choward

9 ms·

31.
by choward 4y ago
Wait, you used that as an example that China is doing the right thing?
32.
by choward 4y ago
It amazes me that for such a relatively simple thing everyone's knee jerk response is THE CLOUD!
33.
by choward 4y ago
The investment you put into learning a piece of software isn't free.
34.
by choward 4y ago
Might I suggest NixOS. Same benefits. Auto-updates are disabled by default. But even if they do happen it's not going to try to mess with currently running processes. In fact, the old version will still be installed just no longer to d
35.
by choward 4y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20161125135500/https://www.wefor...
36.
by choward 4y ago
"Welcome to 2030. I own nothing, have no privacy, and life has never been better" https://twitter.com/wef/status/808328302213689344
37.
by choward 4y ago
Obsidian is still closed source, right? I thought they were talking about open sourcing it at some point.
38.
by choward 4y ago
> This inherently limits reach and therefore reduces the burden of misinformation I have no interest in any social network who's primary concern is limiting the spread of information. I don't care if you are scared of "mis
39.
by choward 4y ago
It seems to me that a lot AI is used as either tool to solve made up problems or as a bad solution to real problems. This seems like the former. Who is the target audience? I'm baffled.
40.
by choward 4y ago
And how would you determine that's it's worse? More AI?
41.
by choward 4y ago
There should be different zoning and taxes for different types of homes. A primary residence only zone for example. There is a huge difference between primary residents and vacation/rental homes and their role in society. In the same w
42.
by choward 4y ago
Ha. I knew something like this would happen eventually. Isn't limitless scalability one of the biggest selling points of using "the cloud"? If you have to buy your own computers anyway why even use the cloud? You could try us
43.
by choward 4y ago
The amount of people who are okay with being lied to by corporations is very concerning.
44.
by choward 4y ago
Fair enough. But if the government is giving these companies suggestions, I find it hard to believe they wouldn't follow them. The government can retaliate against the companies in several ways. I just came across this. I'm not su
45.
by choward 4y ago
> Personally, I think the word "censorship" should be reserved for governmental suppression but that ship sailed a long time ago. This is the exact same argument used all the time to justify censorship. Most people agree about
46.
by choward 4y ago
If your plotting something illegal like a coup, that's already illegal. However, if you want to question the results of an election you should have every right to do so. Look at 2000 and 2016. Both those results were questioned and peo
47.
by choward 4y ago
> a) easier/cheaper to buy them, and Sure, that's what make then pull the trigger to buy the company. > b) more attractive for someone considering themselves a philantropist, given that they are by many considered to provide
48.
by choward 4y ago
I agree with that. I just mean I'm pretty much never directly interacting with Facebook so I don't have to think about them. People who use Facebook every day are constantly experiencing the terribleness directly. So yes, I hate F
49.
by choward 4y ago
> if you take your suggestion to its conclusion, no "philanthropists" would own a media company, so who does that leave? Everybody else? The problem is that these billionaires have too much power. There are a lot independent jo
50.
by choward 4y ago
This article itself is undermining democracy. It reads like an ad for now censorship. The Atlantic is owned mostly by "philanthropist" Laurene Powell Jobs since 2017. Why is it that philanthropists are always buying up media compa
51.
by choward 4y ago
> Nobody hates Facebook users more than Facebook And nobody hates Facebook more than Facebook users. I don't use Facebook and because of that I don't have many problems with it. Same goes for the people that don't use Face
52.
by choward 4y ago
> At the same time, if governments fail to efficiently tax their populations they end up having to go to war to plunder the resources they need to maintain their countries instead. This is a pretty bold assertion. Do you have an example
53.
by choward 4y ago
Solve what problem? I'm no fan of classes but I don't know what problem you're talking about specifically.
54.
by choward 4y ago
And pretty par for the course when talking about "journalism".
55.
by choward 4y ago
A more simple way to put it is that the politicians are hyper focused on the minor things we disagree on and complete ignore the things we mostly agree on. This division helps keep people hating each other and not focusing on important issu
56.
by choward 4y ago
Exactly. The government will declare certain companies as too big to fail then bail them out. We need to let failure happen otherwise we are rewarding corruption. It's not like if a company fails all their capital just disappears. Anot
57.
by choward 4y ago
The issues you call partisan aren't really partisan but they are made partisan by politicians and those with power. A large majority of the country is for making marijuana legal at the federal level. Most people don't like corpora
58.
by choward 4y ago
Your claiming anything wrapped in a module block is a module. My point is that they aren't "real" modules. I know it's debatable what a module is but Ruby's don't meet my definition. Here's why: Let's
59.
by choward 4y ago
I'd go further and call it the neoliberal party. Business isn't necessarily evil. But selling out the people to huge multinational corporations is evil. Giving away our resources and institutions to corporations while screwing ove
60.
by choward 4y ago
Expanding NATO isn't a progressive stance. It's pro-imperialism. And those "arrests" weren't even real. They faked being in handcuffs. A publicist even announced on Twitter the "arrests" were going to happ

More ›