Do you know about referendums? Recall elections? Snap elections? Midterm elections? Strikes and protests? Or how about just letting your representative know how you'll vote in their next election to deter bad behavior they're conducting in the current moment?
Must be nice for the current American administration to have 4 years of no democratic oversight to do whatever they want.
I can blame Microsoft. Every other tech company and OS figured out how to make it work and they're not exactly buckling under the weight of legal or political pressure on the matter of flags.
If you had the choice between "no lawsuits at all" and "lawsuits in random months by random countries for things that can escalate to violence and wars" you wouldn't take "no lawsuits at all"?
Even if very few of the lawsuits actually escalate to violence or war, is any risk of violence/war worth it? Ethics would suggest "all my competitors are doing it" isn't a great answer here, either, and certainly doesn't remove the risk.
I can respect the "no lawsuits at all" preference here.
Not playing the game at all is very different from playing the game according to the demands and rules of bullies. The only way to win is not to play, just ask WOPR.
It's likely that Canada will target exports from Trump-supporting states, which is a strategy that seems to have worked before. It may not have a large impact on the whole US economy but it can concentrate the pain to optimize the political impact.
If the politician doesn't return the favor, the briber can dump their coin and depress the coin price. Other coin traders can also affect this but the general principle still holds that you can add and remove fiat value from the market.
I will try to reiterate my initial point since people keep losing track: banning TikTok is a slippery slope that moves us in the direction of China’s GFW, and we can longer claim a moral highground once we do.
"anglo cultures" already had quite a lead before WW2, hard to miss that the previous superpower was the British Empire. The outcome of WW2 elevated America, there's no relationship there to broader anglo culture.
Quite a stretch to jump to "everyone might be miserable". Immigration from Latin American and other non-anglo countries is on a scale where it shapes American and British domestic politics, difficult to conclude that those immigrants are searching for the misery of anglo cultures that they can't find at home.
Even within "European Americans", nearly half has an ethnic origin that is classified as German, not English.
Another important aspect is immigration and naturalization. The bulk of high-skilled R&D specialists who turned the US into the technological powerhouse that it is aren't exactly Mayflower descendants. It's immigrants and first- and second-generation. So it's very hard to argue about "Anglo" thins with the extreme reliance on immigration and descendent of immigrants to play the roles that made all this progress possible.
- German and other NW European cultures share the family atomization characteristic of Anglo-Americans
- Anglo as a term stems from England. England is named for the Angles, a Scandinavian/Germanic tribe that invaded Britain a long time ago. The term Anglo-American reflects the seminal English influence on American culture.
- The English and their descendant culture, America, basically invented the modern economic world and it predates WWII by a long time.
The idea that WWII is why America is on top is a-historical.
The word "anglo" is so fraught that I think it's probably less useful to try to argue about what it means than it would be to just leave it alone.
I'm actually here to point out that the U.S. had the world's largest GDP as early as 1890, or as late as 1913, depending on your source of data and how it's estimated. So, WWII isn't the origin of that. We can now argue about whether GDP is a good indicator, but before doing that I'd ask for a better one (with historical data) to be suggested.
Too many people believe that we can balance excessive bias with excessive bias in another direction. In reality:
- bias cannot be eliminated, merely mitigated;
- the truth is not the average of all opinions;
- some sources are important even if their point of view is subjective.
Unfortunately, the whole internet seems to be engulfed in a nihilistic tribal war where everything is black or white. This kind of argument is a hammer you can use at any point when you don’t like an argument, because there is no objective source. Then, the conversation shifts to a discussion of the various point of views and all contact with reality is lost.
Why? The piece is written by "Katie Robertson", which according to her profile is "a reporter covering the media industry for The New York Times". That dosen't sound like new york times company management to me. She (and therefore the article) is at least more distanced away from this story than the union itself.
It’s not that black and white. Over the long term, shareholders are better off if the journal can maintain a reputation of impartiality, so it would be difficult to prove mismanagement in this case. It’s like when Apple cared more about customer satisfaction and doing the right thing than short-term ROI. Sure, shareholder could sue, but they would likely lose.
The idea that a company must only do what brings shareholder money immediately is a meme that is widely propagated by a certain class of people who stand to profit from it, but the law does not impose that behaviour.
The point is that you’re not going to learn about the world by averaging religious texts with flat Eartherism. Only once you have a foundation can you start measuring how each side is describing events.
Yes and it's a very good point but it's not relevant here is it? This isn't a case of one side being sane and the other crazy, or even both being crazy. It's two sides of a business dispute. Are you really going to draw your conclusion based on what just one side says?
> Yes and it's a very good point but it's not relevant here is it?
I was broadly agreeing with this in the parent post:
> Do you think bias is a one-dimensional tug of war that cancels each other out when combined?
I am not saying that we should not seek other sources, just that quoting the union on one side of the dispute is not better than a reporter paid by the journal on the other side. Even worse, because a journal has some incentives to keep a reputation for being truthful, while communications from a union are purely partisan. (That’s not some criticism and unions play an important role; journalism is just not it)
The point is, two wrong points of view do not magically average out to something right. Ideally someone reporting with some distance would be better.
Being unbiased yourself does mean listening to both sides. What an off request that you would want to hear only from one party and then only additionally neutral parties but not hear from the other side at all because of “bias”.
I also prefer the old fashioned notion that opinions from the writer of the piece are appropriate in stories labeled as opinion pieces and editorials, but not in news reporting.
Yes this is what I am referring. I’m not saying he is like the boy coder genius, he is good at becoming and staying king. And if you look at all the departures of some of today’s brilliant technology innovators, perhaps it tells you why. Don’t fly too close to the sun.
"frustrates Linus" is a bit of an understatement here, Linus is considering removing bcachefs from mainline.
If it's removed, I'm somewhat skeptical it can return once it's more mature. Kent seems to think that the problem is code maturity while Linus is making it clear that the problem is that Kent won't follow process and work with others. I don't think Kent's behavior will change as long as Kent is in charge of bcachefs no matter how mature the codebase gets.
Must be nice for the current American administration to have 4 years of no democratic oversight to do whatever they want.