Don't be fooled by the rain of downvotes that some comments are getting: the HN crowd is incredibly biased towards hyped stuff and CV-driven development.
I worked in FAANGS where simplicity really mattered over hype.
> there is nothing wrong with advertising per se, it's a natural part of a free market economy.
There is plenty wrong. Even Adam Smith's purely theoretical concept of "free market" requires buyers and sellers to be purely rational actors and be fully and correctly informed.
Advertising has one goal: making customers less rational and more biased towards a given product.
While that is true to some degree, the primary motivation of advertising is to close the information gap, to make sure customers know about your product.
I thought the original subject was that there's too much gatekeeping. Or is there just double standard, so that gatekeeping is good for Linux distros and bad for commercial app stores?
Yea, but let's reframe this... does it matter? Let's say people thought Bozo the Clown invented the printing press. What does it change? I'm not trolling. This might be more of me having too deep of thought on the matter. I'm the kind of guy that'll rabbit hole into the history of Macedonia for too much of 3 weeks because I came across an article about them having trouble getting into NATO due to the country's name (yes I did this). I know more about Macedonia (now North Macedonia) than 99% people... so what?
Better example, I enjoy watching sports with friends and with alcohol. Every now and then, commenters and friends will mention some sort of niche bit of info. Like a certain football play and what it means. Knowing or not knowing the specifics of game plays changes zero of my entertainment of the game. In truth, it wouldn't mean anything to my friends either in reality. Any of us knowing or not knowing the exact, specific details of football changes nothing. We still watch it on ESPN. We still hang out at someone's house. We all bring food and booze. It matters to the players, coaches and anyone else directly involved. Them flubbing a named detail can change the game, yes. Me knowing? I could call American football, "ice skating" and it'll change zero in the real world. That's not a football, it's an ice cube. Pauly Shore was the nickelback for the Bucks in the last Nachobowl.
99% of people can get through life just fine thinking the printing press was invented by a hamster. That knowledge doesn't change the utility of a book. I think I'm just overthinking it, but maybe culturally we apply too much value on tidbits of facts.
Facts have real-world significance if it becomes part of a cultural propaganda. If one were less friendly they would say you have been "brainwashed" to believe that the European cultures (and their descendants) are entitled to more credit than they deserve in advancing the technology of humanity. Maybe, just maybe, people would be more humble if they knew that we have all learned from each other, and not, as the narrative goes, invented everything merely from a stroke of genius.
Of course, it doesn't really matter for a learned person who has the natural curiosity to figure things out (presumably that includes you), since these people aren't often affected by dogma or rigid conceptions anyway, but the other 99% have no clue, and it's probably easier to state facts than to teach people curiosity.
I totally agree with you and probably that's my problem with the whole tidbit info thing. Does it actually matter if it was a German, Chinese or whoever that invented the first printing press? I mean, yes, it's nice to give credit where credit is due. Nothing wrong with that. That doesn't mean, "We [insert country] invented the [insert invention], we are all your rulers!" I feel like people take a little good (or bad) and run too far with it. Which probably leads to your propaganda point. Just because you share a nationality with someone that was useful, doesn't immediately make you useful. This also goes for wars. There's just this weird want to associate certain facts with bigger concepts and ideals for no good reason. A lot of the things people praise or denounce are far more isolated compared to what they try to apply it to.
Maybe you're more right about the thing with being curious and what it leads it. At a certain point, I at least, learned how both connected and disconnected many things are from each other. Especially from ideologies. Man, I think that pisses me off the most. I can't stand how any ideology tries to wrap themselves around anything by using the loosest relation they can think of.
When did tombert assume that poor = "crazy" = criminal? It's a bit unkind to take general thoughts about psychological pathways and unfairly reify them with the use of equality symbols.
I'm sorry it wasn't clear but this seems like a needlessly pedantic distinction.
I never said "poor = 'crazy' = criminal". I don't think poor people are inherently crazy, though I suppose that being mentally ill could conceivably hinder your ability to make a decent income, if we're being pedantic. I feel like you're assuming I said something that I didn't; I really don't think I was being "unkind". In fact, I was trying to have a pretty sympathetic perspective on this. If that was not clear then that's a failing on my end and I apologize.
Yes, you could make an argument is the "more rational" decision is to commit a crime, I read Les Miserables, but keep in mind that my comment was in direct response to someone asking why unemployment led to violent crime, and I specifically did not exclude myself from any category.
Implied? No, not even with the most uncharitable interpretation did tombert even imply that being poor makes you "crazy" or that being crazy makes you a criminal. A hindered ability to think rationally might only make one more impulsive or less able to consider long term consequences.
You are literally accusing the writer of implying things which rely upon a context of your own making, not theirs.
This is interesting - I read that statement exactly like the person who made the post that you just responded to, and thought it to be the clearly obvious interpretation.
I would consider someone that has their rationality stripped (or "greatly hindered") to be irrational. I think "irrational" is a bit more passive than "crazy", but I would personally read those as mostly synonymous.
I wonder why we interpret the same sentence so differently - we may be reading between the lines in very different ways - like the "blue&black / gold&white" dress.
Again, I apologize if it's not more clear, but you do understand that if I implied that they were crazy, that would also imply that I called myself crazy, right?
That's what the following paragraph is about, trying to explain that this could happen to anyone.
Yes? I did understand that - you were saying that being broke can lead one to do and think things that they'd normally consider crazy or irrational.
Are you thinking that I understood your statement to mean that being broke would permanently turn you into a loony? Maybe I generally consider "crazy" to be a temporary state or state of mind that anyone can get into or out of, and you generally consider "crazy" to be a permanent fixture of personality, dividing society into hard lines of people that are either "crazy" or "not-crazy"?
To say one's ability to think rationally is severely hindered, suggests impairment in (for example) considering short term versus long term priorities, or being overly impulsive, or being overly controlled by emotions.
Whereas "crazy" suggests an absence of sanity.
Rational vs irrational. Sanity vs insanity. These are not interchangeable ideas.
I'm looking for "I have these machines and I have these programs (with roughly these CPU/memory requirements) and I'd like to deploy x copies of process y and z copies of process w, sort it out".
Sounds like nomad might be what you're looking for? They have good support for non-containerized workloads which ultimately just boil down to "if scheduled on this host run this process."
> I want to be the one in control of my screen, not some random website.
That's not really an option, though. You'd have to separate text and media from the website, split it apart, and configure it separately, as most websites just have everything without any color management.
If these shitty websites with full contrast would at least set a colorspace for their images, so I could take the color profile of a cheap 2004 LCD as default for unmanaged media and text, I'd at least avoid the painful situation.
I worked in FAANGS where simplicity really mattered over hype.