No one has a right to be wealthy. Mark Zuckerberg and all of these other people are so narcissistic that not only do they believe they are entitled to their wealth, but they also have an insane urge to take even more from people while providing even less. The quality of information and interaction on Meta’s web sites is lower than ever, and their response is to machine-produce an increasing quantity of even lower quality sludge rather than shut down the company and disappear.
What we need is a mechanism to terminate these entities, in the same way that chemotherapy eliminates fast-dividing cancer cells that have lost their ability to self-terminate.
I am sorry your response got downlvoted. I would like to understand why you believe no one has a right to be wealthy.
Also, I would like to understand what your metrics are. If you have the ability to post on this site, I will assume your income is at least an order of magnitude, possibly two, higher than someone in Chad or South Sudan. Should you lower your living standards to match them and if so, what would you do with the remainder of your income? What material effect would it have on anyone for you to do this?
These are serious questions and I’m not trying to make fun of you. I’m trying to understand you’re thinking. And to be clear about my bias, I want everyone to be wealthy.
Reading the tweets from “Team you tube” — these companies should be prohibited from saying things that are obviously not true. “These decisions are made very carefully” or “our community guidelines exist to make You tube a safer community for everyone” are flat lies, naked falsehoods that should bring about meaningful sanctions against Google’s management and shareholders. Rich people should suffer for this.
While this passage is more about press-releases, I feel it captures some of the same frustration and Terry Pratchett is always quotable:
> It was garbage, but it had been cooked by an expert. You had to admire the way perfectly innocent words were mugged, ravished, stripped of all true meaning and decency, and then sent to walk the gutter for Reacher Gilt, although “synergistically” had probably been a whore from the start.
> The Grand Trunk's problems were clearly the result of some mysterious spasm in the universe and had nothing to do with greed, arrogance and wilful stupidity. Oh, the Grand Trunk management had made mistakes—oops, 'well-intentioned judgements which, with the benefit of hindsight, might regrettably have been, in some respects, in error'—but these had mostly occurred, it appeared, while correcting 'fundamental systemic errors' committed by the previous management. No one was sorry for anything because no living creature had done anything wrong; bad things had happened by spontaneous generation in some weird, chilly, geometrical otherworld, and 'were to be regretted'.
Elon Musk was willing to spend 44 billion dollars just to burn down a social media platform for being too "woke." I don't think he cares, and I don't think Trump cares.
Elon didn’t burn down Twitter. It still has 100m+ users. He turned it into a politically far right echo chamber, gas lighting its users about “free speech absolutism,” and then outright banning, demoting, or drowning out commentary he doesn’t agree with.
Unless you meant “burn down” in the sense of “turned it into the ashes of a trash fire…” but it was always a trash fire. People still go for it, and advertising still happens there.
Twitter is hemorrhaging users and advertisers and is worth a fraction of what it was when Elon let the sink in. It used to be a primary source for media, politics and culture, now it's just a Nazi bar.
I'd consider that burning the platform down, but we may just disagree on semantics.
Ok. I may just be unaware of the actual numbers. “The advertisers came back, and more liberal users were leaving, but businesses still found it valuable” was sort of my last understanding.
I’d like to be contrarian here and suggest that if you happen to be possessed of a sudden impulse to buy something, but you can’t identify any particular thing that you need, consider putting that amount of money into an investment or retirement account instead of searching for a trinket to buy. That way you are scratching the itch and you’ll be better off later on.
In other words, you can have your cake and eat it too.
What does it matter if they spend the money on drugs? Their lives suck. I can hardly blame them for wanting drugs and if it makes them more comfortable for a short period of time, that is probably the best I can do for them. I’m powerless to change their situation. Even if I had the resources to house and employ such a person, I have no way to cure their mental and emotional issues that prevent them from being a stable person.
I think that is well known amongst storage experts, though maybe not everyone who might be interested in using ZFS for storage in a professional or personal application. What I’m curious about is how ZFS’s full-disk performance (what is the best term for this?) compares to btrfs, WAFL, and so on. Is ZFS abnormally sensitive to this condition, or is it a normal property?
In any case it doesn’t stick out to me as a problem that needs to be fixed. You can’t fill a propane tank to 100% either.
Pre-holed jeans for instance are basically a way to make the garment more interesting and show some skin. Clothing is as much for self-decoration to attract mates as it is for protection from the environment. All it says to me is that we are apes.
What surprises me is that I don’t see any comments here from people lamenting that their business will be negatively affected by this. Surely there are founders or engineers on HN involved with companies that will lose profit if they allow their customers to cancel their services.
You will probably find that your corporate TLS MitM proxy excludes financial institutions so that employees can do their banking without any doubt that their own company would respect the confidentiality of their finances. If not, your cybersecurity team needs some help.
What we need is a mechanism to terminate these entities, in the same way that chemotherapy eliminates fast-dividing cancer cells that have lost their ability to self-terminate.