jtdev

Studies like this are published for political reasons, not scientific reasons. I wouldn't be surprised if the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is behind this study.

Somehow 60 million bison wandered the prairie for millenia without the world ending... shall we kill all of the wild ungulats? Cap the volcanoes? At what point should humans just commit mass self sacrifice in the interest of saving the earth?

> “we still need to farm grains for feed, more than we would have to otherwise. Reducing animal agriculture will have a positive impact on wildlife, reducing deforestation, etc.”

Uh, where do you think Vegan friendly foods are grown? Do you realize that the earth must be cultivated to grow the vast majority of these foods? Do you think farmers of these foods take kindly to crop damage from wild animals?

Beef cattle do not require farmed grain, in fact many graze only beef farms exist and the practice continues to gain popularity.

I respect your choice to be Vegan, please respect my choice to reject lab grown goop.

That study doesn’t say what you think it says. Show me one single study that finds an actual link between red meat consumption and bad health outcomes... Not some epidemiological bullshit - a real study with real findings.

Just because you believe this doesn’t make it true. Do you think a pack of coyotes tearing apart a newborn deer is unethical too? Do you think farming grains and vegetables is without impact on wildlife?

Wow, that does not sound like something I want to eat.

Why wasn’t Stratton Oakmont v Prodigy Services overturned on 1A grounds?

“... if they are neutral platforms, they should have immunity from litigation. If they are publishers making editorial choices, then they should relinquish this valuable exemption. They can’t claim that Section 230 immunity is necessary to protect free speech, while they shape, control, and censor the speech on their platforms. Either the courts or Congress should clarify the matter.”

https://www.city-journal.org/html/platform-or-publisher-1588...

...and there we have it. If you want to selectively censor lawful content, you should be treated as a publisher.

Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. was in my mind and many others greatly preferred to the current mess we see caused by 230.

Please tell me how your 1A hypothetical works out. Genuinely interested in hearing how you think 1A and SCOTUS will support your side of this argument.

This is modern American corporate culture after all. Lie, cheat, steal, win at all costs and if you lose blame someone at the bottom of the ladder.

That depends. Are these organizations acting in “good faith”?

Those haven’t been used by the cancel culture mobs, so no. It seems that the WHOIS abuse process is unbiased and not rife with conflicts of interest.

You’re presenting a false dichotomy...

230 needs to be updated, not thrown out; 230 clearly has important aspects that must remain, and other aspects that are clearly being abused by big tech.

Yes, I have considered that. But, no, that’s not my “problem”; I understand that this is not covered by the constitution. I believe that Section 230 should be updated and the clearly vague “otherwise objectionable” language should be removed in favor of specific language regarding where, when, and why content can be taken down, i.e., only when that content is unlawful.

I understand that some are still basking in electoral victories that were without question aided by the ambiguity in Section 230; this euphoria shouldn’t be confused with righteousness.

Section 230 is woefully naive and written for a bygone era. Censorship of speech by a small group of kleptocrat mega corporations on the greatest communication medium ever known to mankind is antithetical to everything America stands for.

“Their platform” has become the public square. If you think allowing unfettered control of such a utility by a small number of mega corporations - with political biases that change to suit their bottom line - is a good thing then I’m not sure we’re on the same page, in the same book, on the same planet.

I think you’re downplaying the “Other” category, which literally gives DO carte blanche in cancelling those they don’t approve of, or worse who the mob pressures DO to cancel.

Do you not see how problematic this is? I agree with all of the other categories wholeheartedly, but even then, application of the policies of these organizations should be uniform, i.e., if both right wing and left wing websites publishes “Violent Threats and Harrassment”, both should be taken down. That’s not what we’re seeing in practice from the major cloud providers.

I'm glad these youths are loved and cared for. I'm also troubled by our recent cultural obsession with asking youths to question their gender and sexual preferences.

I was really considering moving from AWS to DO until I noticed this: https://www.digitalocean.com/company/contact/#abuse

So anyone who's offended by content you might host on DO can report your site and some identity politics obsessed bureauocrat decides if you're cancelled or not...? The public cloud has turned into an Orwellian nightmare.

This seems to summarize my experience with software sales processes and interactions in general. I’m hopeful that software sales culture is beginning to evolve into something other than the pack of hyenas on a carcass that it is today. I personally have resorted to rejecting any and all conversations with software sales people unless I can dictate the direction of the conversation.

I’ve encountered offshore devs that are actually quite good... they are by far the exception, but they also charge much more than the run of the mill folks that you’re likely to encounter.

I’ve worked with many offshore devs over the last decade and really do have a great deal of respect for these folks. That said, in my experience you get maybe 1/10th of the useful output from cheap offshore devs as compared to mid-level U.S. and Canada based devs.

You get what you pay for.

Interesting, sounds like a very unique use case. Is containerizing not a possible solution?

> “if you don't want to use pip”

Why wouldn’t you want to use pip?

They also ferment a great deal of the soy they consume.

Crockford (and many others) found that the many flaws inherent to XML warranted a new specification, so JSON was born. If you have an issue with JSON, go create your own spec, don’t shit all over the perfectly capable, simple, elegant specification that is JSON.

Petabytes of JSON formatted data flowing across the internet every second of every day disagree with your assessment.

Exactly, hasn’t NPM caused enough problems? Now you want to spread that mindset to JSON?

I actually think the lack of comment support in JSON has resulted in better naming and better documentation by those who create JSON to be consumed by others. I don’t want comment support in JSON at this point personally.