AndrewUnmuted
NixOS introduces a new form of declarative configuration, fusing Gentoo's highly configurable nature with BSD's unified configuration file approach. For me, it's absolutely perfect until my own laziness bites me in the butt. If you want to do a gentle dive into Nix, resist the temptation to go full "NixOS" and learn the Nix build/environment system first. It will make things a lot easier for you in the long run.
For example, I used to work in VR, which enabled me to begin exploring ambisonics in my music.
This is the concept that is most frequently left out of otherwise thoughtful analyses on the topic at hand.
Although I would not label the motivation as purely altruistic, what many people fail to realize is that people who create art of any kind, and have honest motivations for doing so, are going to be doing it no matter the profit potential. Personally, I am a music composer [0] and I must make music. I am so unconcerned by profit that I have given all of my work away for free for more than a decade. I do all of my album releases on a podcast feed so that people never have to pay money, accept the terms of service of Spotify, or be raped by ad tech just to hear my work.
To me, payment is the fact that people heard my work. On that metric alone, SoundCloud has given me a lot more "payment" than any other online service out there, since it was so apparent when people did engage with my work, and those engagements were very meaningful to me on the whole.
In the US especially, it cannot be forgotten why people from Central and South America are flooding the southern border. It's because of the US's meddling in the affairs of other nations, particularly via the War on Drugs.
So if the immigrants are supposed to take these public sector jobs because the current citizens refuse to do them, it would be considerably more ideal if they were to not take them under duress, which the US actively caused.
I found this line to be especially intriguing:
> Hellbanning everybody except for other big email providers is lazy and conveniently dishonest. It uses spam as a scapegoat to nerf deliverability and stifle competition.
The big tech firms criticized in this article are guilty of these sorts of transgressions in other arenas, as well. It's always been my contention that the "hellbanning" of user-generated content by big media and big tech alike comes from the same motivations. YouTube and CBS alike want to make niche content difficult to consume in order to stifle any competition that might get vaulted up as a result of that niche audience finding the new distribution endpoints. This comes with the added bonus of reducing cost of goods sold, by reducing the firehose of new content to process. Or, as the article puts it:
> Unfortunately, the computing power required to filter millions of emails per minute is huge. That's why the email industry has chosen a shortcut to reduce that cost. The shortcut is to avoid processing some email altogether. Selected email does not either get bounced nor go to spam. That would need processing, which costs money.
I would be very curious to learn if there are any proposed explanation as to why this phenomenon is so commonly spread throughout the big tech space. Do we get the same kind of behavior out of other enormous multi-national firms like oil producers, ocean freight companies, defense contractors, and chemical suppliers?
By the way, the users on this site are almost entirely losers. There are a cabal of perhaps 12 impressive people on here, the majority of you have no real connection to the big tech capital funds YC ingratiates itself with. I could care less what you fuckheads think about me or my comments. If I reach even one of you retards in a meaningful way, it's a victory to me.
Keep up the good work, you're doing the reading, thinking for yourself, and questioning the lies so many people here spew uncontrollably.
The medium is the message. Everybody should read McLuhan if they work in the technology space. [0]
The problem with the primary system is that it imposes significant guardrails upon intellectual debate, by making the partisans who coddle large vocal minorities appear to be the furthest you can go while still being successful. In fact, we have needed to think well outside even those boxes for many decades.
We need the citizenry to hold more radical political views. Radical politics indicates an understanding of political concepts, things which today very few people with a voice actually have. I don't care if you want to be a communist, a libertarian, or even a fascist authoritarian. As long as we stop having dull, ridiculous conversations comfortably within the tiny ring of globalist technocracy. That is what's literally killing the civilized world.
Or perhaps, are you suggesting you're actually the one at fault here? Would it be fair to say that given your advice, I should not have said anything back to you in the first place?
I cackle at the notion that "uncivility" (sic) is not welcome, and that one should not engage with it. You just got done telling me that the extreme incivility forced upon workplaces all over the globe by horrible companies that force their engineers to utilize horseshit like Dropbox, Slack, and Microsoft was desirable. In fact, you claimed it was more worthwhile than retaining a competent manager who cares deeply about the happiness of his direct reports and in so doing, eschews such needless garbage with extremely positive results.
Recently, a certain head of state's son had 100s of GB of iCloud backups thrown onto a torrent, and within a day rogue manchildren living in their parents' basements cracked most, if not all of it open.
With the backup password in hand, all one needs is this README.md file [0] to be off to the races.
[0] https://github.com/avibrazil/iOSbackup/blob/master/README.md
It's as if people had never before considered that what they are doing is actually very toxic for the world and our planet. It's as if you hate being reminded that people that support Slack and Microsoft are basically the devil incarnate.
Your solution is to add more and more annoying things unnecessarily in an effort to side-step the problem.
I think there should be an examination of the root causes and more post-mortems to actually understand what went wrong and why the solution didn't work either.
You want to keep piling on in a rather psychopathic manner:
Phone tag --> SMS --> Email --> AIM --> MySpace --> Facebook --> Twitter --> Instagram --> Snapchat --> TikTok --> ???????
You even do this in other posts, defending the idea of the suicide prevention hotline before even discussing wtf might be causing people to be suicidal. [0] People like you are why we are rapidly shedding any semblance of progress in the Western world.
- Italy [0] - Germany [1] - Ireland [2] - Spain [3]
I could go on and on but everyone who managed to travel globally during 2021 knows this is completely untrue.
[0] https://www.wantedinrome.com/news/italy-unveils-covid-green-...
[1] https://apnews.com/article/pandemics-angela-merkel-coronavir...
[2] https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/movie-review/movie-review-...
[3] https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/01/21/spai-j21.html
I feel so sorry for those who continue operating in such soulless, life-sucking work environments that they're down to choosing which horrible attention-grabbing SaaS product they'd rather use.
Have you not considered simply using neither? What is wrong with email? Hell, what's wrong with a phone call?
We want privacy because we desire control over the dissemination of our secrets. We desire this because our secrets are derived from activities to which you do not want the public privy. The reason one does not want their activity public is because it ultimately threatens the foundation upon which our lives are built. We use our right to property to protect ourselves against this outcome. We buy homes to say "this land is mine, please do not come onto it." We buy cars to say "this is my wheel machine, please do not use it." We buy computers to say, "these are my thoughts and productive activities - not yours."
We do not mind when our privacy is violated when it is perceived to have no material impact on us for that information to be out there.
This article is not really about privacy, but rather different ways by which to go about privacy _protections_. It is an insightful article when tuned to this context, and without doing that, it can be a little misleading.
Clearly, there is no linkage between walkability scores and crime.
[0] https://www.walkscore.com/score/1405-pacific-st-brooklyn-ny-...
In areas of Chicago and Baltimore, for example, the streets are "walkable," however the frequent violent & property crimes that take place in these areas make a casual stroll down the block an unsafe proposition.
I grew up in Harlem during the time it was emerging out of the 1980s crack epidemic. As a child, the streets were easy to walk on and crime did not impact this for me in any real way. Just a few years prior, though, this was definitely not the case. And even today, as "walkability" improvements have been made in Harlem, the streets are quite obviously less walker-friendly, since walking down the street exposes you to a non-insignificant risk of being a random psychopath's next unwitting victim.
My suspicion here is that you have some sort of binary thought process surrounding cars in cities. The fact is that cities are not as livable in general. Any solution involving more or better walking capacity is a temporary fix at best. In actuality, what you need is a very solid city planner who is able to anticipate and respond to cultural trends adequately. Cities need to be able to balance the needs of various transit options, such that they don't compound peoples' other problems that come from living in cities: crime, cleanliness, affordability, etc.
Why even have a study if you refuse to be more scientific than this?
Modern consumers tend to use some other screen at least part of the time they're watching television.
Before, TV used to be dependent on the content being broadcast, and so there was something of a hard constraint upon the amount of TV time - especially for children. This has gone completely out the window in recent years.
Most governments around the world also actively exploit their own people. Should these governments be made illegal, too? And if so, what, pray tell, would we ever replace them with that would be better?