grive

16 ms·

121.
by grive 10y ago
You assume the central planner to be the same as a single unit (as in, of the same kind, the same species). Who is to say that the central planner must be the ontological equal of a single unit? Why not a more complex system? You could have
122.
by grive 10y ago
Your comment however contains very little in the way of actual refutation, as you missed the point and did not engage it in the least. It is easy (1x) to create meaningless content, it is harder however to address it and to explain properly
123.
by grive 10y ago
Then you are probably not the target for the Arch distrib. Others are better suited for your needs. You were using a distribution made for people who want to take time to tinker, then complain that it requires that you take time to tinker.
124.
by grive 10y ago
> I do not think that would be fair to stockholders (among which are pension funds). How is it not fair? Why should they bear no responsibility in the behavior of something they are funding? They should indeed lose money for being reckle
125.
by grive 10y ago
In this letter[1], the term is explained as > "Entirely new role in area such as cybersecurity, data science, artificial intelligence and cognitive business" Leaving the "Entirely new" bullshit, considering that &quot
126.
by grive 10y ago
It is a sensible decision, as it will focus doing things right on that particular paradigm: UNIX. For example, this means that plugins trying to extend grammar analysis, will primarily try to rely on their already existing parsers and tools
127.
by grive 10y ago
If your command is ongoing, you can argue that the time it is taking is in itself surprising. You expect it to finish at any time. It continuing is the surprise. A marker for its progression is thus, IMO well within the range of respecting
128.
by grive 10y ago
kill sends a signal. It has no bearing over what the signal does and whether the result is what was expected.
129.
by grive 10y ago
You missed the point: the telecom carriers haven't either, however they are regulated, which is not the case for Uber. So the point is moot for telecom carriers because the regulator already swept in. The point is still important to ma
130.
by grive 10y ago
Indeed, it is not explicit, but it is akin to a nuclear winter: soot everywhere that obscured the atmosphere, killing crops and making farming impossible. It could be other events (supervolcano eruption for example), but a nuclear holocaust
131.
by grive 10y ago
Very cool, I was just searching this kind of thing. I'd like to see if it would be easy to support ReST beside markdown. I'd like to reuse my current files instead of trying to convert them haphazardly...
132.
by grive 10y ago
A somewhat less popular cultural reference could be The Road from McCarthy. Human scavengers roaming what's left, true, but mostly famished and trying to find food before anything else. Maybe this time is the time we will renew the fea
133.
by grive 10y ago
There is no confusion as to what they are doing. That does not mean that there isn't any moral ambiguity. What they are doing is akin to a racket protection. They place themselves in the position of deciding whether some ads are author
134.
by grive 10y ago
It is important to use uBlock origin and not uBlock. The latter was an error. Otherwise, it is impossible: the blacklist are the same, the capabilities are the same, the only difference being that ABP will allow some ads by design.
135.
by grive 10y ago
Not Internet, the Web. And not the web, but the way we have started using it. We sell analytics and data about people. This data is more valuable the more people there are to sell. This popularity metric will thus foster popularity contests
136.
by grive 10y ago
> Click the Like button on a Page that challenges your beliefs, interact with that information and you'll see more of it. That's precisely the problem with it. I'd like to read more on extremists groups and see how and why
137.
by grive 10y ago
On the contrary, I think it is crucial for us to fight against websites selling audiences. Fake news exists because they are able to sell ads on their pages, and they are profitable because they attract people, creating feelings, outrage, u
138.
by grive 10y ago
> They sell ads. If "news filtering" aligns with their bottom-line they'll do it, if it doesn't, they won't, that's business. Yep, that's what is said when saying "Facebook [...] kills democracy fo
139.
by grive 10y ago
We're not talking about Emojis, but coloured typeface. Emojis are part of Unicode, coloured typeface are not.
140.
by grive 10y ago
The DPDK and all the kernel bypass in networking is another example.
141.
by grive 10y ago
That is effectively the case. See for example DDIO with Intel which can only be enabled for specific devices with full cooperation between Intel and this particular vendor. You cannot compete with a DDIO-enabled device, which of course all
142.
by grive 10y ago
> DPDK is taking the industry in the wrong direction, and application developers should fight back. DPDK is doing the exact same work you did, make hardware vendor release their driver API and abstract it away so that Application develop
143.
by grive 10y ago
That's a good thing.
144.
by grive 10y ago
I fail to see why snark is warranted here. Linux should not have to conform to Microsoft anti-competitive practices. UEFI is a mess to deal with because Microsoft wanted to lock users. Yes, this will prevent Linux on the desktop. That doesn
145.
by grive 10y ago
Do they need the market leader to take on the market? In the end, that's also what is at stake, and the reason Intel might not be that interested. They will maybe see the light and see that they would have to steer the collaboration to
146.
by grive 10y ago
Your argument boils down to "public service is awful". The article simply states that privatizing is simply making things worse. Privatizing is not the solution. You said yourself: "We pay far too little for services like wat
147.
by grive 10y ago
I can perfectly tell the difference, you simply missed the point.
148.
by grive 10y ago
You imply that it was dishonest. It was absolutely not dishonest. It was precisely to emphasize my point. My point being that the words you used were all comparisons, made in relation to a norm. That's the whole point of the thread. Th
149.
by grive 10y ago
"Lifting 100kg" is objective. Saying that "being able to lift 100kg is being strong" is not. What is not objective is saying what it takes to be considered strong. Not the measurement itself.
150.
by grive 10y ago
That's pretty much exactly my point. These can only exist as comparisons. They are meaningless on their own, e.g. they are not objective attributes.

More ›