radisb

After reading just the first paragraph the tv show “Person of interest” immediately came to my mind

So hypothetically, if ram was as cheap and easy to add as storage, swap would not make sense?

Assuming that OP is correct in everything, it isn't shown anywhere that swap must reside in persistent storage. It could be stored in RAM, couldn't it? I mean you always have a fixed max amount of swap, so if it fits in memory , then why not put it in memory? But then why bother with swap?

You reap what you saw

Couldn't someone else willing to give those 70h/week take your place?

Oh, so if, hypothetically, someone did have to be fired to be replaced by a non-white-male, would you be against it?

"he" because the article says "all-white-male"

While we are at it, just off the top of my head, lets make it required to include at least one bald person, at least one person with blood type AB, and at least one person with freckles. We shouldnt descriminate against them should we?

The problem is that someone must be fired because he is a white male

Man, I literally fell on the floor laughing :)

> even here on HN people might think you're serious!

Ha! Might want to explicitly indicate sarcasm; even here on HN people might think you're serious!

lol

>Moreover, as the self-appointed facilitators of the new self-government of the online global population,32 currently there is little that would prevent the leading social media platforms from using and canalizing this civic power for the goals they see fit – much like a government with the difference that governments are subject to democratic oversight..

2 things on the above: First point, self-appointed does not matter. It is just a declaration. What matters is that people/users themselves turned this declaration into a fact. So, second point, platforms are subject to democratic oversight: Like you control your vote, you control your keyboard or mouse that clicks the sign-up button or accepts the TOS, you control the mouth and the fingers that propagate the information, and the brain that consumes it.

I really dislike it when people , by their own actions, become dependent on a service someone else offers in such a degree that they feel they are now entitled to the service and that it is now a public good. They strive to establish and cement this dependence on their own terms, assigning now the responsibility of maintaining it to the offerer (again on their own terms). That's the relationship between a spoiled child and its parents, not between a man and the society.

Sorry for my bad English. Not my mother tongue.

I don’t use tinder. I don’t use slack

And that's exactly the problem. We give them our things

Not to sound as old or anachronistic but I kind of watch this stuff happening and wonder when all those useless bubbly conveniences are going to burst. Never had any account on facebook, twitter, instagram, viber, whatsapp etc. Last similar stuff i used was IRC and ICQ. Some Messenger and skype but i abandoned those long ago. Now I only use discord when I am gaming or wanna talk to a friend and I am sitting in my desk.

Mobile phones were a big step forward from plain old landline ones. But in terms of ease of communication this change was the last one with non-deminishing returns. Maybe smart phones also just for browsing HN when I wait in a queue or in the bus etc.

All those social networking and communication apps? Fcuk them.

I can perfectly communicate by calling or texting or video calling someone. What exactly is the added value of those apps?

I love when people are shocked because someone decides which tech to use based on the merits of the tech instead of what the current year tech fashion dictates. It's hilarious.

Just "A Keyboard that works" would do the job.

Honest question, since I have no expertise in the field: If C89 says that "Permissible undefined behavior" includes "ignoring the situation completely with unpredictable results" can you give an example of something that would constitute non permissible undefined behaviour according to the standard?

Unless it is intentional, that logic permits swapping marijuana fields with e.g. heroin labs and machine guns with e.g. nuclear bombs. How can we objectively draw the line?

I bet he tells them what happened

True, but it is not the way the problem was created. It is a part, but nothing compared to the conscious choice of installing chrome or signing up for gmail etc. The massive adoption of google products was not achieved the way you describe. To be clear, i agree with you. What you describe, is true and indicative of the situation. But I just want to point that individual action can solve the problem just as it was the main drive that created it

> Yes, but you aren't going to get enough people to change their decisions to have an impact without changing their incentives.

It is not my purpose to change anyone's decision but mine. That alone is enough impact for me.

> I would be significantly worse off if I refused to use any Google services. I literally wouldn't be able to do my current job.

You have a tough choice indeed (I am in the same situation). But the choice is yours. And yours alone.

No. They were created by the individual actions of some billinos of users who (like me) subcribed to those problems (not regarded as such at the time) due to - i will agree - the actions of a few company heads / marketing gurus. But just as nobody was pointing a gun to my head at the time, nobody is pointing a gun to my head now: "Thank you for your services, I think I 'll be leaving now"

>The only way to revert it is to change the incentives. Or people could change their decisions.

They can. In the same way they were created: By individual action.

It supposedly did though

Why does an article necessarily have to have a point? Why cant it just lay the facts and let the reader process them and judge them and feel about them how ever the reader wants?

'2019' = present year, 'OK' = we didn't get wiped out

What if you want both?