krageon

If it doesn't matter whether or not your emails arrive you are a spammer. If it does, you apparently don't just communicate based on volume and have something to say that matters. I think you have this inverted.

That isn't a favour. The favour is finding the vulnerability and being nice enough to communicate to those who are impacted. If you as an organisation are shitty enough to view the reward for that a lack of punishment, nobody should be communicating that to you.

If you believe in a company you do actually have problems IMO. The corporation exists to exploit you and tries to make that okay by giving you money. You do not owe it anything, certainly not faith.

Self-respect has to do with doing the work you're asked to do well, not making sure the corporation runs better than it's leadership facilitates.

When you compare it with the prices of other realistic costs (housing, transport, etc) it is significantly cheaper than you'd expect in a country with equivalent costs in those areas.

Addiction-based exploitation. Perhaps the word "garbage" applies well to it. Or in a good reality, "criminal".

At the end of the day the engineer has a valuable skill and you're the one telling them they need to be more replaceable. You're the enemy. Of course you're going to think the tools that let you dehumanise your employees at scale are good things.

It's not been a hugely impactful country in the way that the roman empire was, so at the very least it's not the latter. I know people like to say "pax americana" was a thing, but let's be real - even when the US was actually doing well it wasn't a force for peace and development.

The video just gives execs more leverage to use the skills they use every day (people skills) to overwhelm the skills you use every day (charitably either the same skills or some sort of knowledge or physical skill). The more they're comfortable, the worse off you are. Their entire position within the company hinges on being able to exploit you for as much as you're willing to let them get away with, which hinges upon how well they're able to convince you you're worth less than they are (after all, you earn less).

Giving them anything is the wrong move. If you think you are getting as much out of the video as they are getting out of you watching them speak, you are wrong. The degree of wrong depends on your affinity with their chosen craft (which is, to be clear, grifting you).

The only person guaranteeing this is the case and will stay the case is the person keeping your passwords. That seems to me to be a pretty wild thing to have faith in.

The truth isn't a decision that's made, it just is. So nobody gets to decide it, it just is :)

As someone not from the US the fact that "uwu we didn't know" is an adequate defense for the police to do something illegal is really weird. Is there some crucial context I'm missing?

Low social cohesion and high individuality. Zero or near-zero shame built into people for being pieces of shit when they're growing up. It's all very "western".

It's not noticeably low when you're from a nice country. It'll be very noticeably low when you're from a nightmare place.

What is there to be sad about? You're getting the feedback you want: Don't beg for things, it's obnoxious and destroys whatever goodwill you have.

Tangentially related, but a lot of the discourse about societies that people are not a part of end up being similar to the discourse around corporations people are not a part of. Folks come up with reasons for why things are the case, and if you are actually part of the thing under discussion it is a mystifying and frustrating experience to see basically everyone is wrong, all the time.

This process really harmed my view of the utility of public discussion of anything. In quality it is about as bad as the average newspaper article. As you are perhaps aware, if the article is about something you know you will realise nearly every article is entirely fabricated. Lots of research papers (at least in the computer science domain) are the same: fabrications that can't be reproduced. Either the algorithm is not published so you can't validate the data or the algorithm is published and the data is just entirely unrelated to it.

Thinking about it, it's kind of a miracle humanity gets anywhere at all. Almost every public resource is aggressively ignorant.

I've done the same thing as you and buying the phone separately was cheaper every time. In a normal jurisdiction the phone payment is a clear component of your bill and it is patently clear you're borrowing the full sale amount and paying back a higher amount of money.

If this isn't obviously the case, the "normal" plans are subsidizing phone sales. This means that you're almost certain to be better off with a vendor that doesn't offer this or at least offers it in a way that isn't dishonest.

At the end of the day, even if what you say is true making use of this deal makes things worse for everyone because it is part of a larger strategy. Inevitably you will be squeezed for more money than you otherwise would, sometimes it just takes a while.

Your point is apparently "you should expose yourself to malware so other people can make money". I think this is an unethical thing to say and think, because you are harming the actual human beings around you.

> it never lied

It's motto was literally "don't be evil". It takes a significant mental leap to take your conclusion from it's behaviour.

The issue with ads is not just the fact that they prey on your attention, but also that they're a well-known vector for malware. You should never accept ads, because the risk that matters most to you if you don't have good mental hygiene is your person (i.e. identity theft, financial damage).

I do the exact same thing and I don't live in the US so suing a party that sells my shit isn't an option, but it's nice to be able to blackhole an alias so that the corporation in question doesn't get to bother me with their bullshit. It's only happened once or twice.

It's like when I researched whether an electric toothbrush is better: All the studies say it's not, assuming you're a good brusher. You're probably not. For bad brushers and people that can't manipulate the toothbrush properly for whatever reason, an electric toothbrush gets them to the same performance.

GP said local / on-device. Most of what you mentioned is cloud shit.

What are you talking about? The GP doesn't even mention elections

Containers aren't a security measure, so you'd be comparing a stick of wood to a car in this case.

If you anything with a GPU anywhere, you can essentially forget it. Or at least this was the case a few years ago when I briefly toyed with using qubes seriously.

Having been part of many such hiring initiatives, it hasn't ever panned out in any of my data. It means that everyone needs to be less of a shithead (because folks are no longer broadly homogenous), which makes everything a lot more bearable. The work is the same, but the people are better to each other. It's not that surprising everything ends up working better a year or two later.

With respect, it can be hard to see the nuance in this if you're from the US (a country that is so racist even the government openly practices it, but sanctimonious enough to pretend it is instead free).

What do you think the difference is between those?

Yes, as far as I know. I thought this was a nice overview: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6300652/

We can take it one step further: There are microbes everywhere in your body, they matter and they do things. When you take them away or fuck with them too much, weird things start happening.

It is I think not a particularly surprising take. But then often it can be valuable to have things that are kind of obvious codified into a paper of some sort so that we no longer have to rely on "but isn't that obvious?" and can instead point to some primary source that actually explains what is true. That way it can be true for everyone, even the people for whom it wasn't already obvious.