I'm all for net neutrality in the general case, but during an emergency we have the unfortunate mix of likely having higher demand and lower supply for traffic. Throttling nonessential traffic seems commonsense so essential traffic will make it through. The alternative might be an effective telco blackout during emergencies.
There are only so many way they can do this with a physical filter, and the article suggests that whatever Casper was doing, the replacement with simple polarising filters (which may be the same thing) functioned largely the same way. So, this is really not that exciting except as a cool application.
As a content provider, that's not my business. And as a consumer, I use lots of ad-blockers and similar, because I visit a lot of sites where I don't even trust the content provider not to do that stuff.
And as someone who once worked at a VPN-as-a-service company, I know that there are ways to, with the user's permission usually, inject root certificates to all for content injection into HTTPS, and also that even outside of this, most sites don't contract with advertisers directly; they use ad networks and most of those have very poor quality controls; even now fairly often when I browse the internet on my phone I get that take-over-your-phone ad content.
That ship has sailed; these concerns are only valid for a world we're no longer in, and mandating https never really helped with this much anyway.
So many weasel phrases. "increasingly being taken seriously by credible" . Nope. It's a fringe view, and for good reason. Pure speculation, a kind of god of the gaps, no mechanism proposed, no explanatory or predictive power.
It's easy to praise this when investments go well. But were you to actually treat this thoughtfully and consider the actual "screw yourself over" case, you might reach a different conclusion.
The rights I care about are very differently flavoured than "opportunity to invest in a company", but yes. I think it makes sense to block people off from entirely screwing themselves over, and if that means less well-off people (often meaning people with no background in investment) can't invest this way, that's great.
I have little sympathy for technolibertarians playing word games to dance around sensible regulation. Particularly when they grumble that sensible regulation is fascism.
That they offer it is no reason others must support it. It's a little ugly to be bothered at other people's lack of purity on matters like this. Nobody's making him do anything with it. Leave well enough alone.
Earlier this week I went to a tech event with a lot of good talks, but then a SRE manager who does a lot of "unconscious bias training" sprung a shorter version of that training on us all as a talk; she grumbled about these very things. I wish I could've just left when it started without making a scene.
There is an "ability-to-pay" thing here that figures into how the overhead is essentially a flat tax. Unless you'd want a university where only big grant-givers can do any research at all, you're going to have a tax structure like this.
And what few universities actually have people devoted to diversity, there usually are only a few of them and they're cheap, because they're mostly there for show and everybody knows it. The other things you mention, when not overblown, actually help the university. Bloat is possible and there is no general solution to it, but this is just as true in the private sector, or basically anywhere humans need to organise and deal with limited funds and interdepartmental needs.
Your perspective is ignorant then. I spent 10 years working for a university in research, and the administrative overhead was necessary if you wanted to let professors spend any actual time on research. If you imagine removing all the same administrative overheard from a University as from a large business, either would grind to a halt.
I think College Sports, while not particularly on-topic for education and damaging to how colleges evaluate students, often end up bringing more money into Universities than they cost. If we're focused on saving money, they're not a good thing to imagine cutting.
Being allowed to ban players who can win is very different from it being illegal.
If one of the weirdos who plays chess in public spaces for money spots a grandmaster coming about, or even just loses to someone better than they are, they shouldn't feel obliged to keep playing more games; they can tell anyone they like to fuck off so they can focus on people they can make money from.
"[In the past,] your beliefs, your future, your hopes, your dreams belonged to you"
They still do. It's just that some others know what those things are. You still get to pick them. And long before most people reading this were born, there were people who were interested in knowing what they are so they can sell stuff to you, and various non-marketers could get at that too.
It's great when as individuals we have the luxury of choosing where we work. I'm at a point in my career where I have that luxury and I use it. I'd leave a place that frustrates me enough, either in terms of mission, management, or coworkers. As a group though, a lot of us lack that choice, and even for those who do, when they step away the employer will just find someone else to deal with the crap they left behind, because funds are sustenance, we've all got to eat, and if there are spare funds to hire people, more people will keep entering the industry (it's not like other industries are exempt from this - they often have it worse).
None of this means we should give up on trying to make the world a better place, for those of us who have that ideal. We just usually will lack the leverage to do much, like almost everybody else. And if we start with the idea that we're wiser, more ethical, or the people who are uniquely situated to debug society's ills, we're starting with a significant handicap.
Slashdot Mirror
Same as my current car. Personal car ownership is a sad thing.
I'm all for net neutrality in the general case, but during an emergency we have the unfortunate mix of likely having higher demand and lower supply for traffic. Throttling nonessential traffic seems commonsense so essential traffic will make it through. The alternative might be an effective telco blackout during emergencies.
There are only so many way they can do this with a physical filter, and the article suggests that whatever Casper was doing, the replacement with simple polarising filters (which may be the same thing) functioned largely the same way. So, this is really not that exciting except as a cool application.
Polarising filters are pretty cool regardless.
As a content provider, that's not my business.
And as a consumer, I use lots of ad-blockers and similar, because I visit a lot of sites where I don't even trust the content provider not to do that stuff.
And as someone who once worked at a VPN-as-a-service company, I know that there are ways to, with the user's permission usually, inject root certificates to all for content injection into HTTPS, and also that even outside of this, most sites don't contract with advertisers directly; they use ad networks and most of those have very poor quality controls; even now fairly often when I browse the internet on my phone I get that take-over-your-phone ad content.
That ship has sailed; these concerns are only valid for a world we're no longer in, and mandating https never really helped with this much anyway.
Why do I need to care about these things? Not my problem.
So many weasel phrases. "increasingly being taken seriously by credible" . Nope. It's a fringe view, and for good reason. Pure speculation, a kind of god of the gaps, no mechanism proposed, no explanatory or predictive power.
Conversion really is not that hard.
It's easy to praise this when investments go well. But were you to actually treat this thoughtfully and consider the actual "screw yourself over" case, you might reach a different conclusion.
The rights I care about are very differently flavoured than "opportunity to invest in a company", but yes. I think it makes sense to block people off from entirely screwing themselves over, and if that means less well-off people (often meaning people with no background in investment) can't invest this way, that's great.
I have little sympathy for technolibertarians playing word games to dance around sensible regulation. Particularly when they grumble that sensible regulation is fascism.
The best you can do is 1 article that doesn't say what you want it to, another from someone at Heritage, and another at Investopedia?
The new UI is not information-dense. It needs to be.
That they offer it is no reason others must support it.
It's a little ugly to be bothered at other people's lack of purity on matters like this. Nobody's making him do anything with it. Leave well enough alone.
SRE = Site Reliability Engineer - we're a kind of software-infrastructure-oriented programmer.
Earlier this week I went to a tech event with a lot of good talks, but then a SRE manager who does a lot of "unconscious bias training" sprung a shorter version of that training on us all as a talk; she grumbled about these very things. I wish I could've just left when it started without making a scene.
Fair. And if they don't pay for themselves, I'd be cool with them going away.
There is an "ability-to-pay" thing here that figures into how the overhead is essentially a flat tax. Unless you'd want a university where only big grant-givers can do any research at all, you're going to have a tax structure like this.
And what few universities actually have people devoted to diversity, there usually are only a few of them and they're cheap, because they're mostly there for show and everybody knows it. The other things you mention, when not overblown, actually help the university. Bloat is possible and there is no general solution to it, but this is just as true in the private sector, or basically anywhere humans need to organise and deal with limited funds and interdepartmental needs.
Your perspective is ignorant then. I spent 10 years working for a university in research, and the administrative overhead was necessary if you wanted to let professors spend any actual time on research. If you imagine removing all the same administrative overheard from a University as from a large business, either would grind to a halt.
I think College Sports, while not particularly on-topic for education and damaging to how colleges evaluate students, often end up bringing more money into Universities than they cost. If we're focused on saving money, they're not a good thing to imagine cutting.
People kvetching about "motherboard" or "master-slave" in database terminology are not being sexist or racist.
Being allowed to ban players who can win is very different from it being illegal.
If one of the weirdos who plays chess in public spaces for money spots a grandmaster coming about, or even just loses to someone better than they are, they shouldn't feel obliged to keep playing more games; they can tell anyone they like to fuck off so they can focus on people they can make money from.
"[In the past,] your beliefs, your future, your hopes, your dreams belonged to you"
They still do. It's just that some others know what those things are. You still get to pick them. And long before most people reading this were born, there were people who were interested in knowing what they are so they can sell stuff to you, and various non-marketers could get at that too.
Provided you avoid overtraining and memorising your inputs, yup.
It's great when as individuals we have the luxury of choosing where we work. I'm at a point in my career where I have that luxury and I use it. I'd leave a place that frustrates me enough, either in terms of mission, management, or coworkers. As a group though, a lot of us lack that choice, and even for those who do, when they step away the employer will just find someone else to deal with the crap they left behind, because funds are sustenance, we've all got to eat, and if there are spare funds to hire people, more people will keep entering the industry (it's not like other industries are exempt from this - they often have it worse).
None of this means we should give up on trying to make the world a better place, for those of us who have that ideal. We just usually will lack the leverage to do much, like almost everybody else. And if we start with the idea that we're wiser, more ethical, or the people who are uniquely situated to debug society's ills, we're starting with a significant handicap.
Also, if you're using Flash, it probably won't be too long before that's yet another thing to emulate. Sad how quickly technologies come and go.