While I used to agree with you, based on the most recent polling, Gen X and Gen Z are both farther right than Boomers are these days. So we're fucked long term too.
> A particular interaction I had comes to mind. A user here boldly and openly proclaimed he discriminated in interviews against people that look different from him, or that are neurodivergent. Actual illegal behaviour that will get you sued in many countries. I reacted strongly and my post got flagged and I received a comment from the moderation team.
This is the "moderate discourse" problem, where you can express horrendous opinions as long as you are polite, and anyone who reacts emotionally gets criticized instead. You are required to engage these arguments in a detached, logical way as though they have equal intellectual merit, while they advocate for your suffering. This is also why places that enforce moderate discourse tend to become populated with polite fascists.
> Silicon Valley was full of founders who genuinely wanted to use technology to make the world a better place
No, it wasn't, it was full of people who said they wanted to use technology to make the world a better place because saying you would use technology to make the world a better place was viewed as the path to investment and success.
Now, as soon as feigned empathy is no longer required for $$$, the mask comes off. It was never about anything other than profit.
To be fair DOGE was the ultimate SV neo-libertarian power fantasy. Just get a bunch of hackers together, screw the rules, get root on the government and start deleting shit. Doubly so after a "leftist" administration.
> He radically restructured operations, splitting the company into thirty, and later forty, different units that were to compete against each other. Instead of cooperating, as in a normal firm, divisions such as apparel, tools, appliances, human resources, IT and branding were now in essence to operate as autonomous businesses, each with their own president, board of directors, chief marketing officer and statement of profit or loss. An eye-popping 2013 series of interviews by Bloomberg Businessweek investigative journalist Mina Kimes with some forty former executives described Lampert’s Randian calculus: “If the company’s leaders were told to act selfishly, he argued, they would run their divisions in a rational manner, boosting overall performance.”
Exactly. Declaring that there must be no discussion when confronted with situations in which one party is doing harm to others, is an implicit endorsement of the harms being perpetuated.
Thank you all in this thread! I couldn't have put it better. I cannot stand "no politics rules". Politics divides and it is personal. But it shouldn't be either of those. We should be attacking policy and not people. No politics rules just deny reality because software doesn't exist in a vacuum without policy and money. Heck most people want to use software to get money which is a product of policy.
It's a privilege that many people working in tech have, who then create and populate forums where discussion of that privilege is considered political and therefore forbidden.
Are there public examples of "good instruction" and an iteration process? I have tried and have not been very successful at getting Claude Code to generate correct code for medium sized projects or features.
I had Claude write a piano webapp (https://webpiano.jcurcioconsulting.com) as a "let's see how this thing works" project. I was pleasantly surprised by the ease of it.
They can, it would likely just increase the cost of cheap devices to end users, as the manufacturer now has to provide additional software support and does not want to lose money.
Because when you buy most smartphones, you're buying a vendor locked device and choosing to stay within their ecosystem. That's how Google has designed their monopoly. Apple is the same way, but non-fragmented.
You've never had to wait for Dell to type apt update and apt upgrade, but MacOS users have to wait for Apple to update their computer.
These manufacturers gladly took in AOSP back in 2011 when it was still truly a great open source project - exactly as the name should require it to be - and also when security requirements were much much lower. Of course to keep up with device security it turns out you need complete control over the whole stack and regular updates anyway, so now these manufacturers are in a pickle of a situation.
Its possible the forced apps are a cost recouping mechanism. But how does a phone bootloader being locked down become Google's fault? Does it mandate that for some kind of Android certification?
Yes Google mandates a locked bootloader in order to meet Google Play Integrity's remote attestation. More generally it mandates a perfectly clean and valid secure boot chain. Among a variety of other requirements.
One could argue that those “cheap” devices are ewaste from the beginning, and customers needing lower cost mobile devices should be buying more expensive ones used or refurbished.
Because they fucking suck. I never heard desktops or laptops being tied to Dell or Asus or what not for run of the mill kernel or os upgrades. If phone makers want to be fucking ass by locking down bootloaders, jealously preventing reversing etc preventing kernel devs etc from doing their own thing then they should accept the just label of being fucking ass or take on the responsibility of supporting it forever.
No, we shouldn't. We live in a society, and that level of distrust is not just unrealistic, it's disastrous. This doesn't mean you should share your house keys with every drive by PR contributor, but neither should you treat every PR as if it's coming from Jia Tan.
reply