Why not? I really dislike people who don't turn on their video, which it was enforced. If you get the luxury of sitting at home, should at least be polite and show your face
>If you get the luxury of sitting at home, should at least be polite and show your face
So if I'm in the office I don't have to show my face? I work at a company that has offices in I honestly don't even know how many countries and pre-covid I had no need to see someones face from Germany, India, Japan, America, etc.
Working from home doesn't change that in my mind. If you're not in my house or my office, I have no need to see you.
I work in a remote-only team since mid-2019 and we've never used video in any meeting (even including the job interview). Why would we? On average there's one audio meeting per week; all the rest is done over chat, mail and issue tracker.
Video in meetings that don't require it is just a stressful distraction.
That is a wise move! my team is total remote, and we do audio only meetings, it works just right. Video calls are making everyone feel the way people on TV feel every slouchy every mumble every interruption is magnified. What do you use for audio calls? Zoom? Skype? Tappy is perfect for Audio-only meetings. Very simple and light, the audio quality is better than Zoom. https://tappy.so/
Freedom of speech is a concept, and a legal definition in the US. It's true that Twitter has no _legal_ obligation to uphold free speech since it's not a government entity.
But if you support the _concept_ of free speech, Twitter is stiffing conversation by playing a moral judge on what is considered truth and what's considered lies.
The Constitution was written 200 years ago without any of the today's technology. Back then, all "speech" happens either live in person, or by individual printing presses. Government back then was the biggest threat to the concept of free speech, so it's indoctrinated in the constitution as a legal concept.
Today, public discussion space has moved onto social media platforms. Government is no longer the biggest threat to speech (because of the Constitution), but private companies like Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc who can just ban anyone at will and cause them to lose the ability to reach their followers. If you want to protect free speech as a concept, then we need to update our legal concept to include any platform or service that's identified as critical to public discussion.
Similar to how electricity companies are regulated as utilities companies because they're so crucial to people's daily lives, social media platforms should be regulated as speech platforms because they're so crucial to today's conversations happening in society.
This is the hard truth. You won't like it because you hate the man. But it's the truth
/ end devil's advocate
> Actually, these aren’t really issues for short gifs (<5 seconds). But long videos which have been converted into gifs are quite common.
Anybody doing the latter is the problem, not really the format’s fault it’s being used improperly. Any GIF with more than XX frames (for me that’s up to around 100 depending on content, but everyone is free to make their own decision) should be a video. GIF is meant to be for short animations, not for showing videos.
Agreed. People think it is important to them. It may even impart information they can use to better themselves, not that it necessarily must. It’s entertainment primarily by virtue of usage if not of intent, as in the case of HN.
It's really unfair to clump all of entertainment together. Is watching reality TV same as discussing tech medium? Even if you boil "entertainment" down to "gives you fun points" one clearly gives you something more than that.
I think reading HN and watching reality TV are a lot closer than you think. The obvious difference is that you apparently have contempt for one and not the other. But I challenge the idea that you're being enriched any more by posting on HN.
Maybe you learn some new things here and there the same way someone who watches a lot of Elimidate might pick up some social skills/awareness.
But notice how convenient it is to attribute bad qualities to the thing you don't even enjoy in the first place, and positive qualities to the thing you do enjoy.
It's completely absurd to think that watching reality tv would give you any social or marketing skills — if anything I'd argue it's the complete opposite.
> Is watching reality TV same as discussing tech medium?
Honestly, in a lot of cases, yeah. I'm never going to use the vast majority of what I read about on HN, it's simply not in my sphere of work - it's fairly pure entertainment.
Are soft deletes even legal in the context of privacy laws like GDPR? If I’m writing in to delete my data, I don’t really give a crap how hard it is. I want that permanently wiped, so that even if you wanted to you can’t find it again.
How that messes up your technical implementation is your problem
Why is this misleading claim repeated so often? They are profitable on every. single ride. Even including all the marketing costs, they're profitable on the rideshare.
It's the investment into new ventures like Uber Eats that cuts into the revenue because it' expanding so fast.
