pompino

Yes, most people and most countries are evil. In todays age I'd say the US has the largest concentration of evil.

Lots of people do.

Google will never stop spying themselves but will give you the ability to stop their competitors from spying on you. Heh..

Good/Bad are consensus votes. Its hard to escape their use just because of how deeply ingrained the programming is. We just think it makes "sense" and is "obvious" because its a meme that is already in our head. There is nothing inherently evil or good about any past/present/future animal on this planet.

Now all that remains is a good, measurable definition of what a bad company is.

Lets re-invent religion.

There are existing well established companies already doing this (active cooling).

https://www.worldcourier.com/

This is one we use all the time.

$14 mil isn't a whole lot when your company hires software people in the US. Software people in the US are expensive.

The industry may learn from failures, but the shareholders of private companies want a return on their investment. I sure as heck don't want my 401k tied to oncology.

The little-known structures in tax-friendly destinations have contributed to the 15 pharmaceutical firms amassing profits of €580 billion in the last five years.

This amount outweighs their research and development (R&D) costs, despite the industry's frequent claim that high drug prices allow them to innovate and design new drugs.

R&D is one thing, but most drugs fail at the clinical trial stage. This money (hundreds of millions per drug) is just gone, unlike R&D which might result in new tech or at least a patent. For Oncology its even worse, its close to a 95% failure rate. Simply taxing companies won't make their drugs successful. Large pharma companies rely on a few blockbuster products for their profits and they milk them dry. This is standard corporate greed/behavior, but it certainly seems offputting because we're dealing with peoples lives. Personally, I think its inevitable that there is going to be some form of nationalization for a protected class of life-saving medication.

https://www.labiotech.eu/trends-news/clinical-trials-success...

Yeah, that makes the most sense. Take supplements if and when you need it. I think the real study would be if someone did trended vitamin deficiency data from all the subjects and then co-related the intake (for deficient persons) with health outcomes.

https://www.cvedetails.com/top-50-products.php

Yeah, I don't see Windows in the top 5.

You can make an argument to convince people of your personal point of view, but there is no reason to be all upset if someone has a different viewpoint. Thankfully we are all at liberty to have our own view on this topic.

You can have your own view. Nobody is taking it away or forcing you to believe otherwise. My point is why are people so upset when someone has a different view or doesn't agree with your personal view on Microsoft?

Why are you so upset that people derive a lot of value from Windows? Enough that they want to keep using it, and defend it because they don't agree with the "everything is broken" meme.

Yes it has an editor and a debugger, and some other stuff. So what? Its still an application. An application forcing you to update your OS would be laughed out of the room in any other situation. Personally I wouldn't defend such a broken design, but to each his own.

You don't just copy the binary on windows. You copy the binary and its dependencies. Unless it's based on .Net-framework, then yeah, you still care about it being updated through windows.

Sure, but I can install s/w built for Windows XP into Windows 11 and it will just run 20 years later w/o modification - And I can do this with a large amount of commercial software, so its not a special case example which you can demonstrate on any OS. Simply not possible on any other desktop OS. Even if you have the source (which you won't for commercial s/w), its not just a simple recompile after 20 years.

You don't need to use dependencies from the system. If you're compiling yourself, you can either make them static, or use your custom location. In either case, there are no conflicts to deal with

Static linking glibc.. yeah. :)

If you're using whole app packages, then you don't care about system deps at all. Flatpak apps ship their whole environment. AppImage apps do too, just without full isolation. (https://appimage.github.io/apps/ entries are all "download-and-run")

Yet another "standard" that ultimately will fracture the deployment of software. These are just buggy half-baked standards anyway. Vendor releases 32bit AppImage and goes out of business, it stops working on 64bit OS.

I don't think you guys really get the insane backwards compatibility effort that Microsoft does to help keep line of business applications running.

Install a specific app version from flatpak, download binaries, or compile it yourself for your current system.

Then you can't have those dependencies managed by a package manager, which means you'll constantly be compiling (and dealing with conflicts yourself). This is not a viable path forward as it seems to be presented here.

You have so many ways to do this - same as you're doing on windows.

On Windows I copy a binary and run it w/o giving a crap about the OS updates. Vastly different workflows for it to be called "same".

Its funny that a compiler forces you to update your OS.

Just to put things in perspective - MacOS forces you to run on their update treadmill for the OS, and you can't even update your xcode dev environment if you refuse. Ditto with Linux, you can't refuse OS updates if you use a package manager because eventually you can't update anything without accepting all the dependencies. Windows for all its warts did do something well with binary compatibility. I am happy as a pig in poop with my work supplied LTSC install.

A policy proposal needs a legal framework under which can actually can work. You can't just push that off as "that's the judiciary's problem".

And you decide what is genuine?

Sorry, this whole thread is a fantasy of nerds thinking they can create a punitive policy for behavior they don't like. But there is no actual substantive framework under which any of these fantasies can come true.

So if send an email "Fix all your bugs or else bad stuff will happen", and if they don't fix all their bugs now I can put their devs in jail ?

What standard do you suggest to prove intent?

can of course install Arch or Gentoo or NixOS Minimal and then audit the packages that they're installing to see that there's no obvious security violations, but it's unrealistic to think that most non-software-engineer people are going to do that.

It's a fantasy to think that random devs can audit kernel/security code. No single person can. Too many lines of code to audit (that you didn't write yourself). Even if you hired a team, by the time the team does the audit, the goalposts have moved with new source code.

So software developers should be criminally liable for introducing security bugs?

Maybe as a consumer I’m better off leaving their ATM machine alone for now.

Or we can go after the surveillance side too. "As a consumer" IDGAF about lining Apple executives pockets.

I think he is good at building a narrative, but I guess I have a different view of what constitutes educational content. Nothing against the guy, I'm glad hes making the videos. Though I wish he would drop his scammy sponsor - betterhelp.

For people who like to learn about new stuff, it feeds their addition. IMO the main takeaway from those videos is "Science is cool". The trap is thinking you know something, when in reality you don't. If one watches them already knowing the subject, then I guess its an interesting way to spend your time.

That sounds nice, but I don't agree that it is the most-likely point. Anyway, I would argue the point of failure is lack of expert level guidance/mentorship and (sometimes) monetary resources to pursue higher education. Once you've received formal training, you also need someone to bounce ideas off-off, or a community for collaboration etc, etc.

educational like stuff from Veritasium

People call his videos educational, but really, what is the actual education being imparted? Its superficial, and you will never know how rich the topic actually is, and what the nuances are who the critics are and what they say, etc, etc. I'd put those videos in the entertainment section.

(FWIW I watch those videos too)