With the erosion of the W3C as a standard body, ongoing IP lawsuits and closed source/specs, some day the browser lockin may become real and slowly manifest all around us.
Compare that scenario to the nowaday advertising popup and thank <pasta> that the market hasn't been taken over and the numb masses haven't adopted it yet.
It feels weird to write this, but somehow i am glad.
When you consider fakes just as the symptom of cognitive deficiencies and all you do is label these stories as why and where they are wrong, your impression of a doomed attempt seems quite understandable to me.
It would be much more helpful to explain and teach by example the underlying cognitive mechanism that tricked you in the first place.
An example. Alot of climate change "sceptics" repeat over and over again, that CO2 is just ~2% of earth atmosphere (doesn't matter if the number is correct or not) and they conclude that therefore CO2's effect on the climate is neglectable. This is wrong reasoning, you got tricked by a small number, but it appears right for a superficial look. (Following this logic, cyanide would be harmless too.)
The over and over (and over and over and over) repetition of that aspect is like a chain reaction you can only effectively stop by halting the underlying process. Otherwise some else fake news get spread next iteration.
>Inconsistencies and contradictions are found as much in science as they are found in religion.
I dont think its "as much" but anyway, science works to resolve these tensions, regardles of personal believes.
You had to reach for the edges of scientific progress to come up with these examples, whereas i was speaking of the foundation of religion.
Aply the verification approach to religion and you will see many inconsistencies and contradictions. I believe no major religion would widthstand a scrutinizing critical look.
This sceptical approach down to the core is fatal for religions, thus discouraged, thus dogmatic.
Science is hard to reproduce, true, but it is non the less encouraged.
>it's much better for people to believe in Jesus than the Kardashians
The problem is not what you believe in but how you do. Religion is by definition dogmatic and in a sociatal context very well suited to create/base a self image on. Its a nice layer 8 intrusion vector.
To be fair, there can be dogmatic kardashian fans but its much more unlikely. Just consider the short news lifespan of this celeb world.
>If it's not as simple as containers, it's not going to replace them.
Nix is more (or less) than a container. It depends, what you are targeting with your nix-project. You can either build a minimal NixOS, that has only a kernel, the minimum required user land and your project and its dependencies.
Or build a stand alone docker (etc.) image and spin it up.
Or you can use the nix shell to replicate just the dependencies of your project in that sub shell for other developers or testing.
I just recently saw a convincing video about nix, comparing it to docker.
Compare that scenario to the nowaday advertising popup and thank <pasta> that the market hasn't been taken over and the numb masses haven't adopted it yet.
It feels weird to write this, but somehow i am glad.