Hear, hear. Go back far enough and it's stolen land, insofar as any land can be owned. Entitled folks ranting about "their" property is kinda gross. You were granted that right by society, through ancestral collective agreements and cooperation wrt currency, labour, etc - not some divine right, privilege, or "hard work". Many times, killing or threatening people was how it was acquired not too long ago - and it's not too late for that to happen again (see Ukraine).
There are other ways to organize land-property rights. i.e. leased for some lifetime period, to be returned to the commons thereafter. There is only so much on this planet, and the richest individuals/corporations will gobble it up before too long; then what?
It seems that so many here think they're above being manipulated by advertising. Don't trust your brain - it's soft and malleable.
> Vulnerable people do and always will exist.
Hear! Hear! Not to mention that children are even more susceptible than adults, and they do not get a choice in their exposure to advertising. There's so much "think of the children" talk to justify intrusions into privacy, but little to be heard (in North America) of exposing them to manipulative marketing tactics _specifically_ designed to wiggle their way into young and adult brains, alike.
I'm strongly in favour of protecting ourselves from advertising in publicly visible areas. Fill it with nature and beautiful things (i.e. art). It's our world, and nobody has a right to our attention.
> It seems that so many here think they're above being manipulated by advertising. Don't trust your brain - it's soft and malleable.
It seems that you think that banning some ads will make any difference. Ads are really poor at actually convincing you to do anything in the first place. We had to employ multitude of media formats to reduce smoking... and even then, it's not at 0 today.
You will not want to go to McDonalds, just because you saw an ad for it. You first will have to find it acceptable to go to a fast food restaurant, which is shaped by culture. Then the ad may result in you choosing to go to McDonalds.... but at that point you've already chosen to go to a fast food restaurant.
If advertising has so little effect on our behavior as you suppose, surely there can be little harm done by forbidding billboards, as this would force the companies who purchase those ads to save money they are currently wasting.
People will always want free things; that's nothing new! Especially on an Internet that was born free (aside from the cost to connect).
The average "Reddit" business is pretty odd; they want:
* Paying subscribers _and_ advertising revenue
* Free content: posts & comments
* Free moderation: voting & ToS enforcement
* The ability to monopolize said content
* Contributors to continue to pour millions of man-hours to make content for the site and never ask for anything like ad-free viewing, an enjoyable user-experience, tooling, etc.
Social platforms present a difficult balance between the users, contributors, moderators, and business - all within a very hostile internet (in terms of security, spam, etc).
For payment to happen, users do demand significant value to be parted from their $. In Reddit's case, the 3rd party apps are strongly desired because the 1st party app does not meet their needs (users _pay_ for these apps!). Reddit doesn't want to compete on UX, as they're demonstrably bad at it; partially due to lack of skill and due to mismatched incentives.
It seems like they incorrectly assume that they own the community, rather than the other way around. Reddit's primary value is in the content they are _given_ in exchange for hosting & tools - both of which are have significant downward cost pressure (which _should_ trend towards free, given a large enough community).
Reddit is trying to switch their customers from users to advertisers in order to make a profit, which is difficult after years of _generally_ serving users. It is bait and switch at it's finest and most egregious.
The media is reporting what scientists are saying, who thoroughly consider all angles. You don't see it mentioned because it's a hypothesis that was rejected (long ago), with reason.
Hint: The _rate of change_ is critical. Past climate shifts that happened in short order, lead to mass extinction events (like we're participating in now).
If you're truly "really curious" and "not trolling", there's a wealth of information at your fingertips!
> Optimizing for a pretty looking git history is probably the most foolish thing to focus on
It's not about "pretty"; commits are a form of _communication_. Do we send emails without editing before hitting send? It's a means to optimize for easier reviews through better comprehension of the changes, which also leads to faster reviews. Our colleagues don't want to read a bunch of intermediate commits.
> If you are doing anything that involves rewriting the history you are doing it wrong.
> It's not about "pretty"; commits are a form of _communication_. Do we send emails without editing before hitting send?
Writing clear, atomic commits is a good idea regardless of whether you use rebase or not.
In your email analogy, rebasing would be altering previous messages in the chain. That doesn't make rebasing look good!
> > If you are doing anything that involves rewriting the history you are doing it wrong.
> Care to elaborate? What's your general strategy?
Not the parent, but to me the most important part of VCS history is accuracy. Rebasing commits (or cherry-picking them) changes their context; that context can be important for understanding why things were done in a certain way. For example, imagine we're digging through the following history, to understand how some feature 'bar' works:
* Add workaround for Error(foo) in feature bar
|
* Implement feature bar
|
* Bump dependency baz to eliminate Error(foo)
Why was a workaround for Error(foo) added, if that error had already been eliminated? Did that dependency change not work? Is there some more permanent way to eliminate Error(foo)? Is the workaround still needed?
Compare that to the following, more accurate history:
* Merge
|\
| * Add workaround for Error(foo) in feature bar
| |
| * Implement feature bar
* | Bump dependency baz to eliminate Error(foo)
| /
|/
Here it's much clearer what's going on: the dependency change was not in place when that workaround was added. Hence the workaround shouldn't be needed anymore. Rebasing the 'feature bar' changes on to the 'dependency baz' changes throws away that information.
As always, it depends. Especially for large PRs, I will go through the effort of rebasing to help the code reviewer so they can view key commits rather than a mile long scroll-fest on the GH "Files Changed" tab. It's about being a good co-worker and facilitating faster reviews.
Yep. Interesting times ahead of us:) How we will be able to tell the difference?
QR Code/Genetic sample government approved app for human verification?
And what when people are certain that the machines are better in everything, who will want to chat, listen to music or watch paintings from the "lame" humans, when the robots will be the ultimate solution for every human need?
As the tech stands today, mediocre artists, designers, writers and content creators are likely going to be replaced entirely with AI.
I imagine it would make it very easy to “seed” a website or a platform with initial “users” and content.
I also imagine it will be (and likely is already) being deployed to create the impression of popular support (or lack thereof) of a politician, business or policy.
There are other ways to organize land-property rights. i.e. leased for some lifetime period, to be returned to the commons thereafter. There is only so much on this planet, and the richest individuals/corporations will gobble it up before too long; then what?