themartorana

You could also resize your browser to block ads in a side column, but it's not the same thing.

In any case, if I turn on uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger, I still end up with 15 things blocked: https://cl.ly/0l2r0d440G05

Some are recognizable - Facebook integration, for example. But I noticed that your domain is actually in the yellow for uBlock Origin! https://cl.ly/3v0f0h2K0a39

Looks like the naming convention of your ads is enough to throw up a red (yellow) flag: https://cl.ly/3N1x050G0Z0V

You could not be more wrong. I am having a hard time imagining any art installation, public park, etc., that does not have rules about how you use and consume it. Offering something to the public does not mean the method of consumption is suddenly a free-for-all.

This is a ridiculous assumption that gets played out here a lot. There is an agreed-upon trade taking place - you get to consume content, they get to advertise to you. If you don't like the terms, you should avoid engaging in the transaction.

I do believe that tracking your activity borders on an illegal invasion of privacy, and so I support blocking trackers. If trackers come disguised as ads, they should be blocked. That said, trackers are most often invisible, and a person is unable to make a decision about the agreement at hand. There, the transaction is unfair. Ads however, are immediately clear, and make the value proposition very easy to understand.

Take movies, for example. You used to buy a ticket, and watch a movie. Then theaters started running commercials (not previews) before a film. I stopped going to theaters that run commercials. I understand that previews are also commercials, but I've made an informed decision about which types of transactions I'm willing to engage in with theaters.

The same should go for websites. I'm very happy to be passively advertised to in exchange for content. (Same happens on TV while watching football on the weekends - I've accepted the transaction.) Ads that auto-play videos with audio turned on? Absolutely not. And so sites that do that have become sites I don't visit.

So, I am all for sites refusing to provide content without a value exchange. I remain against illicit collection of private information without consent.

Edit: the down-votes are silly. Try engaging in conversation instead.

Gitlab et al are growing, and now AWS has its own integrated solution, but I don't see Github going anywhere for a very, very long time. (Barring catastrophic happenings, of course.)

Sounds like he still wouldn't count himself a hero, though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_protection_insuranc...

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/022416/why-ba...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Economic_Stabilizati...

Clearly you spend more time attempting to belittle than understand the conversation.

No they don't. Loans are insured against default. Interest rates more than cover extremely low default rates and then some.

It is disturbing how the entire economic system is set up to make life harder on those it's hardest on. Poor, in debt, barely making ends meet? You're lucky if you can get a credit card for under 30% APR. Mortgage rates historically low? Not for you. Need a loan? Sucks to be you.

Finally clawed your way out of debt, trying to get ahead? Tough shit, your credit report will haunt you for the better part of a decade.

Is the US really growing its oil use so much we need two or three new pipelines?

Ain't that the truth. I learned that not because I recognized it my day to day as a student, but because I had one or two teachers in high school that were absolutely exceptional (I was lucky, some kids encounter none) and the droning background noise of the rest of education became very stark in comparison.

It's impossible to teach hundreds of students a year and make everything fantastical the whole time (not to mention that some kids will never give one f*ck about US History or whatever their natural predilections dictate) but man oh man does the current Common Core driven, test-everything, no-rote-learning-except-test-all-rote-learning way of looking at education just crush students.

And you don't have to ask a student - most teachers today will bemoan the degree to which their hands are tied to properly educate and, more importantly, make learning fun, by bureaucracies run by educational theorists who have never spent a day in a classroom.

We don't even need to wonder if it would work. We can look at other countries for proof (and if you want proof our methods don't work, you can look around, too).

Two lines, with the same information someone not very technically literate would understand from the OP. I agree with being transparent, but I also believe in not unnecessarily scaring and/or confusing customers, either.

(Pretty soon they'll just start outting individual engineers...)

Instead, some of those injured rally around the same group of people that deregulated banks, the same group of people that killed a public-option plan, and the same group of people that make it illegal for the government to negotiate lower costs for drugs, bolstering the current run of multi-thousand-percent cost increases.

I'm really at a loss. I agree whole heartedly that the destruction of the middle class while the super-wealthy get rapidly richer and corporations post huge profit increases while dodging taxes lead to absolute disillusionment. But this time around doesn't feel like disillusionment on its own. It feels like it's being married heavily to racism and religion, which really does skew things.

Edit: although, maybe that's not all that different than usual. It's just a lot braver and mob-mentality-ish.

Thanks.

Unsubsidized education either a) means more private loans somehow now exempt from bankruptcy proceedings or b) education is now only for those that can afford it.

I am the complete and total opposite of your position. How it is that we provide 12-14 years of education for free, but then burden the economy with an insane amount of unsecured debt for the last four is insanity. It places our economy at risk, it severely stunts upward mobility, it burdens our youngest minds with mortgage-sized debts, and it sinks people into a lifetime of debt.

If college is, in general, required to actively participate in our society, it should be paid for the same as (Pre)K-12.

Edit: I'd like to say that I agree that subsidizing activity as a direct pass through of money from government to for-profit enterprise is a bad idea. Don't subsidize for-profit colleges. But they were never needed to begin with.