If you assume that every hoster is reading your mails, then moving them to China would give you the advantage, that your content and your meta data are not relevant to your new Chinese hoster, so ad targeting etc. would be gone, because you probably don't check Chinese sites frequently
Politics. People use whatever they can to take each other down at that level. Which is why they get paid so much. For their mindless ambition and to put up with each others mindless ambition.
God help you if you are building enterprise software that requires that audio stack across a hundred different sound cards. Never had any such problem on Windows.
What is the point of this comment? Are you really disputing the idea that small acts of connection are meaningful (especially to lonely people)? This idea seems very noncontroversial to me.
So you think the like counts don't have negative effects on people's beliefs and behaviours? Please read Nudge by Richard Thaler to understand how easily misguided the herd is when following the wrong signals.
Adults in my book are those you automatically/instinctively turn to when life throws you in the deep sea. It's not really about age but what they have gone through in life.
They are the folk who have not just survived the deep sea, but come out the other side with minimum damage.
These people exist just like people who have summited mountains exist. You can't fake that shit. And you'll automatically know them when you see them.
Indeed, I always found summitting mountains as some kind of a hubris activity. I am like "okay, that's really interesting but that's ONE achievement requiring moderate amounts of effort and one-time investment so don't count me very impressed".
I mean, I am not judging people for doing it. Not at all. It's a good way to get to know oneself better!
Being an adult however is a battle you have every day.
Once upon a time the network, storage and data center guys thought Facebook/YouTubes one to many broadcasting of content would never scale too.
Now they fall over themselves to work there.
They scaled by making a huge investment in their network. They didn't make a fundamental new technical discovery that didn't exist before.
They had money, they threw money at the problem, as expected it worked. The problem was an investment (which takes time), not technical.
His point is we know how to keep a large part of the global population constantly touching their devices like well programmed guinea pigs the whole day, negatively effecting themselves and society in uncountable ways yet postively effecting our share price. Please protect us to exit the loop or we get lynched one way of the other by customers or shareholders!
There the govt builds the controls. Here Twitter, YouTube and Facebook do. No big difference in my book. In terms of outcomes, only clowns get propped up either way.
There is no alternative to Google, Amazon, Youtube, etc. You have tiny, inferior competitors that don't even come close to 10% of the monopolist's market share. Google works very hard to trap you in their ecosystem. Once you're there, escape is almost impossible.
You're conflating legal restriction on individual behavior with market/individual-preference constraints.
"Life" in general is constrained. We are not trying to get rid of limited options (every choise is between limited options), we're trying to limit totalitarian control over individuals.
That is, behaviour which is artificially constrained by imprisonment, punishment and death for the sake of preserving tyrannical power structures.
And the end result are tyrannical power structures that de facto exert totalitarian control. There is very little difference between government-enforced restrictions and those created by global capitalism and its monopolies.
It doesn't matter to me if my rights are restricted by legal means or by corporate hegemonies, in fact the mechanisms in play are so complex nobody can really be sure anymore.
No no, people can be very very very sure. The 20th C. tried both of those experiments and in the totalitarian system 10s of millions -- at least -- died.
Having your choices restricted by social cooperation and negotiation (in a market places) is NOT the same as having them restricted by a bully with a military.
This false equivalence is a defense of genocide whether you are willing to own up to that or not.
My sympathy with state action ends however, when the leaders are murders, dictators and rutheless pilliagers of the public's wealth.
Russia's oligarchy stole Russia's wealth after the dissolution of the SU, and here you are equivocating objecting to regimes of murder and abuse with "muh food idle dont be having no choices fur me1112"£""11¬11223
The entitlement and ignorance is overwhelming. You arent owed two major search engines. "Bing" not being bigger is not the same as having to use apps which in encrypt your commnunication because you fear the police will imprison or murder you.
You are owed your political freedom. Which is de jure removed from you in Russia, and the suppression of telegram is state action to supress it further.
I sincerely ask the question: Is it possible to evaluate whether freedom has expanded since 1995? It seems like they controlled much, much more when not everyone had their Youtube channel. Now it’s possible to do your own research on, for example, real M/F wage difference, or get informed about Trump news despite MSM. Not ideal, but better than the 90’s.
