I agree it doesn't matter for most smaller entities, but it's relevant for larger entities and as the US does not anymore intend to be allied with Europe, the Western world, or anybody really, there's now actual incentive to move away from such systemic risks.
No, the risk is that Microsoft loses its de facto monopoly on Enterprise ecosystems.
It's pretty hard to switch to Linux, some have tried, bigger entities never stuck to it. So far. Now with the political landscape shifting, the priority to achieve that has gone much higher.
I assumed you would link the actual articles, but instead you linked articles about his articles. One should start with the original sources at least.
You got a good point, it's not always clear what people try to imply, on the other hand however I have experienced many times that interpretations were not really based on what was actually said/written.
I like the first article in that regard as it is based on quoted sections. It does quite hard framing on what's actually written, but at least it's easier to judge the merit of the argument when it's side by side with the original quote it's based on.
This seems like a common misconception, but it actually isn't an indivisible human right to settle in another EU country if you don't have the means to support yourself [1]. If you have ever been engaged by them, it's obvious the sort of "gypsies" panhandling and pooping on Copenhagen or Helsinki streets clearly do not meet the criteria and are not citizens.
Left, right, north or south on the political compass, all parties are in agreement about this, and thousands of people are deported from Denmark every year without Alligator Alcatraz concentration camps or other platitudes about nazism.
> the sort of "gypsies" panhandling and pooping on Copenhagen or Helsinki streets clearly do not meet the criteria and are not citizens.
I'm guessing by the quotes on "gypsies" that these are not the Roma that have been in and out of Finland and Denmark since the 16th century .. but apparently still being used as a slur after several hundred years?
Finnish Roma live in the same houses, their children go to the same schools (including those I attended), they speak the same language and they poop in the same toilets as everyone else. They also have every right to a safe city center without foreigners causing a nuisance.
Regarding terminology, many call themself "mustalainen" (literally "blackie", basically same as "gypsy" I guess) themselves. Although it can be considered offensive in some context, it's not exactly the same as dropping the n-word.
The linked article (not DHH's article) is the reason why Trump is in power and why right wing extremists are in the rise in Europe.
People are concerned about things that can't even be expressed without getting labeled as fascist or racist. While the concerns may be irrational and without merit, it should be talked and discussed with those people and trying to understand their concerns better. Instead the reaction is "no need to talk with them as they are racists".
And yes, there are many racists out there and they have gotten so much support lately because many people feel heard by them and only them.
Bullshit: the primary reason Trump (and many other right-wingers) are in power is economic. Pushback to this sort of outward white supremacy is, in fact, quite popular.
And to a large degree, there is little point in rationally debating these concerns as they are rooted in racial animus. If somebody deeply feels that their glorious white race is being replaced by hordes of deranged brown immigrants, that's not a position they can be argued out of: it's an axiomatic outlook on the nature of society and humanity that, for the most part, only generational turnover (and maybe life experience) can correct.
You're not engaging in good faith if you reduce every criticism to "they're not 100% with us". People have explained their views well enough for you to understand where they're coming from.
Why would you want to switch? Did you check the original sources or did you only observe how angry some person on the Internet is and deduced how guilty some other person must be?
Not OP, but personally I spent some time reading DHH's blog posts. They are truly vile. It's entirely reasonable to want to boycott any product that sends money his way.
Public companies stand for making (more) money, that's always been the case. In a democracy, the foundation of the power in a society is what people vote for and who they vote for. Companies adhere to what the administration decide, can't blame them to show no resistance to such a stupid thing. Out of all crazy things that orange grandpa does, this is really only minor.
And by the way, for most of the world the map looks different, even on Google maps. For me, it correctly shows "Lake Ontario" first and below it shows the crazy man's fantasy.
Pathetic. The most maddening words in corporate america are "ohhhh, mmmeeee tooo".
If it's minor then why comply? If it's major then it's a major error to comply.
Stop being an apologist for the stupidity of corporate America. And yah, I can and I do blame them.
A final point: the more political things get, the more things become about cheap symbolism and shadow boxing BS the more things get untied to reality which pre-sages failure.
> That's however something an AI would not implement without being specifically asked.
This is true for all LLMs today, none of them work 100% autonomously, somewhere along the chain one human made at least one decision that lead to what the agent end up working on.
I agree it doesn't matter for most smaller entities, but it's relevant for larger entities and as the US does not anymore intend to be allied with Europe, the Western world, or anybody really, there's now actual incentive to move away from such systemic risks.
reply