samastur

Unisex bathrooms mean women get to clean the bathrooms again because men can't be bothered to aim or sit.

This is a myth they tell themselves. USSR won by incredible amounts of American supplied material.

I don't think it will take 500 years.

In general I don't particularly care what other people say on this topic and rely on the legal guidance I received during my work from UK ICO and Slovenian office, but even some of your links don't collaborate you. The second one linking to Verasafe's page on which it clearly says that yes, you should delete it.

There's a lot of complainig around how difficult that can be and the fact that EU legislation in general often does not like to precisely prescribe its requirements like what reasonable means, which can indeed be annoying.

You still need to remove it either directly or your retention policy for backups needs to be short enough that keeping it in backups for a while is judged as reasonable.

You heard wrong. It doesn't have to be immediate though.

My bet would be willingness to invest.

Yes or more correctly, my wife and I used to until we started putting all such goods (flour, oats, rice) in sealed glass containers.

Sorry, I came off antagonistic in my first reply.

I'm always open to be corrected, but as far as I know nations that formed Yugoslavia haven't actually fought each other meaningfully before WWI and even in that war Slovenians, Croats and Bosniaks were not involved independently, but as subjects of Austro Hungarian empire. There certainly wasn't the kind of animosity displayed as for centuries between France and England or France and Germany (as just two examples). It was really WW2 where one can observe the viciousness beyond fighting one's enemy.

I have my own views why things went south so badly and I agree with you that it was inevitable for YU to fall apart, but I find the often expressed argument that people living in our parts always did this very unpersuasive.

I'll bite, how long?

If you are making an economic (financial) argument for change like the original comment did, then yes, it should be visible positive effect.

Obviously not if you are doing for your own fun or just improving the state of art.

No, they really aren't. Absolutely nobody's life is measurably improved because of 1 cent one time.

I admit my opinion is not based on first hand knowledge, but I have for years worked on projects trying to address poverty at different parts of this planet and can't think of a single one where this would be even remotely true.

That's not how economics works.

If 100 million people each save 1 cent because of your work, you saved 1 million in total, but in practice nobody is observably better off.

Judges and authorities complaining is not a proof that encryption is good. Not cooperating with court will have the same effect, which is exactly what Durov is allegedly accused of.

He wasn't, you just like Ben better (which is obviously fine).

Good for you but many do not or are out of service (all Schiphol's were the last time I was there).

I love going to theaters when we visit London and over the years I've seen tens of plays if not over a hundred. Shakespeare's are the only ones I had problems following so we stopped seeing them.

Like you I don't think this is a problem of Shakespeare or me. My English is not perfect, but since I don't seem to have problems communicating otherwise or following plays or movies even in dialects (within reason) I take this as a substantial proof that it is generally good enough.

My personal take is that it is a combination of language that is just unfamiliar enough and old references and idioms that I don't get because I haven't been taught them in school while learning about plays.

All you did is bring back the point that "end of the world" is woefully undefined in his article and discussing it makes it therefore difficult at best.

We obviously disagree on what it means. For me it doesn't mean something of high value to me would end/disappear. It does mean in almost axiomatic way that if internet is still working, then the world hasn't ended as some part of civilization is clearly still running to a very high degree necessary for that to be the case.

I'm not going to deconstruct the whole thing to appease a stranger, but let's just take the first point of the argument: That it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of the internet.

Setting aside what does "end of the world" actually mean, who's making this statement?

Almost nobody is, since practically every instance is someone referencing somebody else with little commitment. Essentially this is arguing against a person instead of some wide-spread view.

Even if it was wide spread, does it even matter?

It obviously can't be true since end of the world in any reasonable understanding contains end of the internet. So what exactly is this point and argument against it trying to show? I have no idea since believing or not in something dying generally matters little to it being (or not) in such process.

Let's say it is important. What are the arguments that it is incorrect beyond being obviously so?

Well, some unrelated people before you were incorrect about unrelated shape of future so you, but not the author, probably are too. Then he follows this by putting words in mouth of the people he disagrees with, before he swerves into his own experiencing of internet consumption and resulting numbness. I guess based on his expectations of near future there's an expectation of universality of his experience, but even if it was universal (and huge amounts of emotions exhibited online create at least some doubt that it is), why would it contribute to internet's death? It obviously doesn't stop him from scrolling, or writing and otherwise engaging on internet. Again, I have no idea.

So all of it does not really add up to much, but I admit it is entertainingly written which is more than most of us manage.

As someone with sweet-tooth I don't mind the style, but I do think it masks how empty his arguments are and how unsubstantiated. Explanations that aren't really.

I guess our main disagreement is if he has original ideas. I've only read a couple of things he wrote so I'm certainly not in position to have the definitive opinion, but neither of his articles impressed me.

No, he wouldn't. The whole thing is all blitz and little substance of someone who seems to be over-read and under-thought. It's best described in his own words: a handful of sugar instead of a meal.

No. One was not worth knowing and the other died when I was young.

Not in Scotland it won't.

Check SEPA Instant Credit :)

What the hell are you talking about?

I've been to Norway 4-5 times and will visit again in about a month. It's wonderful throughout and wish we could live there.

I have zero empathy for them too, but this is still just stupid even assuming that this company is VC funded (most aren't).

Most of us do not go to work to warm the seat in exchange for paycheck and poor performers are devastating for morale. It's difficult enough to manage how people perceive themselves with relation to others and their compensation and you do absolutely no favors to anyone with making this even more complicated by having a visibly incompetent employee being over-compensated.

And who will you message then? I assume most of your contacts will stay where they are.

They didn't seem to mind him running Worldcoin though. Doing two (several) jobs problem came later and this explanation doesn't really address this.

Personally I don't care if pg is completely honest or if sam was fired or not. It doesn't have meaningful impact on my view of either.

The article is from 2019.

Personally I’d focus on arguments instead of motivations and skip arguing with those were it seems it will be or when it becomes unproductive.

Here (Slovenia) that is a lot of hassle for no personal benefit. Public charging is expensive enough that you'll never recuperate the higher price of the vehicle (if you can't charge at home).