drinkjuice
When someone in the subway next to you says "gas all Jews", and you turn around to them and say "Oh no, dear friend, I agree with this plan of action for several reasons, many of which I'm sure you will agree to if you would just let me explain them to you" -- that would be too friendly. I would even argue this would be very callous and abrasive to not just Jews, but any other decent person sitting in earshot as well. I'm not saying the alternative is to call them names, but you can be too friendly in light of some things. You're essentially asking me to choose this random, callous, unintelligent person over millions of people just because this random person is "here", which is just your own personal outlook on time and space. Which is fine, just be aware that that's what you're asking.
I'm not contesting what I said was unnecessary, I know this because I spoke in anger and and shot of a quick snarky reply. I could have packaged my disgust, and my will to do battle, more smartly. I could have been funny about it, or a million other things. But generally speaking, I still think your idea of civility is basically cannibalism with a fork and a knife. Or how does that expression go, penny-wise pound-foolish, something like that. If anything, I regret that word choice because when people literally drool, it's often because of health problems or old age or other reasons that have no business being mentioned in one sentence with someone... advocating, now there's a perfectly lifeless word... people being "kettled and subjugated". But otherwise, what makes me care for a sick person, what makes me give a friendly answer to a child, what motivates me to all sorts of "civil" things is also the exact same thing that makes me irate when I hear talk like the above. It's not even the same material, it's the same element. I respect your wishes in so far as this is private property, but I'm not holding my hat saying sorry for being out of line.
Including not only oneself, but all future current and future friends, lovers and offspring.
But the real kicker is that ultimately, it's not just about managing your presentation, but about the (impossibility of) managing the interpretations of others, according to rules, quotas and/or programs they defined and which they will always be somewhat in the dark about. So if in doubt, if you haven't seen others say it and be rewarded for it, maybe don't say it. How's that for a great outlook.
Except of course you wouldn't use that word for all those planning and fighting in US wars of aggression, correct? Is it just because they're not so "random" or are there other factors, too?
> It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.
-- Voltaire
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-TydNlj7d0
"The state" is the one thing people in a democracy at least own on paper. That's not to be trifled with.
Besides, just about anything is "bigger than it's ever been", one might as well say there have never been so many people working in non-profits for justice and whatnot, so that must be causing inequality.
Last but not least, "big" doesn't mean anything. It's like only looking at lines of code, and not content at all. Even reducing it to "bigger versus smaller government", regardless of where you fall on that, is nonsense.
You calling things "tropes" or "user analytics" doesn't change anything, and having to use euphemisms tells me deep down inside you know this, too.
Also, no.
That's just useless. And you know, saying "it once was A, now it's B, so it can never be A again" is exactly as "prescriptivist".
Little things add up, and before you know it people are just stringing words together as demonstrated on a million youtube videos.
> The older meaning is obscure, largely redundant
How so? How is the "new one" (which one? heh) not redundant? If you want to say something raises a question, that's an easy way to put it right there. On the other hand, I'm not even convinced that the bastardization of "begs the question" into "raises the question" wasn't simply based on not even understanding what assuming an initial point even could be, of just hearing the phrase without understanding the context and using it as another way to say something or someone raises a question. I certainly don't hear it in common usage, regardless of the phrasing used. You know, if all those other people say they just say it because "most" people do, then none of them actually do have a reason. A billion times zero is zero.
And don't even get me started on people suddenly calling low framerates "lag" :P It just destroys information, and you can call it progress because the hands on the clock moved a little, but I won't.
[1] http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1021877/Constructing-the-Cataco...
[2] http://catakids.tumblr.com/
I'm not affiliated, and I'm not saying there aren't others that may be worth your money more, but I am absolutely convinced that he has the heart and mind in the right place when doing this, and it really shows. I'm hopeful to see where it will go and what he'll come up with after it's finished.
Oh, snap. Looks like that explanation doesn't even begin to make sense, and it's hilarious how the "average user", in their absence, gets used as an excuse to implement outright hostile things, but only then. When Google Reader shuts down or other things are done nobody likes, which not one person welcomes, that doesn't matter, it's only when it's about things no user wants but companies want to push when they suddenly do.
The bug report mentions real problems caused by this change. Are there similar reports about problems that were caused by that option being available, or is that all just theoretical?
> As the years go by, I learn every config option is going to lead to some set of users getting confused and upset.
So? Remove all config options, or simply do good work and let the remaining complainers complain? Why not take the person who filed the bug report and is "confused and upset" for very good reasons they can argue for more seriously than some random hypothetical person?
And what average user would have a need for there being no way to disable it?
> Tech companies don’t like to talk about the details of content moderation, so it’s difficult to judge how well they’re caring for the psychological health of moderators.
The number of such stories which include said companies declining comment (not this one, but anecdotally that's how it seems to be) is kind of a red flag though.
And I also have the feeling that surely, just this exist, I just don't know about it ^^
Linking things by hash, other than being so very ugly, consider this case: you have this asset that changes every minute, and is several MB. If a users users your site too much, you will flush out out all other cached stuff with old versions of that file that will never get referenced again. That just strikes me as extremely wasteful, that is, you get a short term boost but even worse performance overall. If other sites do it too much, it will mean your own stuff will not even be cached when visitors come back.
I totally agree with that part, including the last sentence of your post. However, I don't quite see the difference between "you are the product" and "access to your eyeballs is the product", it's just describing the same thing differently. That others are worse doesn't really change that, the ones who are better are the standard as far as I'm concerned.
That sort of writing doesn't engage me at all. Too many articles begin with something "it was a foggy afternoon as Peter was waiting in line to buy ice cream", taking 5 paragraphs to first touch on the subject mentioned in the title, instead of just coming out with "Scientists recently confirmed that yum yum molecules can generate distinctive taste sensations depending on the amount and color temperature of the light they have been exposed to in the first few hours. This odd discovery began when scientist guy was hoping to grab some cones at his favourite ice cream Parlour in $city, etc. blah blah".
As you can tell, I'm not a writer. But I know the kind of writing I won't waste my time on, and the internet is full of.
We "killed God" and Nietzsche asked if we have even the faintest idea of what that implies, and I feel regardless of that, killing man is already well underway, with a similar sleepwalking quality to it. It might start with garden variety rush tyranny and mass murder, but maybe it goes way deeper than that, deeper than even AI or automation, wiping personhood (for lack of a better way to put it) out at the root with nobody even feeling it. We get used to everything, why not get used to regressing to individual mindlessness for the sake of some ill-defined greater good of some ill-defined greater entity? Crazier things have happened.
If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?
-- Hillel the Elder
And to repeat myself, I really do miss something akin to the icon that displays which tabs are playing sound -- not for myself, but because it would allow people to notice the difference between bloated and well crafted pages more easily.
I appreciate they prefer to automatically decide what is best, but I would prefer more gauges, at least as an accessible option. If you hide something behind an "advanced" label, it will just scare people off for no reason. It's not like configurations dialog aren't kinda barren and padded as is. Just fix that and then just put things there, neatly categorized and maybe even searchable, and explain them. People can drive cars and vote for politicians, but we can't trust them to read? Just about any image viewer or video player seems to think more highly of people than browsers of all things do.
edit: Usage implies intentionality. Intentionality implies awareness. Not being some super guru, but more awareness than "is text, won't read". Therefore, while the drive to shovel hardware on people, to create needs you then get to fill, did indeed bring all sorts of people who now get called users to the table, I don't consider them such. It's like someone who has a seizure on dance floor is not dancing, or like someone you forced to be somewhere is not "visiting that place". And I know people don't find it rude to just ignore a claim of how something ought to be with "but this is how it is, which is why it can and must be that way", which is why I say what I say. If someone does bad things and won't discuss them, it's absolutely up to the people who are aware and care to act. If you don't understand poetic language unless it's flowery that's your problem. So yes, I stand by what I said, just not by what it might evoke in the minds of some readers.
Sounds like you could kill two birds with one stone: allow a non-lame web and encourage users to learn what that means. We can't complain about tech illiterate users with one corner of the mouth and then make them decide what goes with the other.
> if you add more text to explain it, most users will not read it
They're not users. They're the blight on the back of users. Why cater to them? Is someone who looks left and right before crossing the street a "power pedestrian", too?
"This tab wants to use a lot of [RAM/CPU/GPU] while it is in the background, is that cool with you?
If you don't know what this means, it's best to select no. Fuck that site anyway for using a lot of resources without making it obvious that it's doing something heavy, or asking first, or explaining what is going on. If they don't like users clicking no or even navigating away from the page, that's their problem. If you read this far, click here to claim your Avid Reader Achievement Trophy."
Not bad for a first draft?
And just let us allow tabs to grab all the resources they want on a opt-in basis. Why not?
* Before anyone brings up the inevitable economic argument - it wouldn't take a lot of man hours to do these things, I dare say it would just take one or two persons who are capable to be willing and allowed to do them. And compared to all sorts of things that browsers vendors made and get scrapped, you at least know tabs will always use ram, CPU and load assets over the network, so it's not ever going to be completely useless.