, ending in a frankenstein solution of mix of old and new interface.
From the looks of it, it's just applying Google's design that is everywhere else to Blogger. While for many people here this isn't needed. But we're for the most part considered advanced users of majority of things we use. This seems like a change that would make it easier for people who aren't that computer savy and are used to gmail and the other Google products and want to start blogging.
If you honestly feel like you need a full body pod, maybe you should seek a different mode of transport.
I would disagree with that. There are multiple massive news outlets, majority of which have a larger user base for their online offering than the BBC. For Televised news it is very popular but again not a monolopy. This is getting the same level of coverage on all outlets because the interest from the public on what seems to be a very legally techincal trial is not high. There will be lots of coverage once there is an outcome but for the most part of on-going cases unless it's a scandal involed the average person only cares about the outcome.
These are not people of the UK who are paying for the BBC. The BBC is providing a service to the people of the UK. While it is useful worldwide, it's utmost service is to the people of the UK who are by in large forced to pay for it. Hence, why a large precentage of the population of the UK don't care. There will be people who care but mostly people don't.
Because no one cares? The BBC is there to provide a service to the public, if the public doesn't care about a court case why would there be lots of articles? There was lots of interest in the Johnny Depp case, not because people cared who was right and who was wrong but it was scandal and scandal is so popular there are lots of trashy news outlets that just handle scandal. While the Assange case is largely boring, we know he did X,Y,Z because he publically boasted about it, legally he is to be treated as he is innocent until found guilty but we know he did it because he said he did it repeatedy. We know these are crimes in the US. Now it's the boring details of can he be sent to the US which doesn't really affect people and rather hard to understand without putting a bit of effort into it. It's not light reading.
I kind of agree with you and kind of disagree with you. You should be able to complain all you want. However, if explictly decide to give people certain rights when you complain about them using those rights it shouldn't hold much value. Which is what I think was the original point in the sentence you replied to.
Well, the baliffs wouldn't be in position to catch him since they're in the dock. Because that's where the prisoner is. And prisoners do bolt out of courts, they get ane extra sentence but it does happen.
> Do you expect him to cause danger that requires the use of bulletproof glass after already being searched for weapons inside and out?
I said AT danger, not BE A danger. So the bulletproof glass is there to protect HIM.
> Oh, well. In that case. I'm sure if they did complain their complains would be given the utmost priority.
You know people complain to each other, right? They bitch about this and that. Like they would complain about the tea being crap, etc. And complaints were treated fairly, that's why if you complained you got shit from the guards, your mail would take 2 days longer, your requests for a form would take longer, etc.
You seem to be completely disconnected from reality.
* This is a guy who skipped bail and avoided arrest for years. And you're againist him sitting in a dock.
* A guy who realistically, people want to kill and you're againist him being behind bulletproof glass.
* You want people to be dealt with humanely but againist basic things required to keep them safe. All the things you're againist, the only countries that don't have them are corrupt, dangerous places.
Everyone feels like they suck at programming, because they do, it's ok, everyone else sucks too.
Why shouldn't people be stripped searched on the way in and out of prison? How are the prisons meant to ensure the safety of the prisoners? Remember prisoners can and do smuggle weapons and deadly drugs into prisons. One of the best ways of keeping prisons safe is to search prisoners properly upon entry to the prison.
Why shouldn't people who have been proven not trustworthy be held in a dock? Remember, he skipped bail.
Why shouldn't someone who seems to be at danger be protected with bulletproof glass?
> people are innocent until proven guilty in general
He has already been proven guilty of a crime. He is a criminal.
> criminals are people too, and all people deserve humane treatment. After all, if you can't treat criminals humanely who are you to condemn them for treating others inhumanely? By all means, remove from society, reform, re-educate, etc, but no reason to treat criminals as anything other than your siblings, parents, etc who did something wrong and need some course correction.
I personally have been in the UK prison system and have experienced the strip searches and the court handling. Honestly, I never heard a prisoner once complain about strip searches, we understood why they were there. The guards weren't insenstive or treated us inhumanely. We were just told to take our clothes off while they inspected our clothes. And sitting in a dock is not inhumane.
To be fair, this is pretty much the definition of 1st world problems.
Stripped naked and search is standard custody practice. Criminals hide things and are known to smuggle things in and out of court to prison. And remember, he is techincally a criminal. He broke criminal law when he skipped bail. He is being held in custody, it seems fair for standard policies to apply to him. Why would he be any different?
It is standard for someone to sit in the dock, why would he deserve special treatment. He is able to confer with his lawyers when he needs to from the dock as many other people have done so in the past and will do so in the future.
The only issue I have is them taking his case files, which seems petty. But I suspect there would have been operational reasons, but why those reasons couldn't have been worked around seems odd and again petty.
While I think he doesn't deserve to be sent to the US and should not be. The fact, he is a criminal and is in custody because he can't be trusted does mean he should be treated as such a manner.
* There are more developer jobs than developers
* We're constantly afraid of developers who can't code
* We decide to test every developer often with non-real-world scenarios and weird things they'll never do in their job and if they did do, you would be very concerned.
* Not only do we test them for things things they won't be doing, we also expect them to spend hours and sometimes days doing these tests.
* We reject people for weird random reasons. They don't understand one concept correctly, so clearly they can't do the job ever.
* We then hire recruiters, who realise how screwed out recruiting is and that it's often potluck. And realise this is a basic funnel, so they go and search out anyone who has a rough chance of doing being able job.
* We then blame the recruiters because people don't meet our weird standards.
For real, most companies need to realise they are not FAANG. They do not have an endless source of people wanting to work for them because of the reputation. Many of these companies that are acting like they can expect people to jump through hoop and hoop, have employee churn rates of 6-12 months and are competing with many other companies in their local area for the same talent. We continually act like like doing this job always requires the best. From what I see at most companies, you need one or two people who can archectect your system and explain the designs to people and after that you just need people who can follow the designs. We can say "But everyone should be able to do archectecture designs", if you want to spend your days discuss design plans and the benefits of this and that fair enough. But that's not what a company needs, a company needs people to write code they don't need 8 out of 10 to be designing code, they need 8 out of 10 to be "boilerplate" code so to speak. And if someone is able to take a code design and implement it without making it more complex then they're good enough for the job. Google is famous for making people jump through hoops and then have them do basic tasks, because doing basic tasks is what is important.
That's just my rant of the week on IT recruitment.
Honestly, I find it super annoying when someone is fine with me sending them a link to kibana to which the access details are in slack to see a API key but have an issue with me sending the API key to them via slack. The whole we don't trust slack but we'll send customer data to each other via it, have all of our secret business info on it, but the API key for an internal service that just outputs public info, that's too dangerous.
Oh, and then there are the people who store everything on vault or something and then give out the password willy nilly. Mate, if it's got to be encrypted then we shouldn't be giving it out to everytone. If it's got to be given out to everyone then it's not senstive data, it's just private.
For most businesses, the main thing you need to keep safe is your database.