ringbugger

I have been to burger king a little too often lately and I would be totally fine with a 0.75g planet now.

The "life corridor" is certainly very narrow. But I am sure there are at least some places.

Maybe we find a world near a smaller red dwarf, which will last for trillions of years. Maybe we also don't make that planet uninhabitable in a few thousand years, for once.

I think marketing departments would quickly notice that most crawlers won't execute all the fancy Blinkenlights.

I would assume that it will take a while for tooling in any other language to get to a javascript level. I think WASM will mainly be support for the latter. Do some excessive calculations.... and yeah, excessive Blinkenlights.

Wait... that Georgia has a coast too? I though they were surrounded by Russia.

Just took a look at a map. Everything I thought I knew was wrong.

Reducing equality to equality of opportunity is already a huge concession in favor of freedom.

equality of opportunity is freedom

Until you get restricted, because you posses an opportunity others are lacking and in consequence, it gets taken from you.

My freedom to own land excludes your freedom [...]

This is an example of freedom colliding with itself, but arguing this case is much easier, since both get exactly the same rights and therefore an equal amount of freedom that cannot be maximized any further. It is a lot harder to to balance freedom and equality.

Granted, there are a lot of cases where increased equality increases freedom. This is why I think that liberals are generally smarter.

Libertarianism seems to lack some of the contradictions that liberlism seems to suffer from (freedom and equality will at some point exclude themselves)

Still, since Liberalism tries to find a balance in its inherent values, Libertarianism seems to be dogmatic without any further depth. Dreamy technocrats or wishful anarchists, who would get angry if labeled as such.

The US is indeed different here, but I would stand to my opinion, that Liberals generally have far more thought-provoking arguments.

So liberals are basically libertarians. But smart.

But they aren’t really debts intended to be paid back

They are intended to be equalized at some point.

We use keys like the one pictured at our company. Handy for key stores of any kind and for U2F.

That said, the dongles are an abomination of engineering. I know that USB-jacks have a defined top. That is to no interest to vendors as it seems...

That was a shitty argument. It already failed to establish what is commonly refered to by "negative" in this context. You could criticise the term, that it is too general to hint at a wrongly infered statement in a special case. But the author does something else without really establishing anything. Going to dig in my garden now.

Unfortunately this is very true. For medical devices, you need to mostly use certified parts. Need a touchscreen? It needs to withstand very strong disinfectants and maybe you have hard requirements for leakage currents. There are 3 possible vendors left. None of them has drivers for systems that would be far better than windows xy.

Vendors probably think that all their customers use windows anyway for non-discernible reasons.

Seriously. And all the emotional security arguments that cannot be verified by hard evidence.

The probability of being a victim of terror against getting in a traffic accident? No, please don't start warterboarding all bus-drivers...

I know truly acts as though this is true.

Because how true could that be by defintion?

I do believe in objective truth, even if not realistically achievable and perhaps not philosophical mainstream. But if it is also simpler and more interesting, that is an additional plus and probably more correct.

I also admit to having premises and no problem to reflect upon them. Only to some of them I keep a sentimental relationship. A frame of reference might always be needed. But why should the frame be special?

Subjective to me is the relevance of the assumption about truth. The same can be said about a lot of discussions about conscience and general perception.

I have google as default search engine and it shows me google in context menu, I don't have any mentions of bing.

Must be new then. That behaviour is definitely different at least on the semi-annual channel. That is the default for corporate environments I believe. I don't use Edge in private.

And with closing, I meant the browser just crashing. That is the behaviour of many other UWP apps as well. The idea allegedly was to show error information on the next start. Never saw that in action an even MS seems to ignore that.

True, maybe more competition is better but as of yet I don't see Edge as a serious competitor to webkit, chrome or ff.

As for the UI... debatable. Of course a UI is touch-friendly if there are about 3 buttons to configure your browser. The win8 UI was also considered modern. It still wasn't good in most cases.

It still has problems to scale images in a reasonable quality. A problem IE always had.

It also forces Bing down your throat if you select text and open the context menu.

It sometimes closes without any error message (to be fair, some crack-pipe UX-Designers call that a good thing.)

It cannot be configured in detail at all (about:flags; is there anything else?)

Dev-Tools are increadibly slow.

It is basically IE12 with less features because it got a new UI. Although they removed a lot of legacy stuff which I consider a step in the right direction.

Still, bottom line: Bad browser. The internet would be a better place if MS would stop to develop any browser.

I actually think that JS engines are very close to each other and that most performance indicators are a bit lacking if it comes to applicability on real pages.

Take a look at recent technologies they tried to push. UWP for example. I don't see any change in direction here, to be honest. They try to lock-in developers on every step.

Many devs are looking elsewhere, so they paint themselves as having changed. And they did, to an extend. But you if they ever get in a position where they could reign in developers, you can count on it that they will try.

Would be great to give the user an option to send statistics or something like that to do just that.

I really like VSC. But things like this really question all the positive experience. I doubt product management is going to help here.

Will now scan network transfer VSC is causing. In many other cases I wouldn't even bother anymore.

I love this. Taking a politically charged topic and trying to prove something irrefutably false while trying to make a completely different point. Yes, of course that is misinformation.

Let's try it more neutral. Water is an aggregate state of carbon dioxide. Is this misinformation? Yes. Do I want social networks to be chemical teachers? No.

That might be true. I should have added that protection rates are rising.

Even with legislation, you wouldn't achieve a 100% protection rate.

You can also verify the insignificance of this discussion if you look at the victims of measels.

You can always argue that one is one too many and I would agree. But I disagree about the means in case of doubt. But all that is off topic.

If that infurates you, it is a sign to be a necessity. There is a reason why social networks do not want to certify information to be true or not. And it is certainly not because of some "twisted side-stepping".

Evidence can change and something regarded as false yesterday, can be true tomorrow. Congratulations, you committed censorship.

Take your example of vaccinations. Huge topic, even in my country which is at a 96% protected rate. Misinformation would evidentely be that anti-vaxxers are a significant problem that should be talked about and that we seriously need legislation to enforce vaccination.

Blatently false, the numbers show it. Having any other opinion is pure science denial.

That said, it can be a problem in other parts of the world. So what should be the reference here?

You aren't even able to develop a theory about the damage of misinformation that would withstand scientific scrutiny. Maybe only because of lacking data than there not being a correlation, but still.

So in the end I would conclude you only want to censor things you do not like.

If you are more certain about your point of view and are able to articulate it, maybe more people will believe you.