ziddoap

>a JetBrains employee said that reviews were removed because they mentioned issues that had since been solved

That shouldn't be considered a valid reason to remove a review. I could maybe understand down-weighting reviews as they age and as issues are resolved, but as a potential buyer of some product/service/whatever, knowing that something was released with a bunch of issues (even if now solved) is a valuable signal. Preferably, they would reply to reviews and say "XYZ was addressed in update ABC" or something.

Nuking reviews is a valuable signal as well, I guess. Just not in the way that they hope. Knowing that they've done that has (further) lowered my impression of them.

>*TLC,QLC,MLC"

For those unaware of these acronyms (me):

TLC = Triple-Layer Cell

QLC = Quad-Level Cell

MLC = Multi-Level Cell

Looks interesting, and I'll be diving into it a bit deeper, but I just wanted to mention that this quote:

"even non-experts can guarantee the security of their cloud environments"

Even though I understand that this is part of a marketing blurb, not a literal guarantee, it was an immediate yellow-flag for me. No tool can possibly guarantee the security of my cloud environment, so please don't imply/say your tool can. It reminds me of shady VPN companies guaranteeing my security by providing me with "military-grade encryption".

To be abundantly clear, I am not saying that this product is shady or anything -- I have not had the time to evaluate it in the depth needed -- but statements like that make the rest of the pitch an uphill battle. For me, at least.

Maybe a matter of personal opinion, but quotes like this:

>Manual posting? That's adorable.

>Listen to the folks who stopped crying over Reddit karma

And buzzwords like:

>"Post like a time wizard"

Are an instant turnoff for me. What does posting like a time wizard mean? It'd be more effective, for me at least, if you substitute "time wizard" with whatever you think "time wizard" implies. And maybe reword the stuff that can easily be interpreted as insults of your prospective customers.

Also, are those testimonies real? Placeholders? They give off a fake vibe, so if they are real, you might want to re-evaluate how they are presented.

Lastly, your privacy policy says "We collect this data with your knowledge and consent, and we always explain why we collect it and how it will be used.", but there's no explanation within the privacy policy. The privacy policy is precisely the place to explain why and how it will be used. For example, why do you collect my reddit "profile information", and what all does that entail (e.g creation date, bio, previous posts, etc?) Where do you explain why you are collecting my profile information and what you're doing with it?

The overall point, as you obviously understand, is that one should avoid personal insults when making a comment here.

>This is called "appeal to authority" and it's a pretty unintelligent logical fallacy. Do better next time. Maybe read a book or two?

This is called ad hominem, and has no place here.

Might be!

Not the way I'd approach it, but as a joke service, if it works it works.

Fun idea. I wonder why the rejection messages are repeated so often in the "reasons" file.

"I truly value our connection, and I hope my no doesn't change that." shows up 45 times.

Seems like most of the rejections appear between 30 and 50 times.

>Did you read comment above

I sure did, thanks. Did you read convolvatron's? Because "pretending it was an outside power that did this to you" is not what they said.

I had a glimmer of hope from your previous comment, but you managed to whisk it away immediately. Figures.

If you believe "freedom of choice is a very important thing", you shouldn't have written your comment the way you did -- stripped of all detail and purely negative, as an attempt to make the decision for the readers.

Instead, you should have mentioned the context, and allowed people to come to their own conclusions. Your quote: "Because despite their apparent and commendable work in trying to preserve the privacy of their users, they have regretfully failed to do so in the past, and it will more than likely proceed that way in the future." alongside a bit more detail would have been a fantastic comment, instead of the vague accusatory one-liner you wrote.

Sibling comment rightfully points out that a legitimate company will follow the laws. Proton is a legitimate company, so they follow the laws. This is detailed in their published threat model:

"“The Internet is generally not anonymous, and if you are breaking Swiss law, a law-abiding company such as Proton Mail can be legally compelled to log your IP address.” This cannot be changed due to how the internet works. However, we understand this is concerning for individuals with certain threat models, which is why since 2017, we also provide an onion site for anonymous access (we are one of the only email providers that supports this)."

And, in the case you are presumably talking about, Proton took it through the courts and ended up getting a ruling that "email services are not telecommunications providers. Consequently, email services are not subject to the data retention requirements imposed on telecommunications providers and are exempted from handing over certain user data in response to Swiss legal orders"

Which paints an incredibly different story than the one you are trying to paint.

Third, emails weren't handed over (nor were files, calendars, etc.). Which is another important distinction your comment does not mention.

Why parrot half of a story disparaging one of the only large email providers that fights in court to protect the privacy of its users?

Their resentment is completely valid.

Not the person you're replying to, but I clear history on close. I don't clear bookmarks on close.

>Wouldn’t each one still use up some memory

Firefox unloads tabs that haven't recently been used, or as memory approaches system limits. You can also manually unload your least-recently-used loaded tab.

This is pointed out in the article:

"“The widespread distribution of cadmium contamination comes from both natural and anthropogenic sources,”"

"“Geochemically, certain parent rock materials [substrate below the ground], such as black shales, contain high levels of cadmium, leading to elevated concentrations in the soil due to weathering.”"

"However, the study does not assign blame to either natural or human causes."

>It sounds bad, any "toxic levels" sound bad, but is it?

If it wasn't bad, it wouldn't be stated as "toxic levels".

I have absolutely no issue with DuckDuckGo, for what it's worth.

I know people here absolutely love Kagi and would defend it to the death, but I cannot fathom paying a subscription fee for a limited number of searches.

I'm guessing that I just don't search the same types of topics or questions that many others here do, because the complaints about DDG are foreign to me.

Thanks, I appreciate the comment! I'm certain that my goal is not to work in a specific language, but to bring a long-time idea to life, and ideally minimize the amount of avoidable headaches along the way.

You're probably right that it'd be best to just jump in and get going with a few of them rather than analyze the choice to death (as I am prone to do when starting anything).

I also would have liked to have seen the pro/con lists for each of the potential choices.

I've been toying with the idea of making a 2d game that I've had on my mind for awhile, but have no game development experience, and am having trouble deciding where to start (obviously wanting to avoid the author's predicament of choosing something and having to switch down the line).

All medical technology is maybe "available", but if you google "person dies from not being able to afford insulin", we can see that availability is only half the equation. It has to be affordable, too.

They already fixed the problem though, why come up with a different solution? Just press "unflag".

Keep in mind we are talking about real people. These people are supporting themselves (and likely families). Making thousands more people, above and beyond the mandated amount, lose their employment is not a good outcome. It isn't some management game on steam where we can make decisions like that without second thought.

The part you quote is a few sentences past the sentence that says "preserving outputs that are bit-for-bit identical to the original model".

Customization, no previous owner that you have no idea how they took care of the vehicle, less chance of complications and expensive fixes, warranty, it's a new pickup that doesn't cost $50k+, etc.

I'm not sure how the NSF Director should/could by themselves convince congress to not do the funding cut, but sure.

What they said is "you get less money" and "fire half the people". One of those you can literally not do anything about. I'm not sure how to fire people but do it in the way is the way "I want to".

I do really enjoy that subreddit, but as you alluded to, I can't think of any stories that would be applicable to the NSF director & president (even if taking them all at face value rather than as writing exercises).

You can't "not do" getting a budget cut. They just give you less money.

I'm also not sure how to just... not fire people. Sure, you can delay it a week or two. Okay. Then what? Get fired for non-compliance? That seems about as effective of a tactic as quitting is.

>or find subversive, incremental ways to undermine it.

I'm asking for concrete examples of what "subversive, incremental ways to undermine it" would be.

You basically just reworded the vague suggestion of "fight back". What are some specific examples of what the NSF director could have done that are subversive, incremental ways to undermine the orders which ultimately came from the president?