This isn't from the bill, but this is what I would like to see: Any endless scroll "feed" can only be chronological content only from people/orgs/entities you opt-in to see ("follow", "subscribe", what-have-you).
Why chronological? What is special about that ordering?
You aren’t allowed any kind of filtering, or alternative ordering?
Do you always view the ‘new’ feed on hackernews, or do you prefer looking at the front page? I much prefer the front page, for all sorts of reasons. The new feed has all sorts of spam and garbage posts. Reposts, troll bait, etc. The front page usually has much more interesting posts, and definitely posts that have more interesting comments on them.
I don’t want to get rid of the front page, I like the idea of seeing posts ordered by popularity.
Why should you get to decide I am no longer allowed to sort my own feed by popularity, or however I want? I can’t sort things, just because you think I shouldn’t enjoy my feed too much?
I am not so egotistical as to think I get to decide any of this. Hence, I did not say I "should" get to decide.
I simply said that if I could, that is what I would like to see.
I tried to phrase my comment to convey that I know it is not a popular opinion. I am not surprised that someone would disagree me with, and I am okay with that :)
I have no issue with everyone being able to choose how you view your feed. I might even support legislation that would require any website with a feed to offer a chronological, not filtered version, although many websites already include an option to view a feed in that form.
This whole thread is about attempts to outlaw “addictive” feeds, which is what I take issue with. I don’t like the idea of government having that level of control.
On the other hand, I am also not in the group who says we should make no attempts to help our society deal with the negative effects of addictive feeds. I feel the same way about free speech; I am a huge believer in the absolute necessity for complete free speech, but I also don’t think we can ignore the power and influence of disinformation and/or propaganda. We should absolutely be working on figuring out mitigation tactics that don’t involve prohibiting speech, or prohibiting particular feed algorithms.
>I don’t like the idea of government having that level of control.
This is my usual stance. I have to deal with various regulations (and worse: state-by-state laws) in my business, so I tend to be reflexively anti-regulation.
If he was picking butts (heh) every day for 8 hours a day, he’d have to pick a butt every 10 seconds. That seems like an implausible amount of butt picking.
If you watch the video, you'll see he shows a many dozens all in a small area, just within quick pan of the camera. He can probably pick up one per second for several minutes. That, or scoop them up in a huge bunch with a little bit of dirt, and sift them later.
It's not that implausible.
He even says he initially expected it would take a few years to reach one million.
One IP address (exclusively ours) among our email IPs at my place of employment was affected. We have used that IP for nine years. Emails are strictly transactional (receipts, password resets, et cetera).
The "rate limiting" started two weeks ago, giving us a code that Microsoft's documentation doesn't even list. It remains unresolved. Never had critical issues like this on our transactional IPs prior to this, and this particular IP address is still delivering just fine to other consumer and corporate email systems.
Rather than a singular "question" that seems stupid, consider prime numbers. People toyed with prime numbers for centuries, asking all sorts of questions, with little-to-no impact on the vast majority of humans. Fast forward to the age of telecommunications: suddenly massive innovations in cryptography are being built on knowledge of prime numbers that previously was a novelty.
Yeah, math has a lot of ideas that seemed like silly puzzles when first explored. The term "imaginary numbers" was originally an insult (from Descartes!) for math involving the square root of negative numbers.
J.S. Mill's autobiography is a fascinating read. He spends quite a lot of it discussing his early childhood, explaining that in his opinion he was not particularly special, rather, it was his father who pushed him to all those accomplishments. His father sheltered him from other kids so he was not aware that his accomplishments were unusual!
His father who oversaw his education and possibly both parents, and Bentham that played a role in his education as well, would have known either Greek, or Latin or both as they were considered essential to a rounded education at the time.
I learned two languages growing up and was speaking both as soon as I could speak and could write in both not long after. This is typical for nearly every kid in the world outside of countries with strong language monocultures. I certainly think Mills was a very talented person, but there's this weird cult of being impressed by "speaks 7 languages" hagoigraphies which aren't helpful. People bring up it as some acid test of intelligence and its just not very accurate.
Especially when you actually know the language these kinds of people claim to speak and you realize they actually don't speak 7 languages but maybe know 2 or 3 fluently and know 'kitchen' versions of all the others. I'm not going to name names because I don't want an argument and don't have the spoons for it, but lots of these international luminaries and leaders and such with "speaks 7 language" are often little more than conmen or simply enjoy building their own little hagiographies for their own PR goals.
There's this wonderful deep-dive on youtube on Feynman's high-questionable personal mythology that is a great example of this kind of self-promotion and how easy it is to sell one's self, especially in academic and techie circles, if you have a certain amount of charisma and drive.
Also as a lefty, I'm also not impressed by breathless ambidextrous tales either as most lefties are forced to be ambidextrous and its not actually exceptional at all. I can write with both hands, play musical instruments either way, play sports either way, etc. The left hand is better at these things, but my right-hand is okay-ish at almost all these things and I use a right-hand dominant near everything in my life anyway. I even like to switch it up to keep wear and tear down. At work the mouse is on the left, but at home for gaming its on the right. This is all boring everyday stuff for lefties.
There's a toxic 'great man' mythology that humanity still can't get over and its weird seeing it taken seriously when so many 'great men' have been debunked or seen as recipients of the system they were under (Mills' father pushing him so hard and being in the privileged class that would allow all this instead of back-breaking farm labor all day). Personal talent is important but its vastly played up in dishonest ways for dishonest gains. We probably pass many highly talented people a day on the street, but only some had the opportunity to grow those gifts into something they can use.
The famous quote comes to mind. "I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops." - Stephen Jay Gould
I learned to read at age three or four, I think and I consumed every book I could find, including various math books, old chemistry books, etc. I didn't really understand anything there, but it was just fascinating to me to even touch that knowledge. So I'm a bit skeptic about these stories of children studying Plato.
My daughter spoke four languages at age 3. Not because she is gifted, but because she grew up in an immigrant environment. One language with me, another with my partner who speaks a different mother tongue than I do, and the two local languages where we live.
And this is utterly unremarkable where I live.
When we visit my family (who are all monolingual), they think she is a prodigy.
Latin/Greek were considered part of the core curriculum for a well-rounded classical education in the upper-class for hundreds of years (some degree of retained proficiency wasn't unusual in graduates of the elite schools in Britain even through the mid 20th century). Not spoken as a primary language, sure, but far from "dead" in education.
Latin was required for philosophy, law, rhetoric, and the classics. Greek skewing more towards the sciences, logic and also philosophy. One would be constantly encounter Latin/Greek in their materials and not just as a obtuse code to memorize like how a modern biology student typically views e.g. binomial nomenclature today.
So when viewed through the 21st century lens of English dominance throughout education, it loses the context that makes it much more understandable why and how a young student, especially a precocious one, would pick up those languages specifically in the course of their tutoring, reading, etc. (And not as some kind of genius parlor trick as modern retellings tend to portray it).
Latin was the common lingua franca for scholarship even into the 18th century so studying the classical languages was genuinely useful, not just a parlor trick. It's the equivalent of a modern child prodigy in a non-English speaking country learning English as a young age to access present-day research.
In the time of J.S.M. they were languages used by academics and upper classes regularly enough that in his circles he and many of his peers had early exposure.
Learning by immersion is still a very different process from learning by being tutored. One is something that young childrens' brains do almost entirely subconsciously, the other is conscious academic work.
His book 'On Liberty' is the subject of a recent In Our Time episode (BBC Radio Four series on the history of ideas) [https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002pqnc]. They discuss his childhood and his (apparently very warm) relationship with his father. (Sidenote: first proper In Our Time episode with the new host; he seems fine, but I miss Melvyn Bragg.)
Knowing Greek, Latin, and Plato is very useful for a philosopher of his times. I’m far from being a fan of Mill’s contributions but he aligned himself well with the western history of philosophy.
But if you imply that philosophy as such isn’t useful, it’s simply wrong, if not arrogant. Everyone needs philosophy.
Tangential but am reminded of Churchill's comments" "And when in after years my school-fellows who had won prizes and distinction for writing such beautiful Latin poetry and pithy Greek epigrams had to come down again to common English, to earn their living or make their way, I did not feel myself at any disadvantage." and
"“However, by being so long in the lowest form I gained an immense advantage over the cleverer boys. They all went on to learn Latin and Greek and splendid things like that. But I was taught English. We were considered such dunces that we could learn only English. Mr. Somervell—a most delightful man, to whom my debt is great—was charged with the duty of teaching the stupidest boys the most disregarded thing—namely, to write mere English. He knew how to do it. He taught it as no one else has ever taught it. Not only did we learn English parsing thoroughly, but we also practised continually English analysis."
Your final sentence seems a bit odd in that context though: Churchill's point is that Latin and Greek actually isn't useful at all, so it would follow that it isn't better to do both (i.e. study the classics as well as English), especially as time to learn them would have a huge opportunity cost, e.g. you could use that time to study more English composition instead.
(If you think they're worth learning just for their own sake then that's another matter, but the quote seems to imply that Churchill wouldn't agree.)
I think Churchill's main point is that they neglected teaching English well. However, if you read him and politicians of the era, you will find plenty of classical references. If we dig into classical history it is quite amazing how many of the same things we see. I was reading something about how certain cities in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) were spending more and more money on civic vanity projects and having to be bailed out by central government in Rome. Very similar to patterns today.
Latin was a lot more common than Greek in schools in the UK. But even that tended to be private schools after the sixties and seventies. Greek was a subset of that.
I was lucky, I had two or three excellent English teachers. Very inspiring and helpful. I wish I could say the same about mathematics (most of my teachers were terrible and one didn't even teach us how to do the problems)... Or my French teacher. I think we spoke better French than he did at the end. Since I spent a lot of my childhood in rural Scotland I was effectively bilingual anyway.
Your concern is valid, but you are misguided on a few details. I will inform you as best I can in the context of US intellectual property law.
I am not a lawyer, but I have spent a lot of time adjacent to this stuff, and am not aware of a "copyright strike" as a legal concept. I assume you are borrowing this terminology from various platforms who have their own internal "three strikes" policy for user-created content that violates copyright. However, those policies are entirely for-and-within those ecosystems, and do not directly correlate to any legal notion of "copyright strike". If you violate the rights of someone's work, they send you a C&D and/or sue you, regardless of the platform's use of some "strike" system.
That "someone's work" is key: Copyright covers the output of creative works: writing, art, photography, code, music, video production, et cetera. Copyright law would apply if social media Kith stole an image from fashion Kith's website. It would also apply if one was sent social media Kith the source code from fashion Kith's website, and social media Kith used it (I don't know why they would, but it would violate the copy rights of fashion Kith). The violation would be about the work, not the name.
You referred to the brand name, which would be covered by Trademark law. Trademark law concerns itself with more than just the name, but also the design/logo, sound of the name when spoken, etc. Within that, there is a focus on the likelihood that the public would might confused and the degree to which one brand or another might be damaged by that confusion.
This leads to (somewhat common) situations where there are two marks with the same name, but in different industries, because there is no risk of brand confusion. For example "Delta" is a trademark of an airline company, and "Delta" is also a trademark of a faucet company. They have different logos and products/services in different industries (the USPTO has 40-or-so categories), thus there is little risk of brand confusion.
On the other hand, if two businesses have products/services in the same category, even a different name can be a Trademark violation if it (for example) sounds similar enough. Imagine a hypothetical hard drive manufacturer named "StoreTech". If you started a hard drive manufacturing company and named it "StorTek" it's very likely that StoreTech would pursue trademark action against you, even though the name is technically different!
There is A LOT more to Trademark than just this, but these are some factors to keep in mind.
As someone who has used and enjoyed Heroku off-and-on since 2010, I was rattled by the phrasing of the announcement.
Reading comments about people's challenges and displeasures with Heroku over the years, they have almost never resonated with me. When the complaints were contextualized, I certainly understood them, but they have not been applicable to my needs and experiences.
My current team at work had a meeting about the announcement, and decided to spend gradual time over the next year exploring how we would migrate off Heroku if we must, and running tests of our own alternative infra in pursuit of that. It is also our desire not to need to! Our first-pass assessment of such a migration is that it would (1) be time-consuming at the expensive of other work, (2) be more expensive (in engineering time) than we presently spend, and (3) likely result in worse DX than what Heroku provides.
We definitely don't want to leave, but we also know the professional choice is to be prepared to do so within the next year or two. We would not have had that conversation at all if the announcement had not been so strange. If I have any feedback for the leadership at Salesforce, it would be that: communicate better, because you are pushing otherwise-satisfied customers away.
As someone who moved from Heroku -> App Engine -> Cloud Run, I think you'll appreciate the modern alternatives more. If you remove the cost factor, the development experience within GCP is far superior. Not to mention the security features are great as well.
I think Cloud Run has many nice features that Heroku's apps don't. However, Heroku's services ecosystem and the easy bindings don't have a direct Cloud Run equivalent, imo, and are inferior in the GCP world.
If it works fine and cash flows then sales force would sell it before shutting it down. PE would love to acquire and milk it (and you).
Honestly though it isn’t that hard to go k8s anymore and self host with Argo etc. You can use ChatGPT to figure it all out. Just go bare minimum commodity VPS and use agnostic code as infrastructure like terraform. Then you can just win from the race to the bottom of cost
We know that it isn't intractable, nor is it particularly difficult. However, our particulars are such that Heroku is a small fraction of our expenses, so it simply feels like an annoying distraction from otherwise focusing purely on opportunities for revenue growth.
Totally understand. The existential risk is the main issue. I will say it’s never been easier for software generalists to become competent Devops, treat it like another piece of software you engineer
I remember learning about this in high school, but grew up in a part of a large city that only really developed after the 1940's, I didn't think much of it. However, the name was catchy so I had it stashed in my memory somewhere.
As I've gone on to live in a few older cities, I have been surprised the number of times that I have (for example) come across a bridge or tunnel or whatnot and seen a big serif "WORKS PROGRESS ADMINISTRATION 1936" plaque on one side of it. It always feels like stepping into an alternate reality where history is more present and real.
It feels like a silly way to phrase it, but growing up where only a handful of buildings were older than 40 years, encountering history in a more banal form, like a simple bridge with some engravings, always feels more impactful than seeing some 500-year-old castle, monument or other touristy site.
Will that be bad for "engagement"?
Yes. That's the point.
reply