706 karma · joined February 18, 2016
A few friends and I like your home better than ours. It's much nicer and safer than where we currently live, so we move into a few open bedrooms.
Now that we outnumber you and your family, we vote to change things in the common areas more to our liking. Some changes are small and happen over time, others more jarring and immediate. You like some of these changes in some cases, but sometimes quite the opposite.
Is it a foregone conclusion that this situation is for the greater good? If so, should your family be pressured or forced to accept?
Who has the power to make that determination?
After all, you were only there first so what gives you the right to prevent others from moving in?
---
Personally, I can see the argument for both sides.
Generic example: millionsandmillionsofpeopleliveinthiscity
Easy to share aloud, but long enough to protect against being brute-forced.
However, I'm sure some folks would be tempted to add something like "designed and implemented a distributed task scheduler and execution engine for generalized asynchronous jobs utilized by X number of devs across Y teams" to their resumes.
Should LG be able to charge you every time you watch a movie or show on your TV?
By your logic, streaming services should be paying TV manufacturers for using their "IP" when displaying video to customers. Hogwash.
Well that's your problem right there. That type of spam boosts a number of activity and usage KPIs and increases engagement.
Reddit has even been caught using bots to artificially build out new subreddits by Google translating and reposting existing content from other subreddits to give the illusion of popularity in order to bootstrap new subs.
Why would they want to cut down on any of that when it would affect their bottom line?
I do, and I suspect many others would like to know as well - please share!
It's on that point that we, and I'd imagine the GP as well, strongly disagree.
What a lazy rhetorical device.
Please keep to the HN guidelines and stop reposting that article and claim which has been debunked multiple times in this comment section - it contributes nothing to the conversation.
Which you keep repeating without providing any supporting argument or citations, hence the downvotes.
Hard disagree. It's absolutely unreasonable to infantilize users and lock them out from fully utilizing their purchased hardware.
Otherwise, your argument isn't very compelling, especially after having admitted that you haven't even used Python in ways that would warrant any assessment of performance for those use cases.
Use your imagination.
I strongly disagree with this stance, and it's a very authoritarian one at that. The common people can't be trusted with freedom so we should give up that freedom and trust in <insert authority here>. I find this stance morally repugnant and entirely at odds with where the future of technology should be going.
Tl;Dr: Hard disagree. Some of us prefer to use our computers as general computing devices, as opposed to just being desk-driven iPhones.
Perhaps you should do more research before ending a comment on such a condescending remark next time.
>It’s important to note that artificial food colors do not cause ADHD.8 One study found that removing artificial food colors from the diet had a statistically significant effect on ADHD symptoms, however. The authors noted that the improvements were modest but still statistically significant.9
Be ready for an expansion of their fear-mongering ad campaigns about how anyone in your office or home can read your messages when you send them unencrypted.