I'm talking about a web BROWSER. That's a native program.
Seriously?! You have found many people (with virtually any background) not considering such a statement evident!!? LOGICALLY, I was referring to your original statement "sort of think you'd have in a web browser", as assumed to represent a sample application dealing with web-based problems!! As said, it was merely a polite remark without even properly analysing it by, for example, wondering what makes Rust stronger than any other language like C++ on that front?! That you say it so (like the nonsense that Go has to rely on managed memory)?
both unwilling an unable to distinguish between a web page and a web browser
What are you talking about?! See (-> I mean any sensible individual reading this, not you) why I didn't want to continue with this conversation?! What in the hell is wrong with (people like) you?! You don't seem to be able to understand even the simplest idea! Pff... Anyway, welcome to my list of people with whom I will not talk by default.
I don't follow. Rust is the implementation language of parts of firefox as is C++. There's nothing "web based" about either of them and I don't really see what being web based would even be for the implementation of a web browser.
I was merely repeating what you said (= paying more attention at aspects which are mostly relevant on web-based implementations than a language like C++), mostly out of politeness. My bad, sorry. I don't see why I should continue with this conversation and that's why I will stop it here. Bye.
Go is memory safe, but uses full GC. Java and. Net already do that.
Not exactly..NET allows exceptions under certain conditions (C# unsafe). Apparently (I didn't use it in that experiment), Go also allows unsafe (= no GC) conditions.
Currently Rust has set a priority to make the language more approachable
They definitively need to do that. I personally might not mind using it in the future in case quite a few things are improved. There are a relevant number of programming languages which had a very important evolution. I also understand that this is a brand new language and that any feedback, even negative, is helpful. The higher the number of good alternatives, the better for everyone.
You know the sort of think you'd have in a web browser
A new web-based C++, then? OK, that makes kind of sense but, at least IMO, they failed. Go seems to have done a better job (still not particularly good though).
Thanks for the info regarding editors and debugging (BTW, I used VSC without the plugin, by debugging directly via compiler and generated warnings/errors; in case of having decided to use a proper IDE, I would have most likely chosen Eclipse or Visual Studio), but I don't agree with most of what you say. I usually rely on other languages, but eventually use C/C++ and have no problem with them (unlikely with Rust).
But rust really is new, which means you actually have to learn new concepts aside
Have you ever tried Perl? It is pretty much the archetype of being different. After getting used to its peculiarities (what happens surprisingly quickly), it is quite nice. In fact, I liked it so much that have started a relatively big development in Perl right away.
The performance of c with compile time thread-safety is a beautiful thing
I don't know about the exact reliability of that claim, but it sounds quite similar to what C++ offers. And as commented above, C++ can be very complex but it also has very simple and intuitive alternatives. This is what matters at the end: allowing everyone to have a nice programming experience, either by delivering an overall-friendly environment or a very big one where you can choose whatever you prefer. Rust doesn't offer any of those options, just one narrow and unfriendly path which you have to follow no matter what.
I don't know rust so I can't comment on it directly, but I'm a C++ dev and a lot of that applies to C++
Rust is certainly worse. C++ is a difficult-to-master language, not a difficult-to-get-started one. C is much more difficult to get started than C++, at least for someone with a modern-language background. But even with C, you have options which are a bit less problematic on which newbies might rely at least to perform the relatively simple development I did (just a simple application calling an external program and parsing the simplistic output which it generates). The four languages I mentioned might be quite tricky. Perl, for example, can be considered a quite weird language making everything differently than most of other languages. Rust was at a completely different level: its difficulty appeared since the very first moment and was provoked by a relevant unfriendliness, counter-intuitiveness and even consistency lacks at some points.
I have recently performed a relatively simple development by using programming languages on which I had low-to-to-no experience: Perl (low), Ruby (no), Rust (no) and Go (no). Note that I am quite adaptable on the programming language front and that this small experiment was precisely meant to showcase these adaptability skills. Rust was, by far, the most difficult-to-learn, difficult-to-research, counter-intuitive, unfriendly, constrained, unappealing, etc. of all of them. Warnings and errors appeared systematically and, despite their verbosity, were rarely helpful. I had problems even to find an editor/install it! (relied on Visual Studio Code in both Linux and Windows, an editor which I rarely use; and had to struggle with my Visual C++ installation on Windows, which was working fine until Rust came in).
The most ironic part is that so many restrictions and problems are likely to provoke people to rely on whatever option happens to work, which might not be the best/safest one. Being so concerned about making sure that the generated code is extremely safe no matter what by sacrificing flexibility and user friendliness is far from ideal. Restrictions and prohibitions have always to be seen as an in-the-worst-case-scenario resource, not as a primary solution; much less when dealing with something as complex as programming, a very powerful tool supposed to be managed by knowledgeable individuals. The higher the freedom, the better the results delivered by a sensible/knowledgeable person. Unless Rust changes a lot, I don't see it going anywhere. It might get some support from theoretical/academical/inside-whatever-bubble circles, but seriously doubt that developers with real-world experience can like or even accept most of what this language represents.
Eventually, it probably will reach the point where buying another machine and paying the taxes is going to cost more than giving up and hiring humans (though they'll likely be minimum wage meat-puppets following orders from the automated manager).
This will never happen because of two reasons: being against the whole purpose of companies, machines, optimisation, taxes, etc. (making people lives easier; all of them are our puppets, our slaves, not the other way around; some people might be temporarily fooled on this front, but never a big proportion of human-kind and for something actually relevant); and being simply impossible (now, in the quite a few next years and probably ever) to build machines with the human-like abilities that your fantasy requires.
This kind of apocalyptic extrapolations usually lack a basic understanding of the underlying reality, exactly what your premises did by completely ignoring practical and technical aspects. You have poorly analysed the evolution of a few isolated issues, ignored all what surrounds them including their motivations and imagined impossible what-if scenarios. Without adequately understanding the exact conditions within the right context, it is impossible to draw reliable conclusions and much less distant-future guesses.
From the point of view of a soulless being like a corporation, the lower the (employee) expenses the better. Computerising, automating or, in general, increasing the dependence on machines is mostly meant precisely to reduce costs. All this in theory because the reality is much more complex than that: companies are constrained by governments and consumers, who mainly depend on having jobs.
In any case, there will be no sudden AI irruption, but just a continuation of the gradual technological adoption which has been happening since hundreds of years ago. Less specialised jobs will keep getting obsolete, new skills and requirements will keep appearing and the education of the upcoming generations will keep evolving accordingly. Sorry about that, AI preppers, but no apocalyptic scenario is expected.
Never heard about them before, but your post made me curious. After a quick research and some videos, I have decided that my next keyword will be Unicomp.
Curious side note: as far as the shipping costs to Spain in their site were too high, I went to amazon.com and found their products at almost the same price + no shipping costs. Everyone (big, small and client) wins, a surprisingly easy and unfortunately unusual outcome.
With "from this curious iteration", I meant "from this curious interaction". Note that I eventually post this kind of correcting follow-ups because you cannot edit/delete posts in Slashdot. Also bear in mind that my work isn't writing English (which is my second language, BTW) neither caring a lot about something as irrelevant as writing a proper post here (I like Slashdot, but this is something for fun/to get distracted, not my work), but programming.
I will take advantage from this curious iteration to highlight that I usually refer to non-logged users (here called Anonymous Cowards, short-form AC) as "other AC" because my initials happen to also be AC (= Alvaro Carballo). I have nothing to do with the huge number of other people who post anonymously (or not) in this site. I never post anonymously myself and have always relied on this account, I am also the only person who has ever used it (like anything else called Custom Solvers 2.0 or varocarbas; that's why the signature of my posts). Logically, all what I write here are my own opinions, which I share when I feel like doing so for no other reason than feeling like doing so.
Sure. Although I am not sure how to over-clarify what I consider crystal clear. I didn't like DDG when I used it but kept doing so because of thinking that they were a small, technically-oriented business (= bunch of programmers mostly caring about programming). I realised that I was wrong and stopped doing so. My overall impression has kept evolving towards (lots-of-)money-/marketing-/etc.-focused company and, as per my personal expectations, these companies tend to say what users want to hear (rather than actually doing so). In any case, as a user of a business claiming that they care about my privacy, I would expect them to provide the means allowing me to validate such claims rather than blindly trusting what they say.
reads like concern trolling
Please, keep that nonsensical expression away from me. I am sharing my opinion, you can think that it is right/wrong, try to change it or ignore me; but try to avoid arbitrarily insulting me because of not liking/understanding what I say.
they're not 'the good guys' like it seems
What are you 5 yo? No company is the good guys. Companies only care about one thing: getting richer. A different story is lying. You don't need to be good/bad to sell a distorted perception of your business/expectations; you might be a liar (or even a fraudster) though.
Honestly if it wasn't for Slashdot posters I'd never have heard of DDG not sure what you're talking about with the adverts
What has this to do with anything of what I wrote?! When have I mentioned Slashdot at all? Do you know that there are lots of people writing in this site which have nothing to do with each other? I can think/write whatever I consider without it having to agree with anyone else's opinion.
I use different browsers for different things and so about half my searches are on Google and half on Bing, and we know those guys are slurping whatever they can.
Evidently, he says that mostly as a way to promote his business as the privacy-respectful alternative. So, I will post here my preliminary impressions about this guy, his search engine and related issues.
Some months ago, I used DDG as my primary search engine during some weeks. Although I was seeing notable differences with respect to the one I was escaping from (Google), I kept using it mostly for what they (say that) represent: a small, remotely-working (I am a remote worker myself) and privacy-concerned company. Small details which I didn't like much kept accumulating and me not minding them much; then, it happened something which made me stop being so understanding and, eventually, using their search engine. This was an almost-intuitive impression, but which helped me to put some pieces together. The exact event is irrelevant, just that it changed completely my perception of small, technical-focus company. Many issues after that have further confirmed that first impression.
Getting so much visibility as DDG has got seems impossible without a relevant amount of funding (and most of it being spent on PR, advertisement, marketing, etc. rather than on strictly technical aspects). Then, why that issue of being quite big surprised me when having a relevant amount of capital (or contacts or whatever you need but that isn't precisely randomly given out) is basic requirement to reach certain places? I guess that a small company formed by 40 remotely-working knowledgeable programmers sounds different to me than a 40-full-time-staff-members company + lots of money (influence or whatever). Something like Google during the first years (naive, ambitious, knowledgeable, mostly concerned about being the best and technical aspects) and now (other thing).
I have no privileged information or specific facts or even know about any truly descriptive issue. I have even done a quick research about Gabriel Weinberg and couldn't find any sounding-bad bit (well... perhaps having started quite a few other companies with not too much common other than being online ways to get rich might tell a bit, although this doesn't seem precisely an uncommon background). But my guts tell me that all that put together (+ "we respect privacy") doesn't inspire confidence. I certainly don't consider them the kind of doing-things-right, fighting-the-big-ones, small company which, in case of doubt, you should support. Bear in mind that I am using a lot startpage.com which, basically, says the same (their motto is "the world's most private search engine") and has a complete dependence on the big G itself. Just an impression, almost an intuition. I might be wrong. There is something which might help me to confirm/dismiss all this: third-party, independent, reliable monitoring, detailed references to all their income/business relationships, etc. You know? Whatever I or anyone else can use to validate their claims.
Perhaps they accept that there are issues and deal with them internally or might only care about the contents which are always fine. Yesterday, I converted a simple.docx file, my own CV, into.pdf and the (aesthetic) differences of Writer 5/6 with respect to Word were notable.
Absolutely no compatibility issues with MS Office for us
Seriously? I have only tried fairly simple Word documents (a few tables, enumerations, indentations, etc.) and Writer shows appreciably different versions. All the contents are there and the overall structure is respected, but there are quite a few differences: margins, indentations, first-line indentations, hidden row/col borders being visible, different size of paragraphs, etc.
Don't take me wrong, I will continue using LibreOffice. But as per my limited experienced, its compatibility with Office isn't too good even when dealing with trivial issues.
I haven't been using LibreOffice since too long time ago, but have seen quite a few problems already; mainly regarding compatibility with MS Office (at least, Writer/Word which is the one I have used the most). This new version is still messing up Word documents quite badly; other that, it is a fairly good writing application. I will continue using it as so far (checking spelling/grammar and writing documents on Linux) and relying on Windows/Office/VBA when required by assuming that these two formats are still quite incompatible.
Mainly among people of certain age, with certain (lack of) knowledge/principles/clear ideas and self (mis)perception, blindly sticking to whatever is way easier than recognising their original mistake. For these people, consciously avoiding anything which might prove them wrong seems really easy, although they usually rely on some kind of external help like echo chambers of similar "views". The final scene of Memento is quite descriptive of these (surprisingly common) behaviours: they HAVE TO BELIEVE (not really, but they will do it anyway). Once you fully accept that this sub-reality exists and can't be changed, you stop caring about it.
Also the website query to each websites for favicon.ico automatically
I have been getting lots of favicon hits since quite a few months ago and wasn't sure about where all this was coming from. I do know that DDG displays site favicons (actually, I did like that feature pretty much when I used it for a while), but always assumed that they were relying on local copies. Curious, even a bit weird, but seems a sensible explanation for my numerous just-favicon visits.
DISCLAIMER: I have no idea about the reliability of the other claims of this AC. I did test DDG for some weeks and my overall impression wasn't too good for various reasons; I might give it a new try at some other point. Currently, I am testing yandex.com (not too happy with it), although still mostly using startpage.com, and expect to start my bing.com tests in brief.
I don't even need to come into the AI-will-take-all-the-jobs or less-jobs-means-more-benefits sub-nonsenses to highlight how detached is Bill from his surrounding reality. I can just focus on his assumption that the immediate consequence of working less or not having a job is having free time to enjoy and do whatever you please! Just this issue denotes a tremendous misperception of his and others' (better: most-of-the-world's) position.
Some people might think that this is an extreme example, that Bill has always been living in his rich bubble. But I am quite sure that similar misperceptions are surprisingly common, among both rich and poor people. Ones by thinking that having whatever is a matter of just wishing it (or not accepting that they have got lots of things that many other people never got); and the others by unhealthily aspiring to what they will never get (or by seriously believing that everyone else has similar unhealthy expectations). Both of them not accepting themselves/others and likely to make fools of themselves when trying to apply their ideas in the real (others') world.
?! I am honestly sharing with you my concerns. I am honest. Perhaps you aren't used to deal with honest people. I recommend you to give it a try, but please don't try it with me.
don't understand what I'm saying,
?! I am speechless. No idea what to answer here.
I am not going to change my behavior to adhere to whatever twisted reality you've got
?! Having a civil conversation with people with similar knowledge/expectations and/or trying to understand others properly and/or accepting that better avoiding chaotic nonsense is a twisted reality?! OK.
I will reply to you as I see fit, to try to point out things to others.
You are free to do whatever. I have only tried to help you understand how you could avoid what I only do under extreme circumstances: ignoring someone talking to me.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm talking about a web BROWSER. That's a native program.
Seriously?! You have found many people (with virtually any background) not considering such a statement evident!!? LOGICALLY, I was referring to your original statement "sort of think you'd have in a web browser", as assumed to represent a sample application dealing with web-based problems!! As said, it was merely a polite remark without even properly analysing it by, for example, wondering what makes Rust stronger than any other language like C++ on that front?! That you say it so (like the nonsense that Go has to rely on managed memory)?
both unwilling an unable to distinguish between a web page and a web browser
What are you talking about?! See (-> I mean any sensible individual reading this, not you) why I didn't want to continue with this conversation?! What in the hell is wrong with (people like) you?! You don't seem to be able to understand even the simplest idea! Pff... Anyway, welcome to my list of people with whom I will not talk by default.
I don't follow. Rust is the implementation language of parts of firefox as is C++. There's nothing "web based" about either of them and I don't really see what being web based would even be for the implementation of a web browser.
I was merely repeating what you said (= paying more attention at aspects which are mostly relevant on web-based implementations than a language like C++), mostly out of politeness. My bad, sorry. I don't see why I should continue with this conversation and that's why I will stop it here. Bye.
Go is memory safe, but uses full GC. Java and. Net already do that.
Not exactly. .NET allows exceptions under certain conditions (C# unsafe). Apparently (I didn't use it in that experiment), Go also allows unsafe (= no GC) conditions.
Currently Rust has set a priority to make the language more approachable
They definitively need to do that. I personally might not mind using it in the future in case quite a few things are improved. There are a relevant number of programming languages which had a very important evolution. I also understand that this is a brand new language and that any feedback, even negative, is helpful. The higher the number of good alternatives, the better for everyone.
You know the sort of think you'd have in a web browser
A new web-based C++, then? OK, that makes kind of sense but, at least IMO, they failed. Go seems to have done a better job (still not particularly good though).
Thanks for the info regarding editors and debugging (BTW, I used VSC without the plugin, by debugging directly via compiler and generated warnings/errors; in case of having decided to use a proper IDE, I would have most likely chosen Eclipse or Visual Studio), but I don't agree with most of what you say. I usually rely on other languages, but eventually use C/C++ and have no problem with them (unlikely with Rust).
But rust really is new, which means you actually have to learn new concepts aside
Have you ever tried Perl? It is pretty much the archetype of being different. After getting used to its peculiarities (what happens surprisingly quickly), it is quite nice. In fact, I liked it so much that have started a relatively big development in Perl right away.
The performance of c with compile time thread-safety is a beautiful thing
I don't know about the exact reliability of that claim, but it sounds quite similar to what C++ offers. And as commented above, C++ can be very complex but it also has very simple and intuitive alternatives. This is what matters at the end: allowing everyone to have a nice programming experience, either by delivering an overall-friendly environment or a very big one where you can choose whatever you prefer. Rust doesn't offer any of those options, just one narrow and unfriendly path which you have to follow no matter what.
I don't know rust so I can't comment on it directly, but I'm a C++ dev and a lot of that applies to C++
Rust is certainly worse. C++ is a difficult-to-master language, not a difficult-to-get-started one. C is much more difficult to get started than C++, at least for someone with a modern-language background. But even with C, you have options which are a bit less problematic on which newbies might rely at least to perform the relatively simple development I did (just a simple application calling an external program and parsing the simplistic output which it generates). The four languages I mentioned might be quite tricky. Perl, for example, can be considered a quite weird language making everything differently than most of other languages. Rust was at a completely different level: its difficulty appeared since the very first moment and was provoked by a relevant unfriendliness, counter-intuitiveness and even consistency lacks at some points.
I have recently performed a relatively simple development by using programming languages on which I had low-to-to-no experience: Perl (low), Ruby (no), Rust (no) and Go (no). Note that I am quite adaptable on the programming language front and that this small experiment was precisely meant to showcase these adaptability skills. Rust was, by far, the most difficult-to-learn, difficult-to-research, counter-intuitive, unfriendly, constrained, unappealing, etc. of all of them. Warnings and errors appeared systematically and, despite their verbosity, were rarely helpful. I had problems even to find an editor/install it! (relied on Visual Studio Code in both Linux and Windows, an editor which I rarely use; and had to struggle with my Visual C++ installation on Windows, which was working fine until Rust came in).
The most ironic part is that so many restrictions and problems are likely to provoke people to rely on whatever option happens to work, which might not be the best/safest one. Being so concerned about making sure that the generated code is extremely safe no matter what by sacrificing flexibility and user friendliness is far from ideal. Restrictions and prohibitions have always to be seen as an in-the-worst-case-scenario resource, not as a primary solution; much less when dealing with something as complex as programming, a very powerful tool supposed to be managed by knowledgeable individuals. The higher the freedom, the better the results delivered by a sensible/knowledgeable person. Unless Rust changes a lot, I don't see it going anywhere. It might get some support from theoretical/academical/inside-whatever-bubble circles, but seriously doubt that developers with real-world experience can like or even accept most of what this language represents.
Eventually, it probably will reach the point where buying another machine and paying the taxes is going to cost more than giving up and hiring humans (though they'll likely be minimum wage meat-puppets following orders from the automated manager).
This will never happen because of two reasons: being against the whole purpose of companies, machines, optimisation, taxes, etc. (making people lives easier; all of them are our puppets, our slaves, not the other way around; some people might be temporarily fooled on this front, but never a big proportion of human-kind and for something actually relevant); and being simply impossible (now, in the quite a few next years and probably ever) to build machines with the human-like abilities that your fantasy requires.
This kind of apocalyptic extrapolations usually lack a basic understanding of the underlying reality, exactly what your premises did by completely ignoring practical and technical aspects. You have poorly analysed the evolution of a few isolated issues, ignored all what surrounds them including their motivations and imagined impossible what-if scenarios. Without adequately understanding the exact conditions within the right context, it is impossible to draw reliable conclusions and much less distant-future guesses.
From the point of view of a soulless being like a corporation, the lower the (employee) expenses the better. Computerising, automating or, in general, increasing the dependence on machines is mostly meant precisely to reduce costs. All this in theory because the reality is much more complex than that: companies are constrained by governments and consumers, who mainly depend on having jobs.
In any case, there will be no sudden AI irruption, but just a continuation of the gradual technological adoption which has been happening since hundreds of years ago. Less specialised jobs will keep getting obsolete, new skills and requirements will keep appearing and the education of the upcoming generations will keep evolving accordingly. Sorry about that, AI preppers, but no apocalyptic scenario is expected.
Logically, I meant "next keyboard" rather than "next keyword".
Never heard about them before, but your post made me curious. After a quick research and some videos, I have decided that my next keyword will be Unicomp.
Curious side note: as far as the shipping costs to Spain in their site were too high, I went to amazon.com and found their products at almost the same price + no shipping costs. Everyone (big, small and client) wins, a surprisingly easy and unfortunately unusual outcome.
With "from this curious iteration", I meant "from this curious interaction". Note that I eventually post this kind of correcting follow-ups because you cannot edit/delete posts in Slashdot. Also bear in mind that my work isn't writing English (which is my second language, BTW) neither caring a lot about something as irrelevant as writing a proper post here (I like Slashdot, but this is something for fun/to get distracted, not my work), but programming.
I will take advantage from this curious iteration to highlight that I usually refer to non-logged users (here called Anonymous Cowards, short-form AC) as "other AC" because my initials happen to also be AC (= Alvaro Carballo). I have nothing to do with the huge number of other people who post anonymously (or not) in this site. I never post anonymously myself and have always relied on this account, I am also the only person who has ever used it (like anything else called Custom Solvers 2.0 or varocarbas; that's why the signature of my posts). Logically, all what I write here are my own opinions, which I share when I feel like doing so for no other reason than feeling like doing so.
Could you elaborate?
Sure. Although I am not sure how to over-clarify what I consider crystal clear. I didn't like DDG when I used it but kept doing so because of thinking that they were a small, technically-oriented business (= bunch of programmers mostly caring about programming). I realised that I was wrong and stopped doing so. My overall impression has kept evolving towards (lots-of-)money-/marketing-/etc.-focused company and, as per my personal expectations, these companies tend to say what users want to hear (rather than actually doing so). In any case, as a user of a business claiming that they care about my privacy, I would expect them to provide the means allowing me to validate such claims rather than blindly trusting what they say.
reads like concern trolling
Please, keep that nonsensical expression away from me. I am sharing my opinion, you can think that it is right/wrong, try to change it or ignore me; but try to avoid arbitrarily insulting me because of not liking/understanding what I say.
they're not 'the good guys' like it seems
What are you 5 yo? No company is the good guys. Companies only care about one thing: getting richer. A different story is lying. You don't need to be good/bad to sell a distorted perception of your business/expectations; you might be a liar (or even a fraudster) though.
Honestly if it wasn't for Slashdot posters I'd never have heard of DDG not sure what you're talking about with the adverts
What has this to do with anything of what I wrote?! When have I mentioned Slashdot at all? Do you know that there are lots of people writing in this site which have nothing to do with each other? I can think/write whatever I consider without it having to agree with anyone else's opinion.
I use different browsers for different things and so about half my searches are on Google and half on Bing, and we know those guys are slurping whatever they can.
In what part of my post I said otherwise?
Evidently, he says that mostly as a way to promote his business as the privacy-respectful alternative. So, I will post here my preliminary impressions about this guy, his search engine and related issues.
Some months ago, I used DDG as my primary search engine during some weeks. Although I was seeing notable differences with respect to the one I was escaping from (Google), I kept using it mostly for what they (say that) represent: a small, remotely-working (I am a remote worker myself) and privacy-concerned company. Small details which I didn't like much kept accumulating and me not minding them much; then, it happened something which made me stop being so understanding and, eventually, using their search engine. This was an almost-intuitive impression, but which helped me to put some pieces together. The exact event is irrelevant, just that it changed completely my perception of small, technical-focus company. Many issues after that have further confirmed that first impression.
Getting so much visibility as DDG has got seems impossible without a relevant amount of funding (and most of it being spent on PR, advertisement, marketing, etc. rather than on strictly technical aspects). Then, why that issue of being quite big surprised me when having a relevant amount of capital (or contacts or whatever you need but that isn't precisely randomly given out) is basic requirement to reach certain places? I guess that a small company formed by 40 remotely-working knowledgeable programmers sounds different to me than a 40-full-time-staff-members company + lots of money (influence or whatever). Something like Google during the first years (naive, ambitious, knowledgeable, mostly concerned about being the best and technical aspects) and now (other thing).
I have no privileged information or specific facts or even know about any truly descriptive issue. I have even done a quick research about Gabriel Weinberg and couldn't find any sounding-bad bit (well... perhaps having started quite a few other companies with not too much common other than being online ways to get rich might tell a bit, although this doesn't seem precisely an uncommon background). But my guts tell me that all that put together (+ "we respect privacy") doesn't inspire confidence. I certainly don't consider them the kind of doing-things-right, fighting-the-big-ones, small company which, in case of doubt, you should support. Bear in mind that I am using a lot startpage.com which, basically, says the same (their motto is "the world's most private search engine") and has a complete dependence on the big G itself. Just an impression, almost an intuition. I might be wrong. There is something which might help me to confirm/dismiss all this: third-party, independent, reliable monitoring, detailed references to all their income/business relationships, etc. You know? Whatever I or anyone else can use to validate their claims.
nobody has mentioned any problems.
Perhaps they accept that there are issues and deal with them internally or might only care about the contents which are always fine. Yesterday, I converted a simple .docx file, my own CV, into .pdf and the (aesthetic) differences of Writer 5/6 with respect to Word were notable.
Absolutely no compatibility issues with MS Office for us
Seriously? I have only tried fairly simple Word documents (a few tables, enumerations, indentations, etc.) and Writer shows appreciably different versions. All the contents are there and the overall structure is respected, but there are quite a few differences: margins, indentations, first-line indentations, hidden row/col borders being visible, different size of paragraphs, etc.
Don't take me wrong, I will continue using LibreOffice. But as per my limited experienced, its compatibility with Office isn't too good even when dealing with trivial issues.
I haven't been using LibreOffice since too long time ago, but have seen quite a few problems already; mainly regarding compatibility with MS Office (at least, Writer/Word which is the one I have used the most). This new version is still messing up Word documents quite badly; other that, it is a fairly good writing application. I will continue using it as so far (checking spelling/grammar and writing documents on Linux) and relying on Windows/Office/VBA when required by assuming that these two formats are still quite incompatible.
Mainly among people of certain age, with certain (lack of) knowledge/principles/clear ideas and self (mis)perception, blindly sticking to whatever is way easier than recognising their original mistake. For these people, consciously avoiding anything which might prove them wrong seems really easy, although they usually rely on some kind of external help like echo chambers of similar "views". The final scene of Memento is quite descriptive of these (surprisingly common) behaviours: they HAVE TO BELIEVE (not really, but they will do it anyway). Once you fully accept that this sub-reality exists and can't be changed, you stop caring about it.
Also the website query to each websites for favicon.ico automatically
I have been getting lots of favicon hits since quite a few months ago and wasn't sure about where all this was coming from. I do know that DDG displays site favicons (actually, I did like that feature pretty much when I used it for a while), but always assumed that they were relying on local copies. Curious, even a bit weird, but seems a sensible explanation for my numerous just-favicon visits.
DISCLAIMER: I have no idea about the reliability of the other claims of this AC. I did test DDG for some weeks and my overall impression wasn't too good for various reasons; I might give it a new try at some other point. Currently, I am testing yandex.com (not too happy with it), although still mostly using startpage.com, and expect to start my bing.com tests in brief.
I don't even need to come into the AI-will-take-all-the-jobs or less-jobs-means-more-benefits sub-nonsenses to highlight how detached is Bill from his surrounding reality. I can just focus on his assumption that the immediate consequence of working less or not having a job is having free time to enjoy and do whatever you please! Just this issue denotes a tremendous misperception of his and others' (better: most-of-the-world's) position.
Some people might think that this is an extreme example, that Bill has always been living in his rich bubble. But I am quite sure that similar misperceptions are surprisingly common, among both rich and poor people. Ones by thinking that having whatever is a matter of just wishing it (or not accepting that they have got lots of things that many other people never got); and the others by unhealthily aspiring to what they will never get (or by seriously believing that everyone else has similar unhealthy expectations). Both of them not accepting themselves/others and likely to make fools of themselves when trying to apply their ideas in the real (others') world.
I see that the personal insults
?! I am honestly sharing with you my concerns. I am honest. Perhaps you aren't used to deal with honest people. I recommend you to give it a try, but please don't try it with me.
don't understand what I'm saying,
?! I am speechless. No idea what to answer here.
I am not going to change my behavior to adhere to whatever twisted reality you've got
?! Having a civil conversation with people with similar knowledge/expectations and/or trying to understand others properly and/or accepting that better avoiding chaotic nonsense is a twisted reality?! OK.
I will reply to you as I see fit, to try to point out things to others.
You are free to do whatever. I have only tried to help you understand how you could avoid what I only do under extreme circumstances: ignoring someone talking to me.
For the before my morning coffee(s) myself "and new and Kim Dotcom" means "and news about Kim Dotcom". LOL.