thawaya3113

The problem is that Ubuntu isn’t the boring choice. They keep making drastic changes without much notice.

For example, switching the default and recommended browser to snaps which breaks a whole bunch of extensions.

Or suddenly dropping Unity and switching to Gnome, which completely changed the workflow until Canonical bridged the gaps.

The thread is in the context of Apple users insisting that the OP should use a Mac, when the OP has explicitly stated that it does not fit their needs.

Which still means that more than 5 out of 6 computers are not Macs.

Which is as diametrically opposite of the industry standard as you can get.

Another part of it is that people have spent so much money buying into the Mac eco system and they find that its not the heavenly like existence they were led to believe it would be.

So they need external validation for their choice, which they get by seeing everyone else switching to the Mac ecosystem as well.

Building more housing does not lower housing prices. This should be fairly obvious but here’s why it doesn’t work, at least in the US, and frankly would cause huge problems if it did.

The major problem is that the vast majority of the U.S. which is not underwater in debts, has the majority of their wealth in their houses. So if building more housing led to a secular reduction in housing prices, people would get poorer.

Which means that it will never happen, because people who own housing in those areas and therefore control the entire political processs, will not accede to shooting themselves in the foot even if they are YIMBYs.

What this means then, is that the only housing that will be allowed to be built, or the only housing that will not in turn make the people of the area poorer, will be “luxury” housing, which does not lower their property values because it compensates for the drop in housing value due to greater supply by adding “amenities”, allowing them to maintain their existing house values.

The escape route for this is low income housing. Creating cheaper housing for people who couldn’t afford to buy their houses anyways, and therefore even though it leads to lower cost housing, it doesn’t lead to a drop in their house values (if anything, it may lead to an increase in their house values since it reduces virgin land that could have otherwise been used to build non low income housing that would compete with their houses).

This is also, obviously, not intended to be a long term solution as evidenced by the fact that it’s limited to 2 years.

I do think it would have been better if they hadn’t announced it was limited to 2 years but that’s not practical.

I’m a huge proponent of the “build more supply” side. But that takes time. And in addition, there is a huge 2 year gap of supply creation that didn’t happen because of the pandemic.

This may help ease some of that pandemic related imbalance.

Omicron and Delta were both more deadly and more contagious than the early 2020 versions of COVID, so you don’t need to imagine.

It was only the prevalence of vaccinations that prevented things from getting much worse. As far as the unvaccinated were concerned, the impact was devastating.

Sweden’s death toll is at least twice as much as all it’s comparable neighbors and it’s economy was the worst performing of the lot.

There is no point comparing Sweden to “at least 56 countries that did worse” because Sweden is a highly advanced society with excellent healthcare infrastructure (poor healthcare infrastructure is very strongly correlated with worse outcomes).

Sweden’s entire original approach (which they changed, btw, after which their death rate plummeted) was based on a single fallacy. That asymptomatic people did not spread COVID. Unfortunately, since Tegnell refused to initially believe this, which led to a lot of deaths, he doubled down until the evidence for asymptomatic spread became too strong to ignore, at which point Sweden also did change their approach, and incorporated lockdowns, etc into the mix of tools that they used.

Of course, by that point our understanding of COVID was much better, testing was far more prevalent and widespread, efc. So lockdowns we’re not really necessary outside of rare circumstances.

How much does it cost to convert that to US dollars?

And what is the half life value before that money ends up disappearing because of a hack, wallet mismanagement, or a straight up scam, or ending up being seized by the FBI?

Considering the ridiculously large percentage of Bitcoin that belongs either to the FBI or Mt Gox scammers, and the massive number of other scams in crypto, I bet once you adjust for those factors the value will be minuscule.

Wall Street “shakes off” losses with massive Congressional investigations, new laws, people jumping out of skyscraper windows, new rules and regulations that greatly limit what they can do.

None of that happens with crypto, which has lost more money in scams than Wall Street has in a decade, despite being a fraction of the size of Wall Street.

The real reason the board doesn’t want Elon in charge is because he is trolling them and doesn’t have, or more likely doesn’t want to spend, the money to do what he claims he wants to do.

I can offer the board double of what Elon is offering them right now, and also say I will figure out the financing later in the year. Do you think the board would be derelict to turn down my offer?

This is such a bullshit argument unless Dorsey thinks he himself was the reason Twitter sucked, because the Twitter board had him running the company for most of the last few years where Twitter went from becoming the center of conversation to a universally agreed blot on humanity.

Which is why he is so needed.

Pragmatism will always gravitate towards the “middle”. But the middle can never be truly found by pragmatism unless it can see either extreme.

Without Stallman, the closed software extreme has a ton of supporters (Microsoft, Apple, etc) but the free software extreme has almost none.

What Stallman does is define the free software extreme which allows the pragmatists to find a much better middle than if he wasn’t pushing that boundary.

When was the last time those were traded in real currency at those valuations?

It was probably easier for them to be more libre than less during early development. This has often been the case with Apple products.

Don’t worry. They will lock it down.

1) No one expected them to be so weak and miserable. Note that every western analyst gave it at most 3 days (some might have said 7, but no one said more) before Kyiv would fall. Note also that even over a month into the invasion, and it making no progress, the narrative in western circles was that it was a result of a temporary logistics problem and/or using conscripts as cannon fodder. The professionals would come anytime soon and then Kyiv would be taken.

2) Nukes.

3) Even though the Russian military appears increasingly incompetent, they are still capable of creating immense damage and destruction.

You should go tell the Taiwanese that. Their entire foreign policy (and through TSMC even their manufacturing policy) is based around the fear of China invading Taiwan.

Debt is not a sword of Damocles hanging over the US. Debt is basically China having sent a bunch of actual stuff to the US in return for a promise that the US will make them whole sometime in the future.

And because of inflation, the value that the U.S. has to make China whole by keeps reducing.

If the US sand China went to war, China could keep waving those pieces of paper and the U.S. would simply ignore it.

Lol, the Taiwanese almost certainly have much worse scenarios drawn up by their own politicians and security forces.

They don’t need the US to be terrified about living next to an aggressive China.

And almost the entire point of TSMC is to make Taiwan too important for China to attack, and the U.S. dependent enough on Taiwan that it eventually provides Taiwan with a security guarantee.

Only people with blinkers who cannot think beyond the US a would come up with the idea that any of what the US aid suggesting is news to the Taiwanese.

No. That is a fault of rm that it makes it so easy to do something that in 9.99999% of the cases isn’t what the user wants to do.

In fact, recognizing that is precisely why you can’t even do that easily anymore. Setting aside that you probably need to sudo the function, rm prevents you from running the command unless you pass an additional long flag that basically say you really really want to do this.

Programs which expect perfect user input, and allow minor user mistakes to lead to major negative outcomes are faulty programs.

You’d probably be taken to court and lose.

Most of middle management work is being pushed onto employees, who can now absorb that work because remote work has led to everyone working 2-3 hrs extra.

In the past if upper management wanted a demo of what was coming up, the “middle manager” would put it together, especially if it involves several team members’ work.

Now, with the fact that everyone is putting in more time, and that we are now all accustomed to spending hours and hours in meetings, they just throw an hour long meeting in the calendar, and ask the 10 people on the team to each do a 10 min demo.

Far more inefficient, but that’s ok because upper management is getting it for free.

There is a large contingent of heavy Windows users who move their sidebars to the left or right who MS may also be content ignoring, because many of these users have no alternative.

They may, for example, be heavy Excel users, with macros, etc. In why case now other OS is even an option.

Purging means to remove. So yes? Firing has always meant purging.

It’s the comparison to Stalinist purges that’s a problem.

The idea that people could speak freely in jobs earlier without getting fired is beyond laughable.

The only thing being exposed by this is that a certain group of people were exempt from the rules most faced and are now having to face some small fraction of that.

You don’t want your pet to be taken so you choose to have your entire family slaughtered instead?

Regd, India buying oil from Russia, while I personally disagree with the decision and think it’s ridiculously short sighted (the long term value of the lost goodwill by doing this will be orders of magnitude greater than any money saved by buying Russian oil), to put it simply, there are no sanctions on Russian oil.

There is absolutely no reason India shouldn’t buy Russian oil. Especially when the EU continues to do so.

The only country that has any standing complaining about Indian purchases of Russian oil is the US. And they haven’t complained about it because they recognize the hypocrisy of criticizing India buying a few millions worth of oil while not saying anything to Europe buying a few billions worth of oil.

Eastern Europe is the one being attacked. Not India.

It’s pretty obvious that the 2 would have different responses.

Also, if dependence is irrelevant, then why is the EU a continuing to buy Russian gas? To the tune of $35bn since Russia invaded Ukraine, compared to the $1bn they’ve given Ukraine?

I don’t blame them for it. I can understand that it’s pretty much impossible to unravel those decades of dependence in months, and trying to do that immediately will likely be counterproductive.

And India recognizes the same about its own Russian policy. They know they need to move away, but they also recognize the dangers of doing so in a thoughtless and rushed manner.

Further, unlike your conveniently specific black and white thinking, other countries like those in the EU (which haven’t said anything to India), the US (which has tried diplomatic persuasion but has not threatened any negative consequences), Australia, Japan, etc, all understand where India is coming from. And even though it is their duty to at least try to persuade India to shift its stance, they know it’s not gonna happen and understand why it won’t happen at such short notice, which is why they’ve been neutral to supportive.

How much sway does the “average journalist” have on Tech matters relative to, let’s say, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel, Jack Dorsey, etc. who have all publicly promoted crypto currency?

Thiel literally was calling out bank CEOs and Warren Buffett a day or so ago for preventing the future.

That does not really follow.

Their advice is to not cargo cult. Not to ignore all advice.

What that would mean is that even for the advice that they give, not to cargo cult, you need to examine whether that’s actually good advice or not.

It may turn out that your product is a component library, in which case, being in the spaces the cargo cult tells you to be it may actually make sense for you to follow, because that’s where the largest market would be.