Just curious, why? Performance reasons? Compatibility? Something else?
Speaking for myself, I run Linux on the desktop and Windows in a VM for office applications and so forth and it works fine. But obviously I'm not running Photoshop or gaming or anything like that (though in the case of the latter, Proton is already great and is poised to get even better)...
Ah, well, in that case what you're getting out of older technology is "externally imposed self-control". Douglas Adams' publisher famously locked him in a hotel room because he was such a chronic procrastinator. I can definitely relate!
On the first point, I agree, the article was very much misleading and I hope they correct it.
As for the rest, frankly, this just adds more fuel to my belief that the first thing we need from these companies is simply transparency. If they're running mass psychology experiments on people, we should know about it.
The idea that Facebook can operate as a black box while literally weighing how much to value individual human emotions is deeply deeply disturbing me.
> It could be that the screenwriter used to use that MS-DOS program back in the day, and already knew and liked it, had a well-developed workflow around it, etc. Then running it on DOSBox or an old machine you happen to have lying around makes perfect sense imo.
Absolutely!
But I wasn't responding to the article. I was responding to the original comment, which stated:
> There's something to be said for the focused nature of older technology.
My response and point was that this isn't somehow precluded with newer technology. That is, if what you're getting out of older technology is "focus", you can get that with newer tech without having to sacrifice other capabilities.
If what you're getting out of older technology is "familiarity" or "nostalgia" or "joy" or something similarly aesthetic, then obviously, keep on keeping on. :)
Digging up and using some old piece of technology instead of using an existing, multi-purpose computing device is the definition of "[building] his life around it", as it requires adapting your workflows to the technology instead of adapting the technology to your workflows.
> As cited in this article, Frances Haugen is arguing against allowing Facebook to use end-to-end encryption because she suggests Facebook should have more surveillance of private communications: https://twitter.com/AlecMuffett/status/1452309133928054799?s...
That's because encryption is incredibly problematic. And I say that as a huge fan of digital privacy and an avid user of Signal.
I'm not so blind as to think that perfect encryption is an unalloyed good, and in that screenshot (which, I'll point out, excludes any broader context for her remarks) Haugen touches on just one of many very legitimate problems with the technology.
Now, in the end, I think (though I'm not certain) I believe the upsides outweigh the downsides. But don't pretend as though she doesn't raise a valid concern, even if you don't agree with her conclusion.
> A lot of people jumped to the defense of the Facebook leaker because the media so successfully framed it as a “whistleblower” situation, but that’s not really what’s happening here. She’s very much an activist
All whistleblowers are activists.
Do you really think Snowden didn't have an agenda? Of course he did! His act was specifically and explicitly political.
Hell, Wikileaks has proven itself to be nakedly political.
The only reason I'm betting you don't see it that way is you happen to agree with their politics.
> some of her suggestions really do not align with what the tech community wants at all.
Don't deign to speak for me. There is no unified "tech community" on this topic, even if your echo chamber leads to to believe otherwise.
Man, there is a profound lack of self-awareness when you cite 1984 in an article defending Facebook, when Facebook is complicit in the creation of modern surveillance capitalism and the slow but inexorable shift to the digital panopticon...
Eh, you can get that distraction-free experience with modern technology if you want it. When I want to focus on writing, I have a Vim setup that gives me a screen with a cursor. I run that full screen, turn off notifications and whatnot, and get to it. And when I'm done I can go back to using my modern technology to do everything else I want with the content, whether it's formatting/typesetting, sharing, etc.
There's really no reason to sacrifice all those additional capabilities at the alter of focus or productivity. Just find ways to use modern technology more effectively.
I really wish I could see an industry/education level cross tab. Anecdotally, we're seeing a lot of churn in tech where education levels are typically quite high, but in the data in the article, if you don't break down by sector, the numbers would suggest quit rates should be lower than normal...
There's clearly a very complex dynamic going on, here, and I have a very strong suspicion that while the macro numbers say one thing, what's going on at the ground level actually varies significantly from sector to sector, geography to geography, and demographic to demographic.
Does your little observation, here, have any bearing on the article? Does it make the facts less factual? Does it make the numbers less number-y?
Hell, I tried to go back to the top-level comment to figure out what might've triggered you, but your original comment is a non sequitur as far as I can tell.
> It just gives people with bad thoughts a thing to look at.
The word "just" is doing a lot of work, here. By your line of reasoning, propaganda isn't anything anyone should worry about.
Not to go full Godwin, but the Nazi regime is an instructive analogy, here. By your reasoning, all the Nazis did was "just" promote a lot of anti-Jewish propaganda. Would you really go on to say "Blaming the Nazis for negative outcomes in the world is just like blaming violent video games. All they did was put the messages out there, then the people with the bad thoughts did the mass murder..."?
And to preempt the objection that Facebook isn't intentionally distributing material that, say, promotes ethnic violence, while Facebook corporate obviously does not have that as an official policy, their algorithm is doing precisely that, by actively promoting these types of materials. Facebook's own internal research has shown that it can and does steer individuals to increasingly extreme content.
So if we agree that a) Facebook's systems steer individuals to violent or extremist content (as proven by their own research), b) propaganda is a tool that works to steer public opinion and drive human behaviour (as proven by historical precedents like Nazi regime), c) extremist content serves as effective propaganda (which is well trod ground in research on extremism), and d) that Facebook knew all these things and failed to curtail what was going on (as now revealed in these internal documents), then I don't see how you can possibly defend Facebook, here.
Honestly, as a pedestrian and cyclist myself, wearing closed-backed, ear-obstructing, or noise cancelling headphones as a pedestrian, cyclist, or driver, is pure insanity as far as I'm concerned.
And yes, I'm looking at you, oblivious jogger who can't hear my bell as I pass on a dual-use path.
Get yourself a set of bone conducting headphones if you want to be out and active and listening to music or whatever. The technology is amazing and it's infinitely safer.
> There is a significant population of folks who are car-hostile here on HN
And there's a significant population of folks who are bike-hostile here on HN.
In fact, there's probably a significant population of folks who are X-hostile, for any value of X you can conceive of, given the size of the HN userbase.
And that's ignoring the fact that code is a terrible spec. Trying to reverse engineer a file format from a software implementation is a godawful nightmare, and I say that from personal experience.
Given the choice between that and having to figure out how 8-bit ASCII works, it's pretty clear which is the easier problem to solve.
This was actually a pretty even handed article compared to others I've seen on this topic.
It's fascinating because it sheds light on internal work Facebook is doing; work that, if they were more transparent, might have actually helped their public image.
Personally, if we're going to look at regulating big tech, the first thing I'd like to see done is plain and simple transparency. Just give researchers and policy experts access to aggregate, anonymized data, as well as visibility into policy decisions so we can understand how these massively influential companies operate.
If they're truly working to do better, as Zuck claims, then I can't see why that would be a problem. And given their enormous power, we as individuals have the right to understand how they work.
They're absolutely related. In fact, a lot of discussions around the Right to Repair specifically center on the issue of e-waste. For example, you'll find that all over Framework's website. From https://frame.work/ca/en/about :
> Consumer electronics is broken. We’ve all had the experience of a busted screen, button, or connector that can’t be fixed, battery life degrading without a path for replacement, or being unable to add more storage when full. Individually, this is irritating and requires us to make unnecessary and expensive purchases of new products to get around what should be easy problems to solve. Globally though, it’s much worse. We create over fifty million tons of e-waste each year. That’s 6 kg or 13 lb per person on earth per year, made up of our former devices. We need to improve recyclability, but the biggest impact we can make is generating less waste to begin with by making our products last longer.
Certainly, for myself, the right to repair is very much about ending the cycle of disposable products so we can create a more sustainable future.
> So having a platform deny access when it values such spirit is somewhat disagreeable.
If Android required a platform for software distribution, I might agree, but Gab can (and does) post their APK right on their website. So Gab is experiencing no curtailment of their speech rights by FDroid refusing to traffick in their speech, nor are the users experiencing any curtailment in their right to use their device, or the software, as they see fit.
You'd have more of a leg to stand on if this was about iOS and the Apple store, which doesn't allow for any kind of sideloading.
But Android? Sorry, I have no sympathy and I see no hypocrisy in FDroid's actions.
> I don't use my lawn to distribute other people's apps/signs, it's not its purpose, and I don't advertise it as such.
And I suppose somewhere FDroid advertises itself as an open, censorship-free site for app distribution with no caveats or restrictions?
If so, please, point me to your evidence.
If it's just because "but they claim to value free software", see my reply (which included ninja edits): free software != free speech. No, they are not in fact related in any way. One can be supportive of free software without being an absolutist regarding freedom of expression.
Of course, that's understandable confusion. Free (as in no cost), free (as in I can control my own systems and products), and free (as in I can speak without government censorship) are all very different uses of the word "free", and I can see how folks might get them mixed up.
Or are you now saying these rights kinda depend? If so, what's the threshold? What makes your lawn special? Does it need to be a particularly big lawn? Do you need to have control of a lot of different lawns? I'm really confused. You seemed so certain that free speech was an absolute right, and that I can force others to amplify my speech, but now here you are suggesting there may be caveats...
> Free software is not really about free speech, but usually both philosophies are held together since they are somewhat related.
According to you. I certainly don't see them as being connected whatsoever.
Maybe your real problem is you and FDroid see the purpose of open source and free software differently.
Speaking for myself, I run Linux on the desktop and Windows in a VM for office applications and so forth and it works fine. But obviously I'm not running Photoshop or gaming or anything like that (though in the case of the latter, Proton is already great and is poised to get even better)...