m00g00
There's also the fact that "regulation" is a nebulous term that says nothing of what the actual laws are that manage to get passed/implemented. If history is a lesson, we should all be weary of rules written up by people who do not fully understand the domain they are trying to regulate, and who are often lobbied by the very firms that would be most subject to said regulation.
So, no guarantees in the slightest that regulations will bring about a healthier tech ecosystem.
This is just using different terms to say the same thing. Facts can and often are used to manipulate, by framing and context, and by what is left out. Opinion, supposition, and FUD are also commonly used to persuade. That people usually believe what they are saying does not mean their opinions were not originally based on deceitful or self-serving propaganda.
> last election.
This has been going on since politics existed (ie. civilization).
Foreign influence is another issue. It is however deceitful to suggest that the issues foreigners (Russians) are accused of inflaming were domestically non-issues, non-controversial, or not-inflammatory before their interjection.
But when it comes to people influencing people, especially over the internet, I doubt very many knew or cared of the country of origin an opinion/idea/piece of "information" came from if it jived with them. Much less whether the identity of the poster was falsified.
Indeed with the anonymity provided by the internet, no nationality whatsoever, foreign or domestic, need be provided.
As an aside, I kind of appreciate how in the past, mostly before WW2, governments would have agencies such as "Ministry of Propaganda", or "Department of War". Now we use doublespeak terms ("Public Affairs", "Defense") to calm the masses, even though they mean the same thing.
Pretty sure everyone in the entire world with internet access chimed in at some point on the US's last election. I doubt many people looked into the country of origin of a tweet before deciding on whether or not to be influenced by it.
It's propaganda all the way down.
The difficulty us mere mortals have with sustained fusion is keeping the reaction from blowing itself apart (as in dissipation, not bomb). Gravity keeps things in check for free, but since gravity is so weak compared to atomic forces, you need an awful lot of it.
Our current containment solutions using electromagnetic forces require a lot of energy to maintain and so far, more than produced from the resulting fusion reaction.
Why? I'd say because Douglas Crockford.
Never understood the FUD and 'considered harmful' screeds against it. Yes I'm aware of the performance/optimization concerns, but honestly, the whole javascript language is a massive performance/optimization concern and we've managed pretty well.
Simple things like changing style properties on DOM elements:
with(element.style) {
display = "block";
marginLeft = "5px";
background = "green";
}
Just clickbait titles is all it is.
Regardless, I don't see how any of that can really count as "extremist" or "conspiratorial" content.
I've always thought Bach would love the keyboard tools we have today. Simply the ability to switch tunings on the fly, rather than stopping to laboriously change gears on your harpsi/clavichord. I imagine the ability to switch to whatever temperament/tuning you want at the press of a button would have masterfully been taken advantage of by him (to say nothing of arbitrary sound/timbre for each voice/key-range etc. I think he would have loved Switched-On Bach).
But the fact remains that whether you are an outside instigator looking to sow discord, a citizen participating in a political flamewar, a politician looking to whip up their base, or the mass media looking for clicks, the tactics are exactly the same. You could wrap a bubble around the United States and cutoff all outside communication and you would not see much difference.
If anything pours gasoline on this fire it is the detachment of social interactions on the internet. And that Twitter is such a hotbed of political "discussion" is a sad testament to the times, considering its very design precludes the possibility of respectful, informed discourse.
Everyone is throwing matches, at the same time, into an already burning dumpster fire.
Admins should contemplate banning less, and users on all sides should chill on demanding it for subs they don't like. No one forces you to go to a sub, and you can even filter them from the front page without extensions now.
But live-and-let-live is not particularly in-vogue these days. As in this submission, the top post is (nothing to do with topic) "Why isn't this other sub also banned hmmm???"
But I agree, reddit just wants the traffic, and r/the_donald does deliver on that for them.
Thus "they" (the people who run the sub) have not broken any rules, just some bad actors which presumably would have been dealt with if their posts got more attention.
If random users making bad posts that almost no one notices in highly active subs constitutes a total subreddit ban, then all subs would end up banned.
Do you suggest the AutoModerator filter for words like "hang", "kill", "shoot"? Why not implement that site wide? I'm sure that would go over well with the rest of reddit.
PowerShell is useful on Windows because it does something that could not be done easily or at all before, that being automation without using GUI's. It does this by providing hooks into the Windows infrastructure to change settings and perform tasks without fragile registry edits and GUI manipulation. But UNIX systems have no need for this by virtue of it's command-line first design. If MS was still using DOS and ini files the situation would be similar.
So what does PowerShell really offer in UNIX land? Configuring and automating nix systems is drastically different than doing the same on Windows systems, so having a common scripting language probably does not help much.
I guess a better question would be what does PowerShell offer in the way of "automation" that is so much superior to bash and *nix command line programs.
Focusing on tech is fine, but claiming there's a unique problem of demoralization, underappreciation, shit management etc. to only "marginalized people" is what makes this article highly questionable.
All that "toxicity" applies just as well to white males in tech.
I'm very much tired of articles whose sole basis for existing is random fucking tweets. You can always find bad ones, from every sect of society. Deranged scribblings on walls did not used to be worthy of news articles.
This combination of ideas is not at all what is being espoused in liberal universities. They are pushing for both open borders (or at least amnesty and much less restrictive immigration laws) and guaranteed social services for immigrants.
Libertarians certainly don't view nations as "completely artificial illegitimate social construct" and I seriously doubt most college professors are teaching from that ideology's point of view. Libertarians are often as demonized as Republicans at universities.
This is nothing but grade-school peer pressure coming from adults and supposedly legitimate news organizations.
"They're burning all the witches even if you aren't one..."
Both articles are obviously opinions, so why the difference? Only thing I can think of is one is more likely to see a backlash in the comments (because the article is ridiculous and deserves it) than the other.