tskaiser

11 ms·

1.
by tskaiser 8y ago
A vital difference is that companies do not have a sapient capacity for emotion and empathy.
2.
by tskaiser 8y ago
But that is not moral, is it? The company is still not beholden to a willful idea of morality, but rather sociopathically concerned with appearance. For companies where this matters little this concern for appearance is quickly shed.
3.
by tskaiser 8y ago
I agree that a corporation can make what would be perceived as moral actions, exactly due to the human staff running it, but that does not erase that morals does not factor into the objective function that a corporation is meant to optimize
4.
by tskaiser 8y ago
Corporations, at least the for-profit ones, are principally amoral legal constructs, which I find all the more terrifying than the notion that they could be evil. Insomuch as they can be anthropomorphized they don't even truly care abo
5.
by tskaiser 9y ago
Okay.
6.
by tskaiser 9y ago
It is an interest idea and a great starter for philosophical thinking, but no-one is treating it like literal gospel.
7.
by tskaiser 9y ago
We could do so at any time if the community decided it was for the better. Linux being open source means anyone can fork it if needed be. China is setting the stage for an actual dictator.
8.
by tskaiser 9y ago
I imagine you could still update with some wench-work. An EOL date of 6.5 sounds to me like a way to say that "beyond this point we will stop testing and ensuring compliance, and to avoid fucking over your relic (in PC terms), with an
9.
by tskaiser 9y ago
"Most of the time"? Citation needed. While I generally agree with the sentiment of "do more by coding less", and minimalist user interfaces, there are plenty of cases where you throw a whole lot of functionality out the
10.
by tskaiser 9y ago
6.5 years for most devices, 5 years for some legacy cases, and it is a soft limit ie. they don't automatically enter EOL, they just stop guaranteeing the updates. Source: https://support.google.com/chrome/a/an
11.
by tskaiser 9y ago
While I accept that my description of JS et. al. might be contentious, I don't see that you have argued against my piece on the WWW in general. Regarding latency and responsiveness I agree that they are issues that depend largely on yo
12.
by tskaiser 9y ago
Yet each of those steps solved a different problem. Early computers did not have the local processing power needed to run heavy jobs. Early PCs did not have the storage. WWW solved an entirely different problem, namely distribution and comm
13.
by tskaiser 9y ago
Wanting not to be discriminated against / handled separately != wanting special treatment. It is quite the opposite, in fact. The only people who consider that an entitled position are those who think there is nothing wrong with relega
14.
by tskaiser 9y ago
Store credential information where it is used. It is not used by the repository, so it is an improper location for it. If someone gains access to a system that uses the credentials, then there is, in principle, no difference between puppete
15.
by tskaiser 9y ago
Thank you for the insight. It is one thing what holds in theory, and quite another what happens in reality, as you point out.
16.
by tskaiser 9y ago
I admit to be completely out of my depth, but my understanding is that it is a fiduciary duty of the directors to act in the best interest of the shareholders. Tax planning is a huge part of profit and thus shareholder value, so wouldn&#x27
17.
by tskaiser 9y ago
IANAL but it is my understanding that if those tax reduction schemes are legal many companies are legally bound by their stock holders to exploit them, or else be found negligent in their duties.
18.
by tskaiser 9y ago
Won't help. It gets the information from the telco provider, and does not require GPS or any other fancy hardware.
19.
by tskaiser 9y ago
That's a lot of maybes to support an already unlikely scenario.
20.
by tskaiser 9y ago
multi-select is by no means an ST invention.
21.
by tskaiser 9y ago
It never did. A concurrent program has always meant a decomposition of a program into parts that can be executed out-of-order while maintaining the same output. Whether or not this is by some scheduler on a single-core cpu is irrelevant to
22.
by tskaiser 9y ago
To be frank most of my experience with concurrency (rather than parallelism) is from formal theory taught during my masters studies. But I was rusty, so I was unsure if I remembered incorrectly.
23.
by tskaiser 9y ago
Ah. I have a misunderstanding of definition then, since when I think of concurrency I think of interleaved execution irrespective of whether or not this execution is done in parallel.
24.
by tskaiser 9y ago
What do you mean by JavaScript not supporting concurrency? Do you mean parallelism?
25.
by tskaiser 9y ago
Any situation where a password is persisted, especially in plaintext, can present a security risk. It is one of those things where you don't just guess that it is "safe enough" unless you have thoroughly proven it to be so.
26.
by tskaiser 9y ago
By commenting in the context given he would be in danger of being seen as criticizing China. It is not like it is a secret that they surveil and censor their populace, but you do not want to be perceived as being negative about it.
27.
by tskaiser 9y ago
He really does say a lot by saying nothing.
28.
by tskaiser 9y ago
Making a game at the very most basic level teaches logic. Making a good game, no matter how basic, involves game design, which touches upon psychology.
29.
by tskaiser 9y ago
This changes their power dynamic. One could argue they ought to find another job once the shady stuff started, but I still think you should focus on the actual instigators rather than the pawns.
30.
by tskaiser 9y ago
Isn't that a bit too witch-huntery? It is Kite who is actively doing the shady stuff.

More ›