dev_by_day

ITT is alot of people that don't seem to understand Stoicism.

For the people making weird claims that its a philosophy specifically for conservatives, its not. Try checkout stoics like Ryan Holiday or Cato if your interested in seeing the emphasis on justice and being good to others as a virtue.

Yes, if your interested checkout Ryan Holiday, he writes pretty extensively about this.

Cato is a good example of a stoic who stood for justice, he sacrificed his life leading a resistance against the tyranny of Caesar and fighting injustice.

This is sad because its thats not what Stoicism is actually about. The most prominent Stoic author today is Ryan Holiday and the guy is a staunch liberal. He's worth checking out if you want to see a sincere modern day interpretation of stoicism.

They despised material wealth and comfort. They also talked alot about Justice and doing what is inside your control to correct injustice was seen as a high virtue.

Any idea what happened? People seemed quite shocked they passed away so young

If you look at what IBM did to centos and redhat, its definitely worth getting worked up about.

I will start one if there is community interest, which it seems like there is.

Sorry to clarify I meant I appreciate the view points you posted by "those", not the ones prior to it(hence i mentioned college campuses in reference to pro-Palestine protests)

I do very much appreciate that within the spectrum of the american left/liberals we have those view points.

Edit: to clarify i mean the view points that disagreed with the 6 up above.

I would never want to be in a monoculture where those view points are censored or shut down. It has unfortunately become more common in authoritarian states and even peaceful protests here on campuses.

The beautiful thing about about groups and diversity is you don't get to decide who is and isn't a leftist. Many would say the same about you given how polarizing your being.

You have literally zero legitimacy or authority to define what leftism is, it doesn't belong to you.

A persons very limited comment history is not a strong measure of values, I don't use this site that much.

I'm not a Kyle Rittenhouse supporter, I merely held that he didn't commit murder which is what many legal experts held as well.

Fwiw my actual policy and culture positions are much more aligned with liberalism when its pragmatic and not pathological altruism.

I'm happy to provide references on ben collins bias, he has been called out multiple times for spreading misinformation despite claiming to be an expert on it.

He has been objectively criticized by multiple legit journalists like glenn greenwald and even moderates like nate silver.

https://reason.com/2023/10/19/ben-collins-disinformation-hos...

https://nypost.com/2023/10/20/nate-silver-rips-ny-times-nbcs...

You misinterpreted Democrats and progressives, most Democrats, minorities and liberals are closer to the center left rather than extreme left. Polling from many reliable places, including pew, shows Progressive ideology is dominated by upper class white people.

Why do you think stripping resources from the police was so popular amongst upper class intectuals but not what black Americans actually wanted according to the actual data. Progressivism in America is an ideology that represents the upper class, not minorities nor traditional liberals nor the working class.

Im pointing out a reporter is biased in a specific direction, of course I'll point out which direction that is.

Are you even going to deny thar he's not left wing and covers stories from that perspective?

I'm a leftist personally but I'm sick of the bias never being mentioned or called out.

Ben collins is a promoter of this left right war, he was literally suspended for being biased. That is not a good reporter, he is a beneficiary of the culture war and its disrespectful to actual factual journalism to call him anything else but a political stereographer who is out to push ideology above facts.

Ben collins is not an excellent reporter, he is an extreme leftist ideologue. He has a terribly biased view of "how the Internet works" e.g. its toxic and dangerous when not aligned with the extreme American left and its good when its aligned with leftist ideology, even when being toxic to everyone else.

He was literally suspended from covering elon musk by NBC for his biased views.

The only reason you probably respect ben collins is he spoon feeds biased American leftist view points to you. That makes him a good "leftist" but a terrible reporter of facts, which is maybe why you like him so much.

> Do you have real examples of western governments taking down independent journalists using free speech to speak truth to power? Because that would do a lot to win me over.

Belarus:

"Freedom of the press in Belarus remains extremely restricted. State-owned media are subordinated to the president and harassment and censorship of independent media are routine. The government subjects both independent and foreign media to systematic political intimidation, especially for reporting on the deteriorating economy and human rights abuses. Journalists are harassed and detained" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Belarus

Turkey(which is mix of eastern and western but is part of the EU so I think counts):

"Turkey has earned an accolade which holds no glory: according to the Committee to Protect Journalists, it is the biggest jailer of journalists in the world" https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/02/free-tur...

Differing judicial philosophies will end up with different decisions.

Not reading there justifications for why they made a decision just because the judge does not align with ones political view is ignorance, plain and simple.

Only reading the critical analysis of any viewpoint or decision without reviewing their legal justifications will lead to massive derangement in ones perspective.

Law and high level court decisions will have some form of logic to them which is worth examining before dismissing them as partisan.

> It is widely thought that SCOTUS decides based on ideology and politics

Citation needed. Judges have differing judicial philosophies and those philosophies may run contrary to a political parties aims but it does not mean they are servants of political parties.

It is likely that the people who think their decisions are purely politically biased are the ones whose politics are not aligned with whatever the court decided. Rarely do they dig into the justifications and expert analysis for a given decision.

Both liberal and conservative leaning justices have ruled against things that the parties which helped appoint them wanted.

Zappos by Amazon. I've heard they gave them a fair amount of autonomy and have been supportive.

Trello by Atlassian. They have tried to rollout some of the UX improvements from Trello into other products and kept the majority of the talent.

I think there is some wishful thinking being applied here and misunderstanding of my argument, I am not "Pro Proprietary" but I am stating the fact that all major tech companies are "Pro Proprietary". I personally would rather these all be open eco-systems but tech companies seem to prefer "walled-gardens".

Azure is not open source, a few components are but the vast majority of it is a closed eco-system, especially compared to something like Open Stack. I was part of the Open Stack consortium that tried to get Amazon and Microsoft to adopt Open Stack or at least use open cloud standards and they refused for competition reasons. Closed cloud systems and vendor lock-in massively benefit them. Microsoft biggest money makers like their enterprise software and operating systems are all notoriously closed source and tightly guarded.

Google has been using their position to make previously open systems like Android much harder for anyone to run without their "Google Play Services" and trying to force standards onto chrome and chromium that will make ad-blocking much harder. Don't even get me started on what a disaster AMP is for an open web and how google continued to push it even when these concerns were raised.

Yes Google and Microsoft make significant contributions to open source, this is like me saying that Tesla did a good thing by opening up there patents. Big players occasionally do good things but it doesn't whitewash away the closed systems they make most of their money from.

FWIW Elon also has a habit of disregarding patents https://www.tesla.com/legal/additional-resources#patent-pled... and sharing battery technology knowledge so I wouldn't say their only into "closed,proprietary things".

He's a mix of the two really(open and closed) like all giant tech companies at this point.

Name me one large tech company that is open? Apple? Google? Microsoft? Literally all of them have some closed eco-systems and do aggressive patent enforcement.

*because data mining and tracking.

Source needed, plenty of liberal disinformation gets into search results as well and all kind of spammy SEO bullshit. Google search results have been getting shittier across the board is my intuition on this, censorship is less relevant.

IMO they just stopped caring about accuracy along time ago and have shifted into "engagement" and recommendation based results instead of accurate ones. Now when you search for something and very few results come back or they think your search terms should be something else, your given a shitty recommendation instead of what you actually searched for.

It appears the law is written in such a way that it addresses the shortcomings this user thinks apply.

> odds are this will be fought in court and won by Disney and thrown out as unconstitutional because the state just violated their own law

Its a bit naive to think that the State law makers did not make changes and build in provisions to prevent this from happening. Sounds like alot of wishful thinking on this users part, no idea why claims this large(with no supporting evidence or links) are worth sharing.

I'd rather Florida not do this but it'd be better to accept the reality of these special protections being removed or trying to lobby for a change to the law to get them added back.

What is the advantage of something like this over retroarch?

I literally said that its a story worth covering and linked to a story from the guardian that confirms this and goes deeper on his business dealings being potentially shady(and brings up how the laptop fits into this, there was potentially damaging evidence on it). My personal belief is not relevant here, I just feel its a story worth examining.

Your not being honest with your motives to deny the guardian stories points or the fact that article even exists, do you not want to admit there is something potentially shady happening?

I don't know with 100% certainty either way honestly, I would have wanted the story to be covered if it was any other politician (and don't like trump, glad he lost tbh) so I am not sure what bone your trying to pick at. (this comment goes deeper into what was potentially found if you are interested https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30548675)

What I believe to be true is not my point, its that the story was credible enough to be discussed and should not have been censored. I would feel the same if these accusations had been levied at one of trumps family members as well.

The guardian goes more in depth on what aspects of hunter bidens business dealings are worth looking into(they discuss the laptop here as well): https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/27/hunter-biden...

How were they right? the story has been confirmed to be legitimate by organizations like politico and the guardian. Hunter Biden himself admitted the laptop may have been his.

"Rotten" because it looks bad and goes against your bias doesn't make it worthy of censorship. Social media censoring a NY post journalist over this was censorship. Period.