Someguywhatever

6 ms·

1.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
I think in China you can say whatever you want about anything, you just can't criticize the government. In the US you can criticize the government but can't say whatever you want about anything else without blowback. In China the
2.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
Apple is only a couple of Bad iPhone designs away from being irrelevant. Everything you are saying is from a shareholder perspective, Apple does not have a monopoly like Google does. So what if they have a lot of money? Wait for a downturn
3.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
That's true, but I don't think Apple has "Fuck you" money. Google definitely has that type of cash. It has near infinite recurring revenue. They don't even need to do anything with their current technology to mainta
4.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
Because google is essentially a monopoly. Almost nobody uses anything else. Because of this monopoly and all the advertising revenue, Google effectively has "infinite money" and uses it to metastasize into other areas such as maps
5.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
US is not a democracy, it's a republic AFAIK. The design philosophy behind the architechture of US Government is explicitly that it is not a democracy.
6.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
I think they are also popular in Canada. You can get various versions of the Huawei P20 through carriers here. I don't regard them as spy devices. I think it's mostly a US thing.
7.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
>They treat it as the front page of Facebook. yes, well said. I find this especially annoying. They also nag me to install or try something, and the only thing that the nag messages are achieving is making me start to hate windows....
8.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
I don't doubt that this would eventually be the case, people always learn to game the system eventually.
9.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
If this means I don't have to sit through annoying whiteboard interviews, or talk to HR bots, and all i have to do is just send them a link to my brainscan on linked in. Nice!
10.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
I think it is better-er than Java and the JVM and they have stewarded their language much better than Java, and now Java borrows heavily from C#. I think they will win in the long run if they haven't "won" already.
11.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
I don't think the poster you're replying to had that in mind. I think it was more a case of 'you catch more bees with honey' rather than draw the guy's ire unnecessarily, just make a law that does X to help people r
12.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
Why is the democratic decision to leave not an "adult" decision? To conduct the referendum and then not abide by the result would absolutely be undemocratic. The UK is already dragging it's heels on taking action WRT Brexit I
13.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
This is me with my tinfoil hat on, but I think the real reason behind the push to get women into tech is to drive down wages by growing the labor pool. That's the real reason IMO that big companies and others are pushing so hard for wo
14.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
>one of the women in the article referenced a boss commenting about her breasts This is not a problem that's unique to STEM or CS or anything like that though. >another talked about being encouraged to drop out so a more deservin
15.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
I don't think you can honestly argue that there is as significant an effort to get men into Nursing as there is to get women into programming.
16.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
>to the difficulties they had getting/staying in the field despite having a strong desire to be there/here Why isn't it ok that they just aren't interested in it? Women have agency and intelligence and if they want to
17.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
I think the main point is not to get bogged down in whether or not phone books are this or that, or how legacy media relates to the internet era etc. The point i'm making is not : "Do you sympathize with 'bad guys'?&quot
18.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
>People blocked on Twitter are free to host their own websites with their own speech. On paper this is true, but network effects mean you won't be able to interact with the general public UNLESS the general public also moves to your
19.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
Example: You can't shut off somebody's electricity or water because they are a bad person, or have expressed unorthodox opinions. But you can shut off their twitter, their email, their web search, their facebook, their linked-in,
20.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
Probably because it helps people? If it is useful in helping people to not harm themselves and others then I don't see anything wrong with that.
21.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
I suppose the exception could be rare earth metals, asteroids which contain them in sufficient quantities might be worth going after.
22.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
This is when the government had a vision and the nation had a collective aspiration. Now we can't even imagine such a thing. Politicians have no vision and there is no collective aspiration or national goal. Politicians get elected so
23.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
Network effects really, that and name familiarity possibly?
24.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
Nobody would administer a loan for $500 though, the juice isn't worth the squeeze for financial institutions
25.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
The law is written assuming that it won't be abused even despite it being ripe for abuse.
26.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
Well you could make it a ratio of: [your income]/[maxincome] * [MaxFinancialAid] But then you would end up with situations where people can borrow $500 which is useless. So they just allow it up to 150k and then make it a hard cut off
27.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
>That would be true for any company once their core set of products go out of trend without replacements. Why would any company allow it's products and services to age out of the market? How would any other company survive such a th
28.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
Yes this is very true, and most people procuring IT services in Gov't probably don't understand what they're asking for. They think a static web page costs a lot of money or is difficult to implement because they're tech
29.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
IBM are really masters at managing their share price, with buybacks and strategic announcements (like Watson), ultimately they still only make mainframes and support legacy products mostly. Nobody really uses their second-rate cloud. So mai
30.
by Someguywhatever 8y ago
No, they don't. The only reason they make money is that they have connections and in's at large organizations and access to lucrative government contracts. Many governments only deal with IBM scale organizations because for some r

More ›