Yeah...if it's about suppressing revolutions then it's a bit weird the FCC is letting a lot of people run around breaking the encryption and bitrate regulations.
A newspaper in Spokane is also not going to be covered by GDPR unless that actively target people in the EU. If a few people in the EU happen to wander over to your website, that's not enough to make you subject to GDPR.
And pay $70 for the privilege of having access to 35 videos, of which only 15 exist at the moment. OP is going to make 35 videos about procrastination? Alllllrightythen.
Something something suckers, money, parted, soon, etc.
OP has provided zero information in their post or even on their site about who they are and what their qualifications are. Which means they don't have any qualifications.
Is there literally any moderation of the front page, or can any rando submit "ShowHN" posts that are basically spam for a scam?
OP is going to make those videos, because OP (+ co-founder) spent the past few years scouring procrastination books, studies, etc to find something that could be helpful in everyday life.
I found what helped me, started talking to others 1-on-1, found out what helped them, and put it into a book, and then a course (videos + code). That's the qualification. It's not like I have a degree in procrastination, though some people claim to have such a thing.
Not sure where the scam part is. By all means, don't buy anything, or read any of the 50 articles on various procrastination causes on our blog. Probably not for you.
"Leadership" (ie officers) serve at the pleasure of the board, who are elected by shareholders.
Facebook intentionally focuses attention on Zuckerberg. "By all means, pump out memes about Android Zuck. Pay no attention to the inherent evil in our business model that cannot be fixed without destroying the company, or the shareholders behind the curtain who will keep right on pushing that business model because it makes them piles of cash."
That's where the attention belongs, Zuckerberg has controlling interest[1]:
> According to an estimate from CNBC last year, that means Zuckerberg and insiders control about 70 percent of Facebook’s voting shares, with Zuckerberg controlling about 60 percent. So whatever shareholders are voting on, Zuckerberg and those closest to him get to have the final say.
So the rest of the "leadership" are effectively Zuckerberg's proxies. Absolutely nothing Facebook does is beyond his control.
If you have more people trying to sell your stock than want to buy it, it doesn't matter how much controlling interest there is. The board has to keep the market happy.
The market doesn't care about user privacy or ethics. The market only cares about making more money than was made before. They only care if the source of data (us) get so fed up we stop giving them our data.
With Zuckerberg controlling 60% of the votes (and thus able to remove any of them unilaterally), the board has exactly one person they need to keep happy.
Zuckerberg could decide tomorrow that Facebook should be converted into a christian singles dating site, share price be damned, and the board would comply or they would be replaced.
I think there is a bit of a disconnect recently with how people think companies "should" be governed and how they actual are these days.
The tech boom has put, at various points, incredible power in the founders hands to dictate the terms of how corporate governance works. In the case of Facebook, Zuckerberg has controlling interest in the company. He can overrule shareholders and the board via his special class of shares.
An even more egregious example is Snap (NYSE: SNAP) - shareholders who purchase common shares of Snap don't even having voting rights at all. Between Evan + Bobby - they have 90% control of the shares. Even if you buy 100% of the available shares, you cannot even vote on company governance - let alone have any sort of control over the business.
These stock arrangements are pretty surreal. Buying shares in SNAP gives you zero say the operation of the company, but they make up for this by also giving you zero dividends. I'm not sure what the point is in owning the shares at all, it feels like the only value in owning the shares is that you might find another sucker willing to pay even more for them in the future.
> For Arch it means software does not crash because bugs get fixed in newer versions.
....what. That is not how OS stability works.
Also, Arch is nearly impossible to use in production environments.
Let's say there is a vulnerability discovered in the version of lighttpd you're running in your production environment. On Debian, you pull that package, do some testing, and you're done.
On Arch? It's a rolling release distro. They're continuously updating everything, including system libraries. You can easily end up in a situation where getting a security bugfix means you have to update nearly the entire OS thanks to it being built against updated core system libraries.
Like Gentoo it's one of those OSs that is cool for linux nerds and a headache for people who actually need to practice proper systems engineering.
As someone who used Gentoo for over a decade, including in production environments - I disagree.
Its a falsehood pushed by old 80's thinking. It sounds nice, in theory.
In practice, what you often get are bugfix patches blindly applied to older codebases, oftentimes by people (distro maintainers) who are not very familiar with the codebase. As long as the patch applies, and it passes various tests.
Remember, most OSS projects - including some critical ones - do not have large teams of devs able to maintain multiple codelines in tandem. Usually, the dev(s) just work on the latest, and pay only cursory attention to applying security bugfixes to older versions.
After all, how is an OSS dev for proj X meant to know (or even give a damn for) which distro arbitrarily decided which older version is somehow the SECURE and BLESSED one.
The dev in question probably moved on from that version months (and in regard to Debian, probably YEARS) ago.
So in theory, what you said sounds right. In practice, no.
Production case study: ChromeOS is based on Gentoo.
I've also known a couple shops that run Gentoo as their distribution. Usually a central binary package host / build machine which makes it very easy to have a set of staging hosts. Just test package releases like normal before migrating them to prod.
Gentoo is perfect for proper systems engineering: Create a profile, and then manage what goes into it, in exactly the same way as you describe on Debian.
Just because it often works doesn't mean it's a good idea. Updating a single package is officially unsupported [0] and it's burned me personally on a number of occasions.
weel it's a bad idea unless you update just one package that doesn't have too many shared dependencies, things gets complicated with shared dependencies across their packages, so that's why it's better to run the full -Syu of course not automated but when you know what you are upgrading and possible manual interventions (if any) or caveats that you might have with the changes.
> Like Gentoo it's one of those OSs that is cool for linux nerds and a headache for people who actually need to practice proper systems engineering.
Fear not. As GKE is running on Container-Optimized OS which is based on Chromium OS which itself is based on Gentoo, you can safely practice proper systems engineering within the container environment :)
> Louis would be first to tell you that it is all related.
Would he, though? He seems more than happy that people think Apple seized a bunch of parts shipments because they don't "like" that he does repairs, as redditors are oft to repeat.
The real reason they seized the shipment of batteries was because he bought from a manufacturer who copied the battery packaging, right down to the Apple logos. The manufacturer passed them off as OEM parts and Rossman was happy to do the same.
Meanwhile iFixit doesn't sell new parts with Apple logos on them and somehow Apple has never even glanced at them...and they very, very clearly help more people actually repair their Apple shit by means of their very well written and illustrated guides.
I like him pushing on the R2R movement but the man is almost pathologically narcissistic and sometimes borders on con-man. He's like the RMS of R2R.
I resent that I have to spend a magnitude more effort to refute your misinformation than it took you to write.
You are conflating the person whose shipment was seized, Henrik Huseby in Norway, with the person reporting on the story, Louis Rossmann (two "n"). The full story is that Rossmann initially believed that the parts were refurbished, so of course they would bear the Apple logo. When new information came later to light that the parts that Huseby bought from ShenZhen Excellent E-Commerce Co. Ltd. (DBA jacktele.com) were counterfeit, then Rossmann made not one, not two, but five follow-up videos to correct himself and present the new information. That is because he actually cares about being truthful. Chronological order:
I keep trying to like this site and I just can't get past how bad the moderation of submissions is.
Stuff is endlessly re-posted even in the same day, and with the most uninformative clickbait-y titles that seem purposefully structured to make you go "...okay, and what exactly is Fruutluup, which apparently just hit version 3.0?" Due to fear of missing out on something cool/interesting, you click on it. Because the submitter knows damn well that if you knew Fruutluup was a MOD tracker written in Scheme, you wouldn't give two shits about it.
The vast majority of posts here are either reposts, fall firmly into the category of "less than a hundred people give a shit about this", "yet another implementation of ____ but in some programming language nobody uses", the ever-popular "nerd getting all philosophical", or some random subject where the post is just the means to an end, letting HN commenters engage in extensive navel-gazing and "intellectual .
A great example of the latter would be a recent submission about agriculture where the author of the news story noticed the traffic and jumped into the comments to ask "uhh, this is a computer tech site, right? How are so many of you qualified to discuss this subject?" and she got absolutely hammered by HN neckbeards going "well ACKSHUALLY, we're programmers and that means we're VERY intellectual people. And some of us are autistic, even. Thos people are EXTRA qualified to talk about shit we just googled an hour ago."
It's a shame your 'great example' has to deliberately misquote and mischaracterise the interaction.
The author asks "isn’t this a tech/VC blog? How is it that so many of you are so interested in and knowledgeable about agriculture?"
She asked why people were interested and were so knowledgable about a subject she didn't expect to appeal to this crowd. People explain the premise of HN and she then asks for other things this readership might be interested in. She didn't get hammered; she asked a question and got a number of honest, personal responses.
Not every website has to appeal to every person. The people who enjoy things that are presented here enjoy them. The people that don't are welcome to find a community that works for them.
Me too. I love when people link random blog posts written by grad students and people in industry who are writing for a very specific audience, or even just for themselves.
If there's an article I don't care about, I don't click on it. There are 29 other things to choose from on the front page.
I'm feeling the opposite, I've read many interesting articles about very diverse subjects through HN, and am often impressed by the quality of the accompanying comments.
If you don't find most of the content here interesting, then go to a different website because clearly the community here disagrees.
Maybe you could try reddit, and then just subscribe to the subreddits about topics you care about? Redditors may not have a great reputation, but the the niche subreddits have nice communities in my experience.
While I agree with the contents of your message - that the titles of the submissions should be more informative - I don't believe it is the job of moderators to do that, but the submitters themselves.
Absolute numbers mean very little BTW. Recently some (but not all!) of the most interesting articles are those that are flagged or mysteriously disappear from the front page.
> I've been thinking about that recently, and was wondering if not accepting a job in """bad""" industries (bad is a gross oversimplification here covering things like oil, gas, tobacco, weapons, these kind of things) is in fact running away from your duty. If you don't take a job in these industries, other people will, and these people may be worse than you
One employee can not have even the slightest influence over the world's largest tech firm, even ignoring that it's publicly traded thus institutional investors are the only people steering the ship. Or ignoring that Brin and Page's research was heavily funded by the CIA and NSA as part of a program specifically designed to encourage silicon valley to develop technology and services to make it easier for them to track social connections between people.
This is a bit like going to work at an oil refinery because you think it'll help climate change. Or working for Marlboro's marketing department thinking you'll help them stop marketing to children.
Even top corporate leadership doesn't really get to steer the ship. It's investors - in publicly traded companies, typically institutional investors, mostly funds. Any sort of corporate "listen to the employees" initiatives are just window dressing; a tap at the bottom of the tank of "employee rabble-rousing."
Just to finish driving home how little impact any worker could have on companies of this size: do you know how Walmart reacts to a store that looks like it's about to successfully unionize despite their union-busting efforts? They turn off the lights and leave.
Now consider that Walmart's goal is to undercut all the small businesses in a community, driving them into the ground. Shutting down an established store leaves a huge vacuum. Walmart is capable of destroying communities at the multi-county level and they do not care.
