kadendogthing

12 ms·

61.
by kadendogthing 7y ago
You have completely missed the point of my post. The point was my post had as much substantial points as the article in question, with less words obviously. Which should be obvious but never get in the way of a good tech contrarian article
62.
by kadendogthing 7y ago
As I've stated in another post on here, what's the point of these articles? It just says everything sucks, but doesn't really dive into why or how we could possibly fix any issues they may directly point out. Also it kind of
63.
by kadendogthing 7y ago
>It’s a bit exaggerated, but reasonable. Yeah labeling someone as having a mood disorder because of their economic perspectives -- which are perfectly and reasonably formulated -- is weirdly... cult like. It's not reasonable at all.
64.
by kadendogthing 7y ago
Internalized capitalism.
65.
by kadendogthing 7y ago
>I’m sorry that this is your world view, because it is deeply flawed and focusing on such cynicism leads to depression. No one in the comment section is going to address this?
66.
by kadendogthing 7y ago
I'm giving money to the airlines. Not Boeing. >You’re saying that Boeing intentionally sold unsafe airplanes? Yes. >And the airlines, knowing this You know airlines have their own engineering teams, right? And they were bought ex
67.
by kadendogthing 7y ago
Yeah, they willingly bought these planes. Airlines should be held as equable responsible.
68.
by kadendogthing 7y ago
What if we just had less stress and less overall working hours. Which is totally doable given our economic productivity?
69.
by kadendogthing 8y ago
Anyone who's done anything sufficiently advanced with computer vision, AI, and cars knows that Musk is full of shit. The things he is promising are at least a decade away. Not 1 year. To put it another way, we're in "staging.
70.
by kadendogthing 8y ago
> is not only a bad solution, but only fuels those extremes Where is the proof for this? This is an often repeated talking point when it comes to "censorship" or what not, but if anything we've seen that not doing anything
71.
by kadendogthing 8y ago
Well the reality is that you don't get quality content generally when you allow people to publish whatever they want. Everyone has an opinion and viewpoint. That doesn't make them qualified opinions or viewpoints, and definitely d
72.
by kadendogthing 8y ago
I can't wait to see what disingenuous statements he makes about a config failure.
73.
by kadendogthing 8y ago
> The government has no incentive to do this because it would just create another problem for them Actually the government DID try to do this. The U.S. DOT had an entire decades long program researching the following: 1) Costs and plans
74.
by kadendogthing 8y ago
>Too many organizations have chosen to throw WikiLeaks under the bus after their 2016 election leak harmed the "wrong" American political team. I think it was about the fact that he selectively decided what to release in order
75.
by kadendogthing 8y ago
Well, looks like they need to make the whole page clickable. And not just invisible sidebars. Or make the sidebars visible.
76.
by kadendogthing 8y ago
You've seen the Mueller report?
77.
by kadendogthing 8y ago
>here were many illegal, suggestions of illegal, and offensive things in those, and related, email leaks, for supporters and detractors of HRC. Can you provide some examples? I went out of my way to find the source of the fervor surround
78.
by kadendogthing 8y ago
>Whats up with the unnecessary hostility? What are you talking about? >My comment you’re replying to already acknowledges that this isn’t a convincing argument by itself. then why make it?
79.
by kadendogthing 8y ago
>but it doesn't change the correctness of the argument one bit. It most definitely does. Because TLDs are designed to be at the top, because they are top level domains, used to house other domains in a general category. .net does no
80.
by kadendogthing 8y ago
>It's literally the exact argument you made. No it isn't. What plane of confusion are you on? I literally tried to describe this with shapes and you couldn't grasp it apparently.
81.
by kadendogthing 8y ago
>There's essentially no technical difference between a TLD and a domain name. Yes there is. You just need to stop talking about this subject because you are very much wrong. TLDs have authoritative organizations that adhere to ICANN
82.
by kadendogthing 8y ago
>for years. That's kind of an overstatement. This argument has been brought up multiple times. And no one can counter it except to say "but money." And it hasn't really been included for years. It's been discusse
83.
by kadendogthing 8y ago
>God, give me grace to accept with serenity, the things that cannot be changed, Courage to change the things which should be changed, and the Wisdom to distinguish the one from the other. I'm not sure what whimsical platitudes that
84.
by kadendogthing 8y ago
>And when one says Amazon should get the amazon.com SLD, we are creating a very weird situation where "Amazon.com Inc. P.O. Box 8102. Reno, NV 89507" has cemented itself as the only entity who can encapsulate all commercial act
85.
by kadendogthing 8y ago
>I'm asking why should they be treated differently, just because they're at different levels. Well, you didn't ask that. But objectively that's what happens in taxonomies. Taxonomies are inherently, principally based
86.
by kadendogthing 8y ago
Sure. But you asked how it was different. Amazon has a domain name under a commercial TLD, .com. It doesn't have it's brand as a TLD, nor should anyone. Amazon does have a very good claim to make that in the commercial space, peop
87.
by kadendogthing 8y ago
>Of course they don't, but they've got a very legitimate claim to own the TLD. Not really. Once trademarks become "things", that trademark ceases to be effective and can rarely be enforced. TLD's are not for trad
88.
by kadendogthing 8y ago
Well, because the .com TLD is meant for commercial use. Amazon owns the commercial trademark in basically every market that has such laws.
89.
by kadendogthing 8y ago
TLDs for things, not TLDs for trademarks.
90.
by kadendogthing 8y ago
>Amazon in most contexts refers to the company and not the river or the rainforest. You obviously think that based on your example as completely ridiculous as it is, and arguably this is very false and only works in the context of the U.

More ›