> Wayland was designed exclusively i3 style compositors
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool i3 (now sway) user. I don't even use floating windows. Wayland has still been an awful experience, broke a bunch of workflows for me
In 2008, I remember playing starcraft over LAN with my roommate. It played better on Wine/Ubuntu than it did on his Vista machine (and unrelatedly but hilariously, in the middle of the game his computer gave him a countdown to reboot with no option to cancel it)
Ah appreciated, that is indeed exactly what I was asking about!
Now I'm left wondering why enforcement was supposedly so hard. Seems like shooting fish in a barrel, especially given that some very large websites were in clear violation of this article
I may be missing something, but I don't see how this clearly precludes that behavior.
Which descriptor do you think is unambiguously violated by making it easier to provide consent than withhold it? To my eyes, both 'freely' and 'informed' are plausibly upheld.
It would be very straightforward to specify that consent and withholding must be equally accessible in the interface, instead of splitting hairs about definitions of "freely given". This is what people refer to when they say the law is poorly written
> These things happened at SoMa, which is objectively known to be a "nicer" neighborhood.
What? After the Tenderloin, SoMA is absolutely the worst neighborhood for interactions with crazy people. What on Earth gave you the impression that it's "objectively known to be nice"? IMO it's the single worst neighborhood in the city; at least the Tenderloin has history and some great commerce.
First-order, yes: Redistributive policies don't have the sum of the country's wealth as their primary optimization objective. Arguably, their goal is closer (but not quite) to the sum of national utility, which follows from diminishing marginal utility.
That being said, there are also claimed and real second-order effects of policies whose first-order economic effect is deadweight-loss. The entirety of government fits this description! To use the most trite and least controversial example, confiscating resources to build roads is redistribution from heavier taxpayers to heavier road users (incl downstream beneficiaries), but the second-order effects of a functional transportation are enough that we don't consider it to "make the country as a whole poorer"
> Having an open pro-information stance is all well and good, but when it is obvious that the people sending you information are doing so according to their own timetable, you have to take a higher stance. This is where journalistic ethics come into play
I think this is a well-articulated representation of a specific (and much more common) journalistic ethos, but he quite explicitly holds a different ethos that is much more radical about transparency.
Plus, this answers the opposite of my question: I asked how GP comment supports his claim that Assange's is "selectively truthful", and you responded by saying that he's not selective enough!
GP could have made an argument like the one you made, disputing the very foundations of Assange's open-information philosophy. What piqued my curiosity was his novel claim of unprincipled selectivity, and I charitably wanted to avoid the assumption that his comment was simply word-salad covering up a politically-motivated dislike of WL.
Sure, I don't think either this[1] commenter or Ken Thompson were trying to say that the product category shouldn't exist. A computer is vastly overpowered for what the average user is capable of or interested in doing[2], which is why toy devices like iPads are so popular.
I interpreted both of their comments as claiming that the direction MacOS is taking is a poor fit for those who still get value from powerful, general-purpose computers (myself very much included! I occasionally have the misfortune of using Macs, but am much much happier on systems where I can dig as deep into its layers as I need to solve my problems or scratch my itches)
[2] Though I do think it's a minor tragedy that the increasing amount of guardrails has narrowed the opportunity for an inquisitive youngster to explore his computer's internals
I may be missing context here, but you're referring to the fact that they leaked the Russian-state-hacked DNC emails, right? Could you elaborate on why you think it's "selective" to have leaked those?
Otherwise, it seems like you're saying "they're bad [via an unsupported claim like 'selectively truthful'] because they hurt my $politicalside"
Agreed about background music, but I definitely spend time listening to music and doing nothing else, and the medium feels active to me in a way that television doesn't.
On the other hand, I've been a musician since I was three, so perhaps the way I'm processing music is different from normal. One facet might be that I usually don't find myself focusing much on lyrics (if any), which means it ends up as a semi-meditative activity in a way that TV can't.
Likewise, I don't have any illusions about medium fully defining the quality of content: eg reading 50 Shades of Grey isn't more rewarding or meaningful than watching The Wire.
But apples-to-apples, watching video is the only common activity that feels maximally passive.
I guess with the exception of listening to music? Not sure how this fits in
Hospitals and the medical system in general are always the last to get a memo about health. I wouldn't touch a good chunk of hospital meals with a ten-foot pole even when I'm in perfect health; the fact that any hospital is feeding patients shit like this[1][2][many such examples] borders on malpractice.
This definition easily encompasses the people who post their kids' lives for no monetary gain,which is the vast majority of social media users. A lot of the people in their 20s who share every detail of their life on social media continue to do so once they have kids.
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool i3 (now sway) user. I don't even use floating windows. Wayland has still been an awful experience, broke a bunch of workflows for me