throwawayswede

Interesting to think about what other sort of supposedly environmentally-motivated campaigning that's happening will actually end up with a net negative effect on the environment.

> He's not trolling

Yes he is.

> or clickbaiting

I believe he is.

> …he thinks the Linux community should…

You might be commenting on the wrong post, because clearly that’s not what the title of the talk says.

While we’re on the topic, I think the problem is trying to make a “community” out of every other software a group of people use. I think embedding Linux in Windows is wrong, clearly there are lots of Linux people who think that’s correct. I’m not wrong and neither are they. We just don’t have to be a “community” just because we use Linux. The survival of Linux depends on a lot more than what a random circle of people who use it are arguing about.

I'm aware that Brian has been trolling with such a title over the years, but I really think that it's the epitome of clickbait. Totally a personal opinion, but I absolutely hate such farcical titles.

I'd honestly feel more compelled to watch yet another one of those with a title like "What still sucks about Linux"

Terribly slow to load, absolutely horrible UX.

That moving/flying background windows is beyond horrible, spent 3 seconds trying to understand what this is and then the dizziness started to hit me.

That is not to mention that from I saw in the video, it looks like a knockoff mac, and not a very good one either.

Not to take away from your comment, you're free to think and feel as you like, but you shouldn't really be trying to cram your views down other people's throats. You can feel "appreciative" and find wholesome justifications for anything basically (that includes the heinous stuff) but we don't all do it all the time. Feel free to do it as much as you like, but let others feel rightfully annoyed. I doubt anyone is blaming HN for this, but the person who posted the link (and possibly the original WaPo title).

I had a bad connection for the majority of my internet usage life. People don’t understand that excessive data loading is superfluous. But to call people who worry about that weird is truly strange to me.

You do realize those people you call weird mainly refuse to enable js by default because of the amount of tracking it imposes right? Not to mention those “designed” articles (the verge style) that load like 3 megs at least of a god awful amount of crappy slider libraries and crappy stuff?

This is such a basic thing to refuse that what’s actually weird is that you find it weird.

What a douchebag company honestly. Their marketing is absolutely evil. Changing the headline does not cut it, they need to fire people responsible for that outright lie.

After a dude gets arrested, they’re like: oh, we were talking about advertisers! Who did you think?

What a trash team.

Proton mail ==

Reads like a clickbait title. Of course they are. Somewhat out of touch if Ben really thinks like that.

That doesn’t say what it is.

Somewhat of a bs saying really. I get the point, but the cover has the title, and we all do an initial assessment of the book by the title.

On a related/unrelated note, the website says:

> Polkadot development is on track to deliver the most robust platform for security, scalability and innovation.

This is absolutely meaningless. I absolutely hate these kinds of websites that doesn't just say what the fuck the thing is.

Even in the PDF, they don't spell it out until Page 4.

...THIS IS BLOCKCHIAN...

Cool. I'm out!

It has not really changed meaning. Asshole companies blatantly lying and using dark patterns only means one thing: that the company is a piece of trash and does not respect their customers.

This is seriously messed up. Purely because their marketing has been very aggressive to promote total and complete anonymity, directly sometimes and mostly indirectly. If it’s true that the French wording makes it seem like they don’t keep logs at all whatsoever, then I believe the person arrested has grounds to sue them, and I would hope they do. But even if not, I consider their marketing is a total and complete dark pattern from now on imo.

Tremendously disappointed.

What’s next? Is ddg selling search data to google?

> So no, I don’t think just laying out raw facts with no context and explanation and simply hoping everyone educates themselves is good enough.

Again, it's not a matter of belief. When you call them "unbeliever" you're inviting doubt into it. This also goes to another vexing thing on the issue of how the general uneducated public deals with "climate change", the likes of online warriors and talking-point media personality and politicians, which is to say that the "science is settled", againt acting as if it's an undeniable fact that their interpretation of the data and evidence is not questionable. This too will not help prevent further damage to the environment, no the opposite imo, it's one of the main reasons people continue to talk and talk and talk, and no actual preventative measures are being taken that actually can make a difference. All of this is because the issue was politicized by almost all sides from the beginning.

This is exactly the kind of mentality that's giving fire power to the corporations and the people behind them that give two shits about the environment, the future of the planet, or life quality of next generations, to come up with counter propaganda that sways people the other way. So far it's working. It's beyond idiotic imo to think that bending facts or coercing an agenda will get us any good.

> Storytelling is the only way to argue any point

Depends on your definition of storytelling, but generally this is just false.

> Your specific example about global warming vs climate change has a history in the US, but in the other direction

Actually my example was to show that"both directions" are equally dumb and manipulative in terms of how they're politicizing the issue. Taxing us normal citizens for carbon emissions just as a feel good mechanism (concentrically just like those idiotic lockdowns) while creating exemptions for the themselves and their fellow sleazeballs who go to climate change summits on private jets.

If they want people to agree with them, they can only present the fact and maybe encourage people to educate themselves and be inquisitive. They can't trick people into "believing". You don't "believe" in science. We don't need more religions.

One very telling thing I always find extremely jarring and annoying is the term "climate change denier" as if it's some sort of a fucking belief system, a church, or a religion.

Seeming like they care, either for population karma points or for a more sinister reason like control. Like how the oil industry has spent billions to control the climate change conversation.

edit: regarding downvotes I really don't understand the HN crowd anymore. It's like finger on the button ready to disregard anything that slightly differs from their world view. Here's a guardian link for those who are in doubt https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/08/oil-compani...

Our brains have evolved to be attracted to stories and story telling. I'm not exactly knocking it down when it comes to social situation (or even business/advertising), but when it's being used in the context of presenting factual evidence it's being used as a brain-hack to propagate an agenda.

Propaganda is still propaganda, regardless of whether it's used for "good" or for evil.

From watching hundreds of similar documentaries over the years, these here look exactly the kind that I'd avoid watching because they manipulate the truth and tell half-truths (unnecessarily) just to propagate their agenda, which is usually not exactly enviromental, but seeming like they are care.

> isn't using a vpn a form of pirating?

sorry, what?

You can't expect more when the discussion behind-closed-door is to whether "global-warming" or "climate-change" is a better term to get people to lean one way or the other. It's the idea that story telling is more important than actual and plain scientific evidence that will be the downfall of these important issues (that are being manipulated for short-term profits by green-agenda-profiteers).

This sort of reminds me of the whole thing with lockdowns

1) It is noted that governments could, in theory, be requiring and enforcing lockdowns not because they're scientifically better for public health. Widely dismissed as silly and "anti-science".

2) Some scientists come out in opposition of lockdowns, evidence from other countries shows that lockdowns don't help, both get banned/censored or painted as lunacy.

3) Years later, it becomes public knowledge that lockdowns did not in fact help, and countries that had zero lockdown policy did just the same as those that did. It is also too hard to know what went through exactly and to hold people accountable, technically everyone was complicit.

4) The situation persists because it is convenient to the people in charge.

5) It gets turned turned on political dissidents. If a government wants to get rid of your noise, they can paint you as an endangerment to public health and suggest to the public to "cancel" you by banning or by being painted as a "conspiracy theorist".

Australia is following this plan almost to the letter at the moment. People getting arrested for not wearing a mask while they're with their daughters and government officials "advising" the public not to talk to their neighbors and to avoid interacting with them socially, even in public, and even if wearing a mask.

People are still treating this like "oh we don't know what's going on" or "it's still dangerous" while in a few decade or so, the way we're headed (if nothing changes) seems to be a form of soft-occupation by CCP ideology. It'll be too late to change anything, and then people wonder how can the Australian government pass a bill that allows police to add, delete, and modify your data during an investigation.

Pre smoking ban, regulation required airlines to change air more regularly (every 3 minutes I believe). Now they change it with half-new half-reused air.

From the article:

> They don't change the air as regularly, as it costs money to bring fresh subzero air in from outside and heat it to cabin temperature. By the time you reach your destination the percentage of carbon dioxide in the cabin from breathing is much higher than it should be.

It's not exactly evidence, but I heard the same thing on QI. It's actually very difficult to find any information on this other than (what seems to me as) ads put up by airlines at different times (mostly 90s) to promote the idea that air quality is better now (presumably to cover up saving costs by using those half-packs.)

I'm pretty sure this would look kind of weird under xrays. They probably see thousands of cables and it'd be pretty easy to spot the difference.

I wonder what happens if you fly with one of these.

I agree that legal confusion is an issue usually with ancient trademark laws and people judging technology-related matters who still double click hyperlinks, but this is sort of hilariously dumb:

> "At Teespring (now Spring) we have rigorous technology in place to ensure any keywords monitored or contentious material featured is flagged and reviewed."

basically they have:

    if 'zeta' in blurb.lower():
       raise LegalIssue()

A contract is consent in both ways. Most people have not consented neither explicitly nor tacitly to any of this. I understand what the term means, but most people seem to stick with the enlightenment-age definition while in reality what we currently have in most states (eastern or western) is not a social contract, but a hostage situation.