noptd

¿Por qué no los dos?

Any sources to link?

I think the argument against can be boiled down to this hypothetical analogy:

A few friends and I like your home better than ours. It's much nicer and safer than where we currently live, so we move into a few open bedrooms.

Now that we outnumber you and your family, we vote to change things in the common areas more to our liking. Some changes are small and happen over time, others more jarring and immediate. You like some of these changes in some cases, but sometimes quite the opposite.

Is it a foregone conclusion that this situation is for the greater good? If so, should your family be pressured or forced to accept?

Who has the power to make that determination?

After all, you were only there first so what gives you the right to prevent others from moving in?

---

Personally, I can see the argument for both sides.

I typically chose passwords that are long, easy to remember sentences (no caps or spaces).

Generic example: millionsandmillionsofpeopleliveinthiscity

Easy to share aloud, but long enough to protect against being brute-forced.

Personally I'd see it as a negative vs using an industry standard solution.

However, I'm sure some folks would be tempted to add something like "designed and implemented a distributed task scheduler and execution engine for generalized asynchronous jobs utilized by X number of devs across Y teams" to their resumes.

Yeah, either that or "architecting something new looks better on my resume than using an existing solution."

Haha no, it's the user's hardware that they purchased outright.

Should LG be able to charge you every time you watch a movie or show on your TV?

Yeah, this is gatekeeping nonsense.

By your logic, streaming services should be paying TV manufacturers for using their "IP" when displaying video to customers. Hogwash.

>But it has an incredibly huge problem with a particular style of spam account that reposts old content on certain subreddits.

Well that's your problem right there. That type of spam boosts a number of activity and usage KPIs and increases engagement.

Reddit has even been caught using bots to artificially build out new subreddits by Google translating and reposting existing content from other subreddits to give the illusion of popularity in order to bootstrap new subs.

Why would they want to cut down on any of that when it would affect their bottom line?

>You do not want to know the level of architecture pumping away in the background that collects and correlates disparate data about you together. It's actually shocking how robust and complex it is. Trust me, I've seen it, they know almost everything about you consumption/location/device wise.

I do, and I suspect many others would like to know as well - please share!

Underhanded insinuations like this do not belong on HN.

All of this is based on the unsupported assumption that purity of vocabulary is some sort of virtue to strive for and that other speakers are responsible for protecting the listener from their subjective, personal hangups by adopting some subset of listeners preferred standard for language.

It's on that point that we, and I'd imagine the GP as well, strongly disagree.

Yeah, the author has to resort to tone-policing because they have no good rebuttals for the criticism being received so they are trying to invalidate and dismiss said criticism due to its 'tone'.

What a lazy rhetorical device.

Can you link an instance of this happening or is this entirely speculation on your part?

This is low even by Reddit standards.

Please keep to the HN guidelines and stop reposting that article and claim which has been debunked multiple times in this comment section - it contributes nothing to the conversation.

>My main point is that school vouchers are bad.

Which you keep repeating without providing any supporting argument or citations, hence the downvotes.

>It's not unreasonable for device manufacturers to sandbox and restrict access to functionality to protect the majority of their users.

Hard disagree. It's absolutely unreasonable to infantilize users and lock them out from fully utilizing their purchased hardware.

I'm not the OP but equating criticism of the *culture* of a *subset* of a given demographic with racism is an extremely uncharitable take.

As if that's relevant or excuses this behavior.

Considering there's been data and benchmarks provided to support the argument that the performance improvements have been substantial, can you provide any evidence to support your argument against it?

Otherwise, your argument isn't very compelling, especially after having admitted that you haven't even used Python in ways that would warrant any assessment of performance for those use cases.

No limitations for now.

Considering the topic at hand, this comes across as flame-baiting.

Use your imagination.

Agreed. Nor should the platform disallow you from doing so.

By this logic, the ability to install arbitrary software is a major risk.

I strongly disagree with this stance, and it's a very authoritarian one at that. The common people can't be trusted with freedom so we should give up that freedom and trust in <insert authority here>. I find this stance morally repugnant and entirely at odds with where the future of technology should be going.

Tl;Dr: Hard disagree. Some of us prefer to use our computers as general computing devices, as opposed to just being desk-driven iPhones.