Hi Tom,

I was just taking a look at your resume, and your experience at Deceased really caught my eye! I’m especially interested in your knowledge of being missed by friends and family. Did you know that complications from heart surgery is in high demand right now?

I’m a head hunter looking for dynamic individuals who are interested in positions at an exciting new startup, and I think you’d be a perfect fit!

I hope we get a chance to chat soon!

Nice, you avoided having to think on a self-imposed technicality. Real intellectual rigor there.

Makes it easy to dismiss my argument without bothering to think about it, you mean. Just take abortion, then. Or “tax is theft”, or right to bear arms, or any of a thousand other beliefs you probably don’t agree with.

So like, if you were in a restaurant and ordered food, but it never came because a couple of the servers were blocking food from being served because the company wasn’t taking a strong stance against abortion, you’d think “these good people are taking a moral stand, good for them! The company better not take any action against them to make sure I get my food!”

Or for that matter, if Google stopped all cooperation with the IDF, the company’s Jewish employees could (in fact should) disrupt business because Google was supporting terrorism?

It seems to me that you can only support forms of protest you’d be willing to accept when the other side uses them against you. Basically the golden rule.

I mean, it was more like over the course of a millennium, starting with the Roman destruction of the 2nd temple. I’m sure it picked up with the Muslim conquest, but that wasn’t the start of the diaspora.

What’s funny?

Seems to break along subreddit lines.

According to Zionist logic, the West would be justified in annihilating them to the last man, civilian or otherwise.

Ah, this person is pointing out the irony of Israel defending a total war against an entire people, in the name of fighting ‘terrorism’. That’s certainly a reasonable point to–

From the river to the sea.

Oh wait they’re actually calling for genocide, they just disagree with the radical Israeli Right over who ought to be genocided…

I think one of the differences (at least when I watched anime way back in the early 00s) is that anime relies on a whole different set of tropes from Western movies and cartoons, and those tropes are unfamiliar (or were, anyway) to Western audiences.

When I started watching anime, it was hugely refreshing to be caught by surprise by plot twists and dialogue, and to see characters & themes that felt totally original.

But then you watch more anime, and realize…oh, they weren’t unique, they were totally stereotypical. You just didn’t know the stereotypes they were based on.

And before long you can see plot twists a mile away, the characters are predictable, and you can describe a new series as “basically X, but with some Y and monsters instead of robots”.

It’s the false promise of that initial discovery that makes the eventual realization that much more disappointing.

I think they claimed they’re not discriminating against browsers, they’re just better at identifying adblockers on Firefox or something.

Illegal to do…what? Not offer high-res videos? To have any delay before streaming videos? To refuse to serve you videos, even if doing so caused them to lose money? How would you enforce that on Google, much less on smaller startups? Would it apply to PeerTube instances?

Google sucks for doing this. It’ll drive people to competitors–hopefully even federated competitors. But laws to ‘fix’ the problem would be nearly impossible to craft–and would be counterproductive in the long term, because they’d cement the status quo. Let Google suck, so that people switch away from it.

Well, fair. But even in that case, they have every right to degrade your YouTube experience, as owners of YouTube. As ISP (I mean, assuming NN was still a thing) they couldn’t selectively degrade traffic, but YouTube has no obligation to you under net neutrality.

This has nothing to do with net neutrality. Google is not an ISP. With or without net neutrality, Google could fuck with YouTube users.

Fair. I’ve worked in tech for just over a decade now, and I’ve only been in the polar opposite environment, and found it sorta suffocating. Everybody knows this guy is pumping out crap, and every bug in the system comes from his part of the code, but well…if anybody says it, or even hints it, they’re being unnecessarily confrontational, and nobody ever gives anything but positive feedback in peer reviews.

I feel, from my limited experience, like the 90s might have been peak machismo rock star hacker work culture, and the pendulum has now swung to the very far side.

I mean, that’s fair, and as was pointed out elsewhere Linus has sought help for his temper.

On the other hand, for all the talk of how “unprofessional” it was for him to behave this way, he did shepherd an OS kernel from a hobby project to the most popular OS on the planet (with the possible exception of Minix, apparently…)

I agree that polite directness might be better, bu IMHO the more common polite indirectness and avoidance of any hint of conflict is clearly worse.

Well that’s pretty hilariously ironic. I’m nothing like this, I wish I were more comfortable being direct. But meanwhile, you heap abuse on me and threaten to beat me up because I said “boy, it’s nice to see someone speaking directly”. You’re much worse than Torvalds, and I completely agree it would be a terrible idea for us to ever work together. Or for you to work with anyone else, for that matter.

Yeah, it’s kind of invigorating to see somebody speak so plainly. No “There’s a couple issues we should maybe discuss”, no “Let’s loop back on that sometime”, no “Hmm, is that really the best approach? Do you have any documentation?” Just a straightforward “Dude, this is shit! Here’s some reasons why!”"

Having worked for a decade in tech, I would love it of people were this direct.

There’s an important difference, though, especially with Lemmy. You used XMPP to communicate with particular people. When Google convinced, whatever, 70% of users to use Talk and then slammed the door shut, the smaller instances were no longer viable. People on those instances lost contact with their friends. They aren’t going to just chat with whoever else happened to be left outside the walls.

But I don’t look for specific people on Reddit, or on Lemmy. Any large-enough instance is fine. Just like people moved from Reddit to Lemmy, they can move from one instance to another. A major rift could drop the quality of the experience, at least for a while, but the instances would still be viable. They’re not suddenly useless the way an isolated Jabber server was.

FTX stole from customers. Binance didn’t sufficiently spy on its customers. They are not the same.

You think Google was fishing for VC money?