I pasted the current top comment for you since you seem to be having trouble finding it or reading it:
>When I was at IBM 15 years ago, IBM was far from being a monopoly, since there were plenty of competitors in the hardware space (HP, Sun, Dell, etc) and in the software space (Oracle, SAP, etc.) and in the Services space (Accenture, PwC, KPMG, etc.) employees still had to complete annual legal training that was very similar to what was described in the post.
>Any large company with half-way competent legal counsel is going to tell their employees not to say, "our goal is to crush our competitors, dominate the market, and hear the lamentation of their women." Instead they will tell their employees to focus on making life better for their customers. It's a much healthier way for product managers to focus, and what you might do if the goal is "crush/dominate the competition" is not the same than if the goal is delight the customer. So it's not just a messaging strategy to prevent embarassing e-mails from coming out at trial; it's a business strategy, too.
Yeah it's definitely facebook that's the problem, as opposed to Google, Amazon, and payment processors. Definitely if I'm looking for a monopoly, my top concern is making sure people on the internet can chat without that familiar old household name "whatsapp."
The title is "Do Developers Discover New Tools On The Toilet?" but an overbearing mod changed it because he thinks he's Etiquette Secretary of the Internet, and probably also so he can plausibly pretend this isn't a website dedicated to Alphabet's PR.
In terms of giving people a reason for skepticism, simply telling the truth (for once) is a drop in the pan compared to all the bald-faced, dishonest, say-anything "activism" performed by various groups (e.g. the entire neoliberal media establishment) pertaining to global warming.
I think climate change is a serious issue and a threat to the species, just by the way.
Wow what a paragon of truth and levelheaded reason, posting some propaganda article that any dumbass can poke holes in and which every dumbass has poked holes in. I love society now, and all of its earnest regard for public discourse and truth instead of just commies, who think they know whats best for everyone, marketing their worldview at any cost.
The problem with the "abstract" keyword is it's more normative than descriptive. If there's not an actual useful abstraction involved, and/or if the abstract class doesn't actually represent a more abstracted generalization of a mental category, it's just code re-use.
What an unexpected and wholly unforeseen consequence of backdooring domestic technology while pretending to the opposite.
Let's hear it, IC apologists: Get your mob of astroturfers out her to tell us why this is a specious concern.
Wow since you're so concerned and helpful, here's a tidbit: Everyone who has tried to run a personal mail server in past five years can't because of gmail.
Sometimes people have "bias" due to experience with reality, but definitely any result you dislike should be repeated again and again. It's obviously a big problem for science when reality is coherent.
Yeah there's so much nuance involved in figuring out whether a handful of giant corporations should be permitted to summarily remove a streamer from all social media because they dislike his political position. I like the part where the one giant walking hotpocket described how he's saving lives by discretionarily removing interpretable expression from public view.
Seriously, what a joke. This is how the internet turns into another extension of the ridiculous, culturally oppressive "entertainment" industry we were all trying to get away from. The fact these people want these jobs should disqualify them from having the jobs.
Probably because it's rapidly becoming the quintessentially evil corporation, and there's a correlation between not having a problem with that and being a ding-bat who belongs in a cult.
edit: I mean it. I'm a programmer and I would not work at Google. It would not matter what their offer was. In my eyes, people who work at Google are hurting their prestige as opposed to helping it.
>When I was at IBM 15 years ago, IBM was far from being a monopoly, since there were plenty of competitors in the hardware space (HP, Sun, Dell, etc) and in the software space (Oracle, SAP, etc.) and in the Services space (Accenture, PwC, KPMG, etc.) employees still had to complete annual legal training that was very similar to what was described in the post.
>Any large company with half-way competent legal counsel is going to tell their employees not to say, "our goal is to crush our competitors, dominate the market, and hear the lamentation of their women." Instead they will tell their employees to focus on making life better for their customers. It's a much healthier way for product managers to focus, and what you might do if the goal is "crush/dominate the competition" is not the same than if the goal is delight the customer. So it's not just a messaging strategy to prevent embarassing e-mails from coming out at trial; it's a business strategy, too.
Hope this helps.