> I'm much more convinced Microsoft wants to do stuff like sell cloud subscriptions at the click of a button in the desktop than Microsoft gives a crap about those subscriptions being tied to a consistent account ID. The latter certainly sounds evil, but not in a way that particularly helps Microsoft over their competitors.
Bless your cotton socks, you had it in the first part MS wants to sell stuff, but then you failed to realise that by tying people to a consistent account ID builds a profiling on them that lets MS serve targeted advertisements, through Edge.
Edge (and the entirety of ad tech for the last few decades) does this today without needing a Microsoft account at all, let alone your real legal identity.
I would say that one has as much responsibility to society, as that society accepts for the individual.
As a previously homeless veteran, I'd say that is zero. Why should intellectuals, or in fact anyone have any duty to help a system that doesn't help them?
Now I know a lot of people will grandstand and say that if people just started taking on responsibility, then that would improve the system so that it would help more, but again, I did my part and was promised to be taken care of by society with its fingers crossed behind its back.
This only results in a race to the bottom. A self fulfilling prophecy. The unfortunate truth is that if you want the world to be better you need to be better to it than it is to you. It's the only way that can even work.
You can just do nothing and things will get better when others do more than they get, but by you doing nothing you've just shifted your burden to others. The burden of each individual is small. Almost insignificant even. It's not hard to be kinder to others than they are to you. But the burden accumulates and compounds. You don't have to pick up the slack, but you do need to do your part. The future is made by all of us
They are helping society not the system. They might fight the system. There is no ignoring, thats supporting the system. There is no silence, the system can produce fake intellectuals. There is no hiding, the system must pursue the individuals because its the ideas that need dying. The intellectuals are pursued even after death.
Of course, anyone always has the option to volunteer to make the world a better place; but the idea that anyone has a responsibility, or moral obligation to help a society that is actively hostile towards them is insanity.
I'll add that this is the whole purpose of a society. The social contract is that of a coalition. Our combined utility is greater than the sum of our individual utility.
To not have an obligation to society is to be a drain on it. Even if you don't recognize it you still get a lot of benefit from society. It could be better. It should be better. But that will never happen if you never put in your part.
Get off your high horse. This person bled for their country and once their service ended, was discarded without a second thought. They are entitled to feel the way they feel and have earned the privilege to voice their outrage. It is our duty to listen.
Their service is commendable and I'll even go so far to say that they were betrayed. But I still don't agree. We all have a duty. Being betrayed gives you every right to be angry, but it is what you do with that anger that matters. Do you use it as an excuse to be self centered or do you recognize that if you're betrayed so have others. That those that betrayed you can only do so because you do not band together. That you do not use your anger to band together and tell them to fuck off. To make them fuck off.
I'm personally very anti war. But I also am very dissatisfied with how we treat our veterans. To send them to, as Hawkeye says: "worse than hell", and then just abandon them?! That's a high moral sin. Outright unconscionable. But recognize they can only get away with this because we let them. I'm not okay with it, are you?
It isn't our duty to listen and do nothing. It is our duty to get mad and do something. Which is exactly what Droopy said
> Being betrayed gives you every right to be angry, but it is what you do with that anger that matters.
I am not angry. What I was ultimately describing was referred to as a 'social contract'. Like a regular contract, once it is not fulfilled, you cannot rely upon it ever again.
To illustrate this concept better I will explain it by example:
If you hire someone to fix your roof, you pay them, and they don't fix it; then a few months later you re-hired them again to fix your roof, and again they take your money and refuse to fix it.
Who is ultimately responsible for you losing money the second time around?
I would argue, (and so would their lawyers if you sued them), that you had a legal duty to "mitigate losses", and as you didn't learn the first time, you are responsible for throwing good money over bad, not them. You knew they didn't honour their contracts, so it was on you that you re-engaged with them.
That is not anger, that is common sense, and a basic common law legal concept.
That analogy doesn't fit the situation of a social contract not being fulfilled, and your overall point is extremely antisocial.
You appear to be saying if one person or group fails to uphold their obligation to you at any time, you are thereafter released from your obligation to the rest of humanity.
I can only speak for the society I live in, Australia. I'm glad you perceive yours (wherever that is) to be doing much better. I hope you use that privilege to enrich your fellow man instead of just bragging online.
Sorry, I had been attempting to strike a nagging tone more than a bragging one: to put it more baldly, homelessness is a (collective) choice.
[I voted with my feet for this society. That took me a couple of years to learn a language, and a few more to learn a culture, both of which seem to be much shorter timescales than I expect change, whether driven by pollys or by people, to happen upon in my old, or other anglophone, societies — even with nagging.
If you think I have more effective means than nagging, please let me know what they may be. I am generally a fan of mutual aid and direct action, but at this point believe that occasional nagging with an existence proof that there are functioning alternatives, however indirect and unmutual it may seem, is still as close as I can approach those ideals while remaining effective]
I don't necessarily think it is how you were brought up, and probably more to do with personality. As an introvert, I don't have the talk time to continuously put out feelers, I just gotta ask.
Interesting, I feel the opposite. I always tend to associate askers and extroverts, and feel us introverts are tired all the time because of all the guessing going on during human interactions.
But of course, your opposite takeaway also makes sense!
Based on the product description, it seems that they don't like text, and want to deal in objects. It would feel strange if they did support a terminal, rather than a GUI.
BSD can be a better choice for a variety of reasons. Firstly business reasons BSD has more permissive licences than Linux's GNU licence which compels you to share any modifications you make to the software. BSD uses the MIT licenses which state that you are allowed to modify the source code and not release it, which is why most embedded devices like routers/firewalls use BSD over Linux. That and BSD is faster at networking.
It also has better storage (ZFS), although this is now implemented in Linux, it is not as stable as BSD which developed it specifically for their OS.
In Object Oriented programming, yes, arrays are objects and the functions are a property of another object that can perform instructions on the data of the Array Object.
Similarly in Lisp, (a list-oriented language) both functions and arrays are lists.
This article however is discussing Haskel, a Functional Language, which means they are both functions.
> Similarly in Lisp, (a list-oriented language) both functions and arrays are lists.
In which Lisp? Try this in Common Lisp and it won't work too well:
(let ((array (make-array 20)))
(car array))
What is the car of an array? An array in Lisp (since Lisp 1.5 at least, I haven't read earlier documentation) is an array, and not a list. It does not behave as a list in that you cannot construct it with cons, and you cannot deconstruct it with car or cdr.
To quote John McCarthy
"Since data are list structures and programs are list structures, we can manipulate programs just like data."
Yes, I know most people consider it to be a functional language, and some variants like 'common lisp' make that more explicit, but the original concept was markedly different.
I'd say this study is inherently flawed. As I am sure most people know on the Internet these days that just because X states their 'likes' are 'anonymous', doesn't mean they are.
I think the potential reputational damages would still be on the forefront of most people's minds, knowing that at any stage, at the whim of Elon, these will be revealed.
URL starts with 'ai' and the title claims 'is' and 'the new version control.'
I then skimmed through the article, and it mentions it doesn't exist today.
First, it requires an implementation to prove the point, and then it has to defeat the network effect of git. There is zero proof for that argument, only a hypothesis. (Which sums up AI hype pretty well.) Someone's trying to hype AI, just like someone was hyping blockchain. GLHF w/that. Oh, and thank you for ruining the hardware market, assholes.
Bless your cotton socks, you had it in the first part MS wants to sell stuff, but then you failed to realise that by tying people to a consistent account ID builds a profiling on them that lets MS serve targeted advertisements, through Edge.