I don't want to sound too negative, but I will say that this is an extremely optimistic take that doesn't often pan out that way.
5,709 karma · joined December 23, 2014
I don't really see how this is a particularly controversial statement and I will say I don't appreciate you trying to reduce it to some ridiculous extreme. You didn't add anything to the discussion and it's tragic, because you could have made a nice point about system boundaries, levels of abstraction and perhaps information overload.
That would have made a great point about why abstraction is sometimes necessary. Then we could have spoken about what makes good and bad abstractions. Perhaps someone who came upon this thread later could have learned something and we'd have made the site a better place together.
I guess I'm just really frustrated with seeing the people that get paid to use and promote it be so bad at what they do and I don't like cleaning up after them :)
> If you look at most enterprises today you will see it deployed everywhere.
This doesn't mean it's a game changer. It just means it has a big cargo-cult and people keep using it regardless of whether they need it.
> most of the complexity has been abstracted away by the cloud providers
The abstractions that people add make things more complex, not less. Unless of course you don't care to understand what you're running, which is precisely the problem with the culture around most folks that use kubernetes (and more broadly the US cloud providers as an entity).
You are being mean and unhelpful. GP really has a great point in asking you why you felt the need to get on this high horse and talk down to everyone around you. For asking you this you've responded to them with more personal attacks. Ironically, this was their complaint to begin with - you didn't add anything to the conversation with your reply. Please do better.
Look at the difference between Germany and say Austria, for example. Or if you must compare two large countries Germany and France. There is quite a large gap between different countries.
It's just that the enforcement agencies are large, lazy and won't enforce anything. They don't even enforce when you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt when and how the corporations have leaked your private information, let alone when their use of cookies is illegal.
Yes, it is. That's the actual problem and so is everything else about the attention-hijacking industry.
You don't provide a foundation for the counters to the arguments the GP makes (f.e. you propose smaller corporations wouldn't have "pointless growth and consumption", without substantiating how you feel such a thing is possible with capitalism as described and commonly understood).
You call "public funding" magical thinking, but in the point right before that you mention something should be "a simple utility". Those are publically funded.
And of course we should not forget these are strawmen and/or personal attacks. This is not a respectable post that adds to the discussion, it's one that distracts and makes everything categorically worse.
Yes, that is essentially the reason. It's not hard to know enough chemistry to figure out how to make these things. The fact that such attacks (your example is small-scale and very ineffective, let's not forget) don't happen more often is the general incompetence of human beings and the relatively tight controls on the basic components (which aren't particularly challenging to monitor for). The tests described are theater, based on the idea that knowledge itself is dangerous.
This way of testing is a regressive stance that essentially presupposes that our adversaries are dumb babies that can't figure anything out on their own. If that was the case, they would also be too stupid to figure out the correct things to ask to get a real set of instructions. Given those things, it's theater.
Theater wastes everyone's time so that people who cannot or don't want to evaluate the actual risks involved. This is something we shouldn't make a habit of doing. It's not worth wasting the time of people with good ability to assuage the worries of people with little ability in a way that has no effect on actual risk. Instead of this, we should address real risk (which we're already doing) and educate other people so they can understand that these are the correct steps to take.
It would have been much improved if you could somehow provide a foundation for why you think what you think and if you could leave the things that you literally just made up out of it.
It's not for no reason. Renting will always be more expensive because the home owner maintains the house. When you buy it, it's assumed that you'll maintain it yourself. So it costs less. Naturally, as is entirely expected.
It's not hard at all. The people like the decisionmakers here inflict violence upon people's willingness to help them with very bad cybersecurity issues. Which are everywhere. If we lived in a healthy society, whoever decided to prosecute this would be sacrificed to a volcano (metaphorically).
In a significant way, that's probably due to how incredibly toxic the managing company has become. An aim for profit eventually ruins everything, including what used to be one of the best knowledge sharing sites around.
This is an industry where every willing participant should be treated as if they're an informer for a party that is hostile to you. Because they are.
The phones being removed from children is excellent, as the algorithms that prey on them live in those phones. The fact that we make, tolerate and in some cases even celebrate these apps is a travesty. The fact that apparently a school teacher is no longer capable of de-escalating and telling another human being to move without the threat of immediate police violence is pretty telling. It tells of an environment where it's not only the kids that need to learn to interact with other people, the adults sorely need it too. That's something that shouldn't be addressed using more police violence.
A large part of the problem is political cronyism and the incredibly tedious culture that develops when you get a lot of people with very few skills together to talk about something they know nothing about.
I'd legitimately take less money if I could somehow be convinced an employer isn't a piece of shit. If I'm going to work for an asshole, I will be well paid. I think this is a reasonable stance most people in the space take. That, or retiring and having a communal garden.