philipallstar

Entering Exclusive fullscreen mode crashes the game on Wayland

Pretty good for Wayland.

So either they are all wrong

That is definitely possible, as there's been a lot of silly lockstep ideological reviewing of things in the last 5 years. However, Jeremy Jahns, who reviews movies based on them being movies (and them not being not sufficiently post-structural, post-colonial critiques of the patriarchy) likes it based on movie reasons, so that was encouraging.

What on earth are you on about, we've had 20+ years of right-wing governments.

The Tories were barely right-wing, and they were in power for 14 years, not 20+, and for the first 4 they were in a coalition with the lib dems.

Look at the immigration numbers in the UK to see how not right-wing they were. Insane to think that's actually right wing.

or the UKIP goon's forcibly removed me from their "Free Speech Conference"

The UKIP conference removing you is not evidence of general soft power in the UK.

That's not capitalism, it's personal responsibility. Why do you dump all the responsibility on other people to stop someone from killing themselves, and nothing on the person actually doing it?

Agree - the world has horrible things happening, although not on the scale of socialism. The thing that comes close is WW2, but that was an actual war, and not just starving millions of people due to central planning.

However, Cambodia:

Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were supported for many years by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), led by Mao Zedong;[c] it is estimated that at least 90% of the foreign aid which the Khmer Rouge received came from China, including at least US $1 billion in interest-free economic and military aid in 1975 alone.[11][12][13] After it seized power in April 1975, the Khmer Rouge wanted to turn the country into an agrarian socialist republic, founded on the policies of ultra-Maoism and influenced by the Cultural Revolution. [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambodian_genocide

When I buy something, it doesn't cost my employer, it costs me.

If someone takes something from you by force and spends it, they're spending your money.

as its "not other peoples money" is a monetary system that the government lets us use

The government doesn't "let" us use it. If we don't use it (e.g. by swapping services directly) then the government gets annoyed and tries to insert taxable transactions into that direct value swap. It makes us use it.

Maybe they're using too many humans and not enough AI in their software development. That must be it.

Many IPOs slide below the initial price. This isn't a SpaceX thing.

In March, the National Audit Office released a report noting that the Scunthorpe steelworks was costing the government about £1.3m a day.

No, BBC, the government doesn't have money. It costs the net taxpayer that much a day.

It never sounded cool and fun. It was government acknowledging its own limitations. Governments don't perform better if we all cheer them on. Right now a government (Russia's) is waging war on a country. Last century governments caused untold death in socialist countries (Venezuela, China, USSR) because they were trying to organise centrally.

The link is far broader than that, but even in this case: there was no threat. No more than a university lecturer tweeting that he wanted a white genocide.

Are you sure that link's the one you meant to share?

Sorry, I'm confused by the question.

It is definitely true. It's "right wing" because the soft power is with the left (or was until maybe very recently) and so only principled people of the left (e.g. Bill Maher) and all the people of the right (either principled on speech or saying things that are more likely to be censored) are going to be talking about it.

Here's an overview of the situation: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62ln7mzd5ro

Regulating access to speech platforms is a difference of degree, not a difference of kind, from regulating speech.

Thank you, it's been infuriating reading these social media bans for children, as if when kids suddenly turn 16 or 18 or whatever magical nimber the courts come up with, they are suddenly immune to the psychological tricks from multi million dollar companies hiring the best psychologists with no morals money can buy.

This is sort of true, but there is definitely a scale of development that means the most harm will be done the earlier you start. Same with access to pornography. People's brains don't suddenly become immune to it at 18, it's just that that's the age of legal responsibility that ties in with other things.

Men who turn 18 don't suddenly become disposable meat-based gun-holders in times of war, and yet we still treat them that way.

Nobody is saying kids shouldn't have phones

I am.

In what UI? I've definitely done it by accident as well as on purpose before.

Most people like apps because they're often better to use, unless you have accessibility requirements (and even then an app that makes sure accessibility is good might still be better than a website that makes sure accessibility is good).

This is yet another article that doesn't understand what wealth is. There is almost no point talking about these numbers, because they mislead more than they inform.

even if it wasn't for the hostility towards non-US citizens.

The US welcomes more people legally than any other country in the world[0], and half of its politicians think welcoming illegal immigrants is a good idea too.

[0] https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/migration?tab=line&coun...

Cars replaced the horse and cart. There were roads before cars, and roads carry a lot more than cars. Try getting a fire engine to your house without roads.

So if you apply to the MIT you’re more than 3 times likelier to get accepted.

That's based on numbers only, not reach or desirability. It's like saying India must be the best place in the world to live because it has the largest population.

What the techno-determinism angle misses is: Why did these technologies catch on in the first place? Why was radio popular? Why did we come up with new things—television, smartphones—and why did they catch on, too?

This read as AI, which is odd.

Me hiring a PA is literally more selective than that. Only one person can qualify.

Sorry, I'm not sure what point you're arguing against.

It's only really been buffed by the facts you don't have to pay for massive custom vehicles or drivers, and market dynamics (and the corresponding incredible features and amazing factory and transportation efficiencies) mean cars are extremely good value for money for a lot of people.

In other words: there's a profit motive, so people get something really good for their money.

Public transport is frequently a monopoly or semi-monopoly, and there is power available (the people running the public transport also get to set rules for drivers), and exercising power is much, much easier than competing in a market.

If driving were more cheaper than public transport then nobody would use it. Yet, almost wherever you go in the world if you go to a station at 8am on a weekday it will be full of people.

This logic is devastatingly simplistic. Think about the most obvious counter-example: people who have car sometimes take the train. Even after they've paid all those car fees, they'll take the train for £50 rather than drive for £8 in car fuel. Why?

It's because there isn't an objective tier list for vehicles. E.g. if I'm going through central London I'll use the Underground because London is so densely populated going by car isn't always feasible. But if you're going somewhere in London with a baby then you might well take the hit and drive, because you have a lot of stuff to bring with you, and the Underground is unpleasant and hot, which the baby will not appreciate.

People take public transport it's better than driving

Public transport is also much more expensive, particularly when you have more than one person in the vehicle, even with loads of tax added to car fuel, doesn't depart from your house or arrive at your destination, and means you can't take much stuff with you.

Making driving worse instead of making public transport better is such a public sector-brained take.

This isn't true, I don't think. For example, Instagram was built on Django, but I don't believe the Django founders magically got money because their totally free to use OSS was used in the way it was licenced.

If you don't want people to use your software and make money, then don't release it with a licence that explicitly says you may make money from this software.

What was stolen?