Thanks for this, I have noticed that in the online communities where I hang out, it is nice to have the words of what has been annoying me. Thanks so much.
282 karma · joined June 5, 2013
A closer summary of what the OP said is "Don't waste the project maintainers time" which, while much better than "collaborate", is still a waste of time and misses the specific advice the OP gives.
Delish is justified in calling out notyourwork's comment for providing nothing useful. If I wrote a comment like the one notyourwork wrote I would be feeling guilty for writing a comment just for points. Also the size of a comment is not a good basis for criticism.
As far as I know it is the same with current HP desktops as well. Don't buy Lenovo/HP.
And you are saying that you want to hire people that will not complain when they are exploited. I'd not want to work for anyone like you, since you would think it is my fault that I was stupid enough to get screwed.
What this whole Squad developer thing tells me is there needs to be a way for exploited employees to retaliate legally, because nothing much seems to be happening at the moment.
Edit: Thanks for the clarification.
Funny you should mention that...
Look at the SSL certificate of this site.
So it seems people have switched because of:
* Process Isolation
* Dev Tools
* Bookmark and History Syncing
* Chromecast
Also some people have mentioned performance, but this is unclear.
Neither of the comments you replied to said anything about 'Firefox trying to accommodate more users' preferences'. So I don't think they had anything against Firefox accommodating more users preferences. They were just saying what people prefer is different, some people like Chrome's web developer tools more, some people like the web developer tools in Firefox more.
What follows here are my observations on what are the advantages/disadvantages of the two browsers:
The biggest advantage to Chrome that I can think of is it has its own implementation of Flash in it, rather than using the Flash plugin. This allows Chrome to not have another container process, unlike in Firefox which does spawn a container process for Flash, which uses a ton more CPU cycles for the inter-process communication. This makes some sites crawl because of all the junk that is added to them, probably for advertisement networks.
Other than that, Firefox seems to give you more freedom with what extensions can be installed on it and allows a larger variety of addons that is available at the main addons site, third party sites can be used, although that is going to get more difficult in the future. But it is better than Chrome with from what I understand is going to disallow extensions from anywhere other than the Chrome store. An example of what will not be on the Chrome store is 'Cleaner for Facebook', which I remember because the story was so recent. Here is the story 'How Google obliterated my 4 year old Chrome extension featuring 24k+ users' at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12442048 .
People that call it cancerous are doing that only because they want to get peoples work and do not want to give back any work they do on the GPL'd software or the software that uses the GPL'd code.
The agency I used to work at didn't mind using GPL'd software at all, because with one or two exceptions the agency did not distribute software at all. The AGPL was different matter though, so we just didn't use software licensed under AGPL. I am not complaining that software uses the AGPL license, it's all the better for software developers to license it the way they want, there's no point in whining about it.
I would tend to license software under the GPL just so that any improvements made to it go back to the community.
Using an IDE with an understanding of the language you have is even less painful. Having the IDE automatically refactor a public field to use getters and setters is a breeze with managed languages like Java and C#.
That doesn't require the concept of free will. Because for manslaughter and murder the reasons are different for the death. One is deliberate, one isn't.
> It seems like, punishment would need to be interpreted purely as societal cost. So you tally up the wreckage from the car accident example above, say $25,000 and 2 lives.
You would also want to calculate predicted future costs from that person, mainly from the point of view of harm to other people. If someone like them is likely to kill on average one or more people in the rest of their life then they aren't going to be allowed to interact with general society again. This doesn't need the concept of free will to implement. It only needs a sufficiently sophisticated way of determining of what harm a person like them will likely cause. This is in addition to the harm they have already caused, so there is no reason for someone to become a one time killer. And yes, getting the predictions right may be really tricky, and the way the courts currently sentence people may be a good as or better than trying to predict what people do on average. But the way courts sentence at the moment doesn't require the concept of free will anyway, because people do what they do because of reasons, human reasons, and they can differentiate there.
For instance New Delhi is far more polluted than any US city, although energy consumption per capita may be 16 times more in the US than India.
In my opinion a measure like energy or resource use per square kilometer of land is a much better measure. Although it has its problems as well, such as land quality varying greatly between different areas, which would change the number of people an area of land could support in a sustainable way.
Sources: Population and energy usage per country http://www.worldpopulationbalance.org/population_energy . This uses Population Reference Bureau; 2012 World Population Data Sheet for population information and uses U.S. Energy Information Administration 2012 for energy use information. This is on the bottom of the page linked. For the Pollution index, it is Pollution Index 2016 Mid Year http://www.numbeo.com/pollution/rankings.jsp .
Disclaimer: I am not an expert in the slightest.
I would be interested in where you have got the data from for that assertion that it was because of a tech boom and subsequent real estate boom. At the moment I believe the person who actually employs people as a large manufacturer than what is mentioned here in a comment.
If you would like to give your sources, I would be interested.
Although, raising the minimum wage would be a good thing. Here is an article that shows how the lowest paying companies are effectively ripping off the rest of the economy:
http://prospect.org/article/confronting-parasite-economy (Confronting the Parasite Economy)
The articles is written by Nick Hanauer who is co-chair board of Pacific Coast Feather Company, his families business.
Here is a excerpt from the article which explained what happened when minimum wage was raised to $15 an hour in Seattle.
In 2014, Seattle took its high-wage model one step further, passing the first $15 minimum wage in the nation. Restaurateurs and right-wing think tanks warned of ruin. Businesses would close. Workers would lose their jobs. The invisible hand would punch us in the mouth. But it never happened.
As the Puget Sound Business Journal recently reported in a front page story titled “Apocalypse Not: $15 and the cuts that never came,” six months after the first wage increase went into effect, Seattle’s restaurant industry is growing faster than ever. Even celebrity chef Tom Douglas, who had warned that Seattle could lose a quarter of its downtown restaurants, has continued to add restaurants to his local empire. “Douglas has now changed his mind about the law,” the PSBJ reports, “saying he was ‘naïve’ to think that restaurants would raise pay on their own.” That he was. And then on February 15, 2016, The Seattle Times reported that ADP’s national survey of economic vitality ranked Washington state number one in the country for both wage and job growth. And you thought higher wages killed jobs. Not hardly.
1. http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=180638 (Inner Classes or Closures)
2. http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=182412 (Clear, Consistent, and Concise Syntax (C3S) for Java)
3. https://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=202004 (Comparing Inner Class/Closure Proposals)
PS. I remember the Artima articles because I liked them at the time.
* People who criticise such things are generally do it because they don't like it, not because it is bad. Although they will say they don't like it because games are bad, or maybe another media they don't participate in. There is no evidence being presented by these people that the media they don't like is bad.
* They are being dishonest and hyperbolic. Let's take a couple of quotes from the grandparent post. "very close to 100% of the games being made seem to be about murdering other creatures", and "Part of me thinks we should drop the pretext of a "Gaming Industry" and just start calling it the "Murder Simulation Industry"."". Obviously these are nowhere near honest. 'Murder Simulation Industry', I mean come on, could you make a more negative slant against games than that.
* They often say it to belittle other people so they can elevate themselves, at least in their mind. It is like people who say they don't play 'cliche' games and say that people who play mainstream games are retards. Same sort of belittling there as well. I wouldn't trust either of these people. Why would you care about what entertainment someone enjoys? Even if it is violent, it is not like they are actually being violent by enjoying some type of media.
Back to what you have put forward, yes, it is very easy to forget the people who you just don't see.
I will refer the following article to show how tragedy of the commons did not happen in common land in the last couple of centuries:
http://www.thelandmagazine.org.uk/articles/short-history-enc...