But dhh didn’t say that. He said that very few programmers, not all, don’t like having their opinions changed in typing. He didn’t say they don’t like it when it happens on their own, they don’t like it when others try to do it. At least that what dhh says. Not saying I agree.
You can’t just read something, change it’s meaning and then argue against it.
> very few programmers are typically interested in having their opinion on typing changed. Most programmers find themselves drawn strongly to typing or not quite early in their career, and then spend the rest of it rationalizing The Correct Choice to themselves and others.
IME, my story doesn't seem to be that unique among typescript advocates thus I do not relate to DHH's statement.
You speak as if those not on the internet can not already joining it in hordes. And those opposed to FreeBasics are somehow holding the keys.
When looking at the two camps here, you seriously believe the motives of Facebook and Telecom companies that have clear business interest in having users locked up in their walled gardens but doubt the intentions of a motley group of activists including startup founders, university professors, policy experts among others who do not have any direct incentive to oppose people coming on to internet and also do not control that access in anyway?
>you seriously believe the motives of Facebook and Telecom companies that have clear business interest
I'm absolutely 100% convinced FB is doing this to be in on the ground floor of the explosion of internet access in India. And I don't see that as a bad thing. AOL happened, and it helped get a lot of people online earlier than they would have otherwise (AOL was my first foray online). The free and open internet will survive. But getting poor people online ASAP is the far more important concern for them than ensuring that their access is completely open when they do.
Furthermore, I'm not questioning the motives of those that are loudly against this. Their motives are crystal clear. It's those very motives that are misplaced. The values of the privileged are entirely different from the unprivileged. The problem is that the privileged tend to have a tragically narrow perspective and assume that their values are universally correct.
I mean, how easy is it to say "free and open access or nothing (for them)!" when you're not personally giving up anything? It's absurd on its face.
>> can not already joining it in hordes.
> Sorry, I can't figure out what you meant here.
Yes, typos are hard to process, especially when you have context. I meant "are not already joining."
Are you defining privileged as those people who do not agree with you? Because in economic, social and other terms, I fail to see how those supporting FreeBasics are any less privileged. In fact, they are the top of the privilege pyramid.
And here's the thing. All these bleeding heart pro-poor telcos in fact want differential pricing so that they can charge more for VoIP services. How does that tie-in with this narrative of poor people?
Replace FreeBasics by a targeted scheme with measurable outcomes and provisions for how it will auto dismantle as it achieves its goals, and then let's talk. Otherwise it is all baloney.
Because it is not a static scenario. Internet users in India grew by ~30% over last one year itself and that growth is not slowing down. And FreeBasics is not limited to people coming on the internet for the first time.
free basics is doing that at a rate of 50% per month. (according to them)
i doubt people would want to shift to free basics from a full internet and if they do then that's what they like, its their choice. We should continue using normal broadband. Now you can argue that telcos will then overcharge for normal broadband, but who knows, they might not and even if they do then TRAI can send them a notice to not do that, and they will stop like they did with the "fast lane" thingy.
That stat is misleading when you compare percentages against raw figures:
1 million: Free Basics users in India in 2015 (source: FB press release)
5.8 million: Data users acquired by Reliance, FB's sole partner in India, in 2015 (source: IAMAI)
109 million: Data users acquired by all telcos in India in 2015 (Sep 2014-Sep 2015, source: same IAMAI report)
So if Free Basics converted 50% of their users to the full Internet, that's about 500k users, or less than 0.5% of the industry's success rate.
Asking for dangerous policy exceptions because your flawed scheme has an actual success rate of 0.5% and presenting this as 50% is disingenuous at best.
If those opposing the FreeBasics are trying to decide on behalf of poor, isn't FreeBasics itself not doing the same thing?
In fact the word play now is just ridiculous. When questioned about the above, they point out that this is an open platform now where any service can come in. When questioned on why not simply give free capped bandwidth then, the answer is that "basic internet services" like education, health are more important for poor. And if left to themselves, they will spend all bandwidth on things like porn. (The last statement is not from Facebook but from certain supporters of FreeBasics)
I'm not exactly sure what the problem is. Ultimately the target user can choose from whatever options are available to them (apparently freebasics or nothing right now). For a free service there certainly is a limited amount of bandwidth available. It makes sense to ensure that the maximum amount of users get the maximum utility from it, which means preventing the bandwidth sink that porn will be.
You are assuming that the other services can just wait it out while people break out of FB ecosystem and discover them. Development of these kind of walled gardens significantly harm the development of independent services. That is one of the main problem. If everyone had free Orkut and no access to FB, how long would it have taken Facebook to catch on?
I am not assuming anything. People who don't have internt access are not using those service anyways. So those services will continue at their natural pace. So I don't see how free basics will harm the development of independent services.
Regarding Orkut, it had a lot of users before facebook arrived on the scene. But Facebook was just so much better that everyone eventually jumped on it. I doubt the outcome would have been any different had Orkut been free, considering that the network effect was a huge price in itself.
The point is, I am yet to see anyone who can afford a monthly data pack interested in choosing a service based upon it's inclusion in free basics. Free basics is good for those who won't use the internet at all otherwise.
In the FB vs Orkut example, not only is the Orkut Free, FB is inaccessible to Orkut users. What do you think will be the outcome then?
You are also assuming that if not for Free Basics, there will be nothing done to increase the internet spread in India. As those opposed to Free Basics have repeatedly pointed out, there are other better options available.
With diseases, world might actually run out of chocolate or at least some varieties of it. Like Panama disease wiped out Gros Michel banana and is now also threatening Cavendish banana. Similarly Frosty Pod Rot seems to be spreading and threatening cocoa plantations.
If the very existence of chocolate were actually threatened, the resources that will be made available to save it would be almost incomprehensible. People really like the stuff, and there is no real substitute.
Bananas aren't that big of a deal for most people, especially if you're looking at going from two popular varieties to one. If the Cavendish gets wiped out too, I'd say that would just be due to people not caring all that much about bananas. I can't imagine the same happening for chocolate.
Actually bananas are a huge deal since they provide the basic nutrition for large populations in many parts of the world. Also Cavendish is the dominant set of varieties world over and there are not many real substitutes for it, yet.
They could grow something else to eat, at least in theory, right? A realistic extinction event should leave plenty of time to switch to another crop.
If bananas went extinct (while people dependent on them were able to switch to some other food), I'd basically just shrug and get on with life. If chocolate went extinct I'd consider it a colossal disaster. I suspect I'm not alone.
I understand that there are a lot of people who care about chocolate and who don't care about banana. I know plenty in the other direction (majority around me).
But there are two points. First is that you are underestimating the kind of role a crop can play in a culture. It is not just a matter of replacing Banana with another crop. It is a matter of changing significant cultural traditions going back hundreds of years. If you think about it, the importance of chocolate is also largely cultural.
Second, it is a philosophical debate that what is more important - something that is basic nutrition for one group or something that is cultural/emotional/luxury/(I can't find the right word for the role chocolate plays) for another. Where the resources will be allocated will depend on who controls those resources and which camp they fall in.
That would be an interesting article, this one however was kinda pointless, as it appeared to be predicated on prices not rising, with only a tiny call out to frosty pod.
Problem is often the competence of people handling these proxies. Yesterday I discovered that my ISP is blocking all DELETE http calls (ACT fibernet in India)!
And before that they decided to enforce a reverse DNS lookup so all the name based virtual servers with local DNS entries stopped working - I had my staging instances setup that way.
And not only all this happens without any prior information, it is next to impossible to climb through the support layers to finally find someone who even understands what are you talking about. They just want you to restart your modem to "resolve the problem".
And it is all or none. If you fall on bad times and can't pay the subscription, you cannot have any books. Unlike your owned collection which you can reduce down to books you love. If you are low on cash, you cannot save and buy a book - you have to be subscribed all the time.
If subscription becomes the dominant mode of book consumption, it would be disastrous. As an add on service, it is nice. Especially in the areas without strong library systems.
