> You can't speak for that other person. Let them respond for themselves.
Sounds like you're more interested in competing with someone than talking about ideas.
> Would you really care about any positive stories after seeing what you saw?
...yes? Of course? I don't automatically dehumanize that hypothetical person for their deeds, whether I approve or not, or believe there should be consequences. Like, doesn't Facebook collaborate with law enforcement in tracking down predators and scammers and the like? It's not as simple as "bad. go away."
You should remember enough to make a proper argument, dude. A solid conclusion needs solid support.
> At this point, I don't even feel obligated to remember it all -- I can trust myself enough. We do that with "evil" people in our lives, too. We don't remember every dirty detail. We remember that there were a bunch of things, and that overall, we had it at some point. I save the conclusion and the checksums and that's enough.
> If you think I'm operating on a premise, instead of having come to a conclusion, how is that not you operating on a premise?
A mental conclusion can be a discussion premise. It doesn't invalidate your conclusion to say it should be a conclusion not a premise, because you're asserting a premise in a discussion which you are not (yet) supporting.
Also consider that you have seen eleven years of data points and experiences from the point of view of a small subset of users; there could perhaps be an equivalent cache of positive datapoints which tend to be significantly less interesting to report on.
Thus, supporting your point with concrete examples is how you contribute to a discussion, because then you and any adversaries can challenge you on the merits of your argument.
That's what the conclusion/premise separation is about.
At the time I was super enthusiastic to try out (many years ago at this point), it wasn't open source so I decided to wait it out.
Later, I decided to try it out again, but I had to choose between Phobos and Tango. I didn't have time to evaluate them so I bought a book on Tango. I shelved it because it seemed like a lot of stuff was still changing.
When I tried again a couple of years later I wasn't sure whether to use DMD, GDC, or LDC. I didn't have the time to evaluate the compiler implementations, I just wanted to poke at it and try it out, and wanted to look at a bunch of examples before I jumped in. Three compilers made it a pain in the butt so I put it on the backburner and forgot to ever come back.
At this point D had asked too much of me to figure out how I wanted to use it, three times over, and I wasn't about to commit myself to researching the implementations instead of just hacking so I abandoned D despite initially falling in love with it. By that point, other good native C++ alternatives had matured - Go, Rust, and Swift – for different use cases.
After giving it three shots to give me a simple and consistent development experience I'll probably never try D again.
Meanwhile, Rust has one compiler and I have multiple choices of IDEs which all support the toolchain - I just set it and go and it tends to do just what I want because all that common surface area in the Rust community gets improved for everyone.
D is a great language hampered by a depressingly frustrating developer experience, and as such until that changes it is deeply hurting its own competitiveness with everyone who isn't committed to using it and making it work for them right off the bat (many many people).
I also know one FAANG company that invested in D is seeing a very noticeable shift towards Rust instead.
Because large companies give the promos as trailing indicators of performance, meaning that to be promoted requires an acknowledgment of prior sustained performance at that level. Entitlement to the level is actually accurate and above board.
It can and has been done multiple times in the past - AsyncDisplayKit -> Texture is the one that immediately comes to mind as it happened after open-sourcing.
The friends-of-friends change happened in 2014. Cambridge Analytica's method stopped working back then as apps could no longer acquire permission to query friends of friends.
Assuming he's the same person as back then but hides it better, do you think that his true self thinking people are dumb to give an unknown and untrusted online service their information extremely freely is wrong? Or just an asshole at the time?
Point is, as much as it might color his character, so does his observable conduct in all the years since. Reiterating: with context (would appreciate if you don't forget I'm not disregarding it and talk past me) - it really doesn't give much context, though it's an amazingly compelling soundbite.
Raw, unfiltered me fifteen years ago was probably a misogynistic "nice guy" on a regular basis. Raw unfiltered me right now is all for feminism and social justice, and hates the shit out of that guy I was fifteen years ago.
If the worst quote attributed to him shows him calling people dumb for throwing their personal info at someone they have no reason to trust...that's not a very strong indictment of his character. And even though it's reasonably bad, there's no way fourteen years of responsibility won't change people.
The idiot who said "dumb fucks" is an entirely alien person to the person now. And the quote calling people dumb for giving some online rando their personal data doesn't exactly demonstrate a conclusive disregard for the value of that data. If anything, it's an insult to people's intelligence because they should care more.
It doesn't make him a hero, but doesn't make him a villain, either.
Won't happen. It's a dev board, not a computer like you'd purchase. If you come in expecting a computer instead of a sort-of-not-broken work in progress, you're setting yourself up for regret.
I've been one of those people. Sending money home to parents who were barely holding on to their home, and with health conditions that insurance terminated coverage for, combined with rent getting jacked up, a $4000 emergency room bill I couldn't even pay, and my own health issues creating a vicious cycle of lower productivity, more stress, worse health.
This isn't even an uncommon occurrence. I had coworkers (at one of the big 5) who were making pretty decent money who were still in the hole for similar reasons.
Sounds like you're more interested in competing with someone than talking about ideas.
> Would you really care about any positive stories after seeing what you saw?
...yes? Of course? I don't automatically dehumanize that hypothetical person for their deeds, whether I approve or not, or believe there should be consequences. Like, doesn't Facebook collaborate with law enforcement in tracking down predators and scammers and the like? It's not as simple as "bad. go away."
You should remember enough to make a proper argument, dude. A solid conclusion needs solid support.