Number157

This community is toxic and drives good but flawed people away.

Never apologize to the mob. It emboldens them.

#nostradamus

Quite a few of the people seem to subscribe to the same ideology though.

> I'm sorry -- are Trump supporters not able to speak any more?

Try it. You'll be censored, down voted (real votes or not), shadow banned and actually banned.

> To my knowledge that is not at all the case. There's even one subreddit dedicated to asking Trump supporters questions, although posts have to be approved by the moderators.

I doubt there are any left given that they can't post anywhere.

Reddit was great for a long time even when it was one of the largest most popular sites on the internet. Then it became a political platform for the US democrats.

No that's not it.

Practically nothing makes it to the front page organically these days. It's all orchestrated.

...no.

I've tried posting a few times but it just doesn't work. Absolutely everything is censored or sent to auto moderation immediately. And I'm not posting anything remotely controversial. E.g. one time I moved to a new place and wondered about banking in that location. Nope, can't post that. Even worse, messages look like they're posted when they're actually not visible. It's dishonest. They're orchestrating the conversation based on what they want you to see.

> It was a single time

That we know of that he admitted.

'Censorship', or censorship?

Have you tried Firefox recently? I switched a few months ago and so far I haven't found myself missing anything.

Maybe. But often, less is more.

Seems like it. The media tend to use quotes to emphasize that the thing they are writing is not something they believe.

X is dangerous VS X is "dangerous"

The implication is true vs not true.

You suck at titles.

> I am confused why this is considered a misconception?

I wonder if they really do. Quite a few seem to be well aware of what they are doing. Obviously they will never say what they are doing since it would hurt their credibility.

He had a masters degree. We were impressed by her mastery of the subject. They were master archers. The zen master suggested they should meditate.

Etc etc etc...

I realize the word can be used in a negative context but that's the case with any word and in none of the cases is it the word itself that is the problem, but peoples actions.

I don't care if we call master 'main' or whatever. They both work. The discussion around the name change does annoy me. This isn't D-day, it's a name change for the sake of PR.

> Co-founder has nothing to do with CEO.

In a small company, every person has enough influence to rival the CEO and every role overlaps enough that the distinction given by titles is meaningless inside the company. Mainly the distinction given by titles determines how people market themselves outside the company where the dividing roles will appear clear for marketing purposes, which they are not in reality.

Kotlins data class is functionally basically the same as a lombok @Data class used in Java. Why Java didn't keep the name "Data class" I don't know.

A vast majority of companies (most of them not very successful) don't do this.

The nitpicking on this forum is getting ridiculous.

> And Wozniak was never CEO of Apple.

In terms of title? No. In terms of function? Well sure, he's a co-founder.

> Also, needless to say, Jobs was not a software engineer either.

The article actually refers to Jobs & Wozniak.

> Google/Alphabet's current CEO

Current, sure, but he showed up after Google was already successful. Becoming the CEO of Google made him successful, but he didn't make Google successful.

> Apple's current CEO...

Same thing.

> Jobs, the founding CEO, was also not a software engineer.

True but he co-founded it with a software engineer (Wozniak) who was arguably influential enough that he had the influence of a CEO if not the title.

> Amazon's CEO, Bezos, was a software engineer

He may not have held the title or had the function, but apparently he had the knowledge.

The weapon is censorship. Dictatorial governments supported by control over information have killed far more people than H-bombs.

It's food and food should never be a luxury. Historically it has often been a luxury unfortunately.

> For some reason it's ok to criticize someone's eating habits, but not their reproductive ones.

For some reason yes... like remember the guy with the funny looking mustache?

The problem is everyone who makes some form of this argument tends to think it's the other people there should be fewer of.

They had all sorts of deficiencies and ate anything they came across. Literally anything. As in, practically every culture has had cannibalism, for instance.

Making food prohibitively expensive is not cool. Leave what other people eat alone. >:-|

(1) There are too many confounding variables to draw that conclusion from that data.

(2) Raise your taxes by 30%, do you have more money or less? Less. And the government has more.

Clearly there are more factors, but there would be no way for the government to keep its spending up without borrowing, without getting money in the form of taxes.