could I justify paying it? sure. WILL I justify paying it? Fuck NO. supporting this would mean supporting proliferation of streaming services, the end result is me having to subscribe to 20 or 30 streaming services to get content I currently get from a couple or worse yet it drives the collapse of content provider agnostic services forcing everyone into this fucked up model, NO THANKS.
that makes you no better than him, in fact it probably makes you worse as you should know better. It will be his citizens that are the victims of those landmines, most likely while trying to flee from him. At least he has the excuse he was raised that way, what is yours?
good luck with that one, These already pretty well exist in current military lineups, none of the major powers are going to agree to this. Also the current weapons that do the most harm to innocents are the ones WITHOUT any sort of AI, cluster bombs, fuel air bombs, guns etc, a good AI I think would likely improve the situation.
then a feed like this is about the only way to know.
Really? how about just asking the fucking user base? voluntary survey's? even an OPT IN feature use monitoring? labelling the feature as deprecated and providing a feedback option? their are literally dozen of ways to collect this data without being a bunch of intrusive arseholes.
ahhh yes, the excuse of we told you what we were going to do to you loud and clear before we raped you, therefore this is acceptable. I gather you either work for them or are a shill for them. This sets a horrible standard of them changing the TOS and not allowing paying customer's to opt out. It is a massive breach of faith. If the data is so non critical and non invasive then they can fucking well make it optional.
unfortunately your options are limited. You could go to Kodi but after using plex you will likely find that subpar, especially if you use the media streaming to devices on plex. maybe emby, but it will also be lacking in some areas too. basically it all depends on what your setup is and how you intend to use. Their is no one best option for all cases.
only just started on the Plex route, thankfully haven't paid any money yet but I will be taking the "Don't use it" route. I feel sorry though for those that have invested the time and money in the ecosystem who now have to take it up the arse. I guess I should be thankfully they announced before I forked out for the plex pass.
He did 3 months of work without a backup or code repository, then tested software he didn't understand on that code AND ignored warnings he didn't understand. He then screamed at people saying he shouldn't have needed a backup. Smart is not a word you could associate with this guy.
No bug, VS Code uses git. If you tell git to discard your changes it does. for him his changes were everything as he was a retard and never commited anything then used tools he didn't understand and ignored warnings without understanding the consequences. nothing to see here apart from a developer (I use that word loosely) that you should put on your list of "do not hire this retard"
Did he happen to ignore the popup with the big yellow exclamation mark that says:
"Are you sure you want to discard ALL changes? This is IRREVERSIBLE!"
It's perfectly reasonable to interpret that prompt as meaning, "all changes since my last commit." It's a really bad prompt, and should never have been allowed into the program.
yes it is perfectly reasonable to interpret it as that and surprise surprise that is exactly what it does mean. The guy was a moron that had never committed a change therefore everything was disguarded. This is the behaviour I would expect and most developers would expect.
they have had their act together for 5 years now. ReFS is included in all current versions of Windows. Mind you even if he was using ReFS this fuckstick still wouldn't have bothered turning on copy on write as someone that thinks backups, source control or understanding what basic programming tool features do is unnecessary isn't going to do that either. Some people only learn through repeated knocks to the head and this guy sounds like he still needs a few more to beat the stupidity out of him.
They aren't restricting their speech, they are refusing to do business with them. They are not in anyway restricting them from going and finding someone else to protect them or provide them services or suggesting in anyway that they should not be allowed to.
they are only off base if the hacked target was also not in the US, not completely unlikely given the common use of cloud providers to perform such hacks.
I think Netflix started off well, but they have been producing some real turds this year. Seems like they had a few good ideas to start with but have quickly degenerated into the same rut as other content producers.
except it isn't censorship to refuse to do business with someone. The Daily Stormer is free to go find someone else to pay protection money too or run their own service.
I can't see anywhere that he suggested he doesn't believe in free speech or that they should be silenced. free speech has nothing to do with providing them a lectern from which to shout their hate! you seem to be the hypocrite in believing only the Nazi's should have that freedom.
no, fuck you, go get a dictionary and learn the fucking definition of censorship, this IS NOT it and you trying to redefine it to meet your agenda just makes you look like a dick.
I think you are mistaking their actions. They have absolutely no intent to be anything but a business, I think they made a critical PR blunder with the first announcement and are now paying the price in that it has affected their business and forcing them to back down. They have repeatedly shown they don't operate based on any morals (they are a business so really that is a fair decision).
Their is no censorship here. They originally made a business decision to support them, now they have made another to drop them. Really they should have avoided making any public statement in the first place and then they probably could have gotten away with the original business decision. Businesses have no responsibility to provide services to such a group and it isn't oppression or censorship to refuse them service, in fact it would be oppression and censorship to force them to support them.
exactly what I was wondering, building a datacentre and powering it are actually the smallest and easiest (and possibly cheapest) problems to overcome, the logistics of being so remote for something that requires a huge amount of incoming and outgoing resources and technical expertise in extremely tight timeframes would be a nightmare to organise. I wonder if they have planned and solved this or they have foolishly left this as a problem to tackle later.
Another way you could put it is that they have an opportunity to be true heros of freedom and help fight the good fight against the kinds of things that make this planet horrible, but instead they choose money.
yep you can look at it that way. Personally I don't believe companies have any such moral responsibilities, their responsibilities are first and foremost to their shareholders.
absolutely, that sort of shit happens all the time. Also don't get me wrong, I fully support CloudFlares decision to continue to service them, they are a business and also have rights to make their own choices regardless of what I think of those choices. I only get pissed off when people try to label this as them protecting freedom of speech which shows pure ignorance of what freedom of speech is and equates their business decision with some sort of moral quality. It is a business decision pure and simple, they believe their businesses profits are best served by not discriminating who they serve, consider them like a paid mercenary, they are their to do a job and don't care whether they are helping support good or evil and I am actually fine with that.
Free speech does not and has never meant providing people a platform to voice their hate. They are free from government persecution to voice it, but NO ONE has to provide them any service to facilitate that, that is also a key part of everyone elses free speech. cloudflare made a business decision, not one about freedom.
them supporting them has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech does not mean you have to provide someone a platform to speak from, if anything they are ignoring free speech as they are not voicing their own opinion by NOT providing the platform to them.
Slashdot Mirror
no it isn't. they don't have a monopoly now and even if they did the fucked up ancient distribution model they want to force you is not the answer.
could I justify paying it? sure. WILL I justify paying it? Fuck NO. supporting this would mean supporting proliferation of streaming services, the end result is me having to subscribe to 20 or 30 streaming services to get content I currently get from a couple or worse yet it drives the collapse of content provider agnostic services forcing everyone into this fucked up model, NO THANKS.
that makes you no better than him, in fact it probably makes you worse as you should know better. It will be his citizens that are the victims of those landmines, most likely while trying to flee from him. At least he has the excuse he was raised that way, what is yours?
good luck with that one, These already pretty well exist in current military lineups, none of the major powers are going to agree to this. Also the current weapons that do the most harm to innocents are the ones WITHOUT any sort of AI, cluster bombs, fuel air bombs, guns etc, a good AI I think would likely improve the situation.
then a feed like this is about the only way to know.
Really? how about just asking the fucking user base? voluntary survey's? even an OPT IN feature use monitoring? labelling the feature as deprecated and providing a feedback option? their are literally dozen of ways to collect this data without being a bunch of intrusive arseholes.
ahhh yes, the excuse of we told you what we were going to do to you loud and clear before we raped you, therefore this is acceptable. I gather you either work for them or are a shill for them. This sets a horrible standard of them changing the TOS and not allowing paying customer's to opt out. It is a massive breach of faith. If the data is so non critical and non invasive then they can fucking well make it optional.
unfortunately your options are limited. You could go to Kodi but after using plex you will likely find that subpar, especially if you use the media streaming to devices on plex. maybe emby, but it will also be lacking in some areas too. basically it all depends on what your setup is and how you intend to use. Their is no one best option for all cases.
only just started on the Plex route, thankfully haven't paid any money yet but I will be taking the "Don't use it" route. I feel sorry though for those that have invested the time and money in the ecosystem who now have to take it up the arse. I guess I should be thankfully they announced before I forked out for the plex pass.
If he's very very smart
He did 3 months of work without a backup or code repository, then tested software he didn't understand on that code AND ignored warnings he didn't understand. He then screamed at people saying he shouldn't have needed a backup. Smart is not a word you could associate with this guy.
No bug, VS Code uses git. If you tell git to discard your changes it does. for him his changes were everything as he was a retard and never commited anything then used tools he didn't understand and ignored warnings without understanding the consequences. nothing to see here apart from a developer (I use that word loosely) that you should put on your list of "do not hire this retard"
Did he happen to ignore the popup with the big yellow exclamation mark that says: "Are you sure you want to discard ALL changes? This is IRREVERSIBLE!"
It's perfectly reasonable to interpret that prompt as meaning, "all changes since my last commit." It's a really bad prompt, and should never have been allowed into the program.
yes it is perfectly reasonable to interpret it as that and surprise surprise that is exactly what it does mean. The guy was a moron that had never committed a change therefore everything was disguarded. This is the behaviour I would expect and most developers would expect.
they have had their act together for 5 years now. ReFS is included in all current versions of Windows. Mind you even if he was using ReFS this fuckstick still wouldn't have bothered turning on copy on write as someone that thinks backups, source control or understanding what basic programming tool features do is unnecessary isn't going to do that either. Some people only learn through repeated knocks to the head and this guy sounds like he still needs a few more to beat the stupidity out of him.
They aren't restricting their speech, they are refusing to do business with them. They are not in anyway restricting them from going and finding someone else to protect them or provide them services or suggesting in anyway that they should not be allowed to.
they are only off base if the hacked target was also not in the US, not completely unlikely given the common use of cloud providers to perform such hacks.
I think Netflix started off well, but they have been producing some real turds this year. Seems like they had a few good ideas to start with but have quickly degenerated into the same rut as other content producers.
except it isn't censorship to refuse to do business with someone. The Daily Stormer is free to go find someone else to pay protection money too or run their own service.
I can't see anywhere that he suggested he doesn't believe in free speech or that they should be silenced. free speech has nothing to do with providing them a lectern from which to shout their hate! you seem to be the hypocrite in believing only the Nazi's should have that freedom.
no, fuck you, go get a dictionary and learn the fucking definition of censorship, this IS NOT it and you trying to redefine it to meet your agenda just makes you look like a dick.
I think you are mistaking their actions. They have absolutely no intent to be anything but a business, I think they made a critical PR blunder with the first announcement and are now paying the price in that it has affected their business and forcing them to back down. They have repeatedly shown they don't operate based on any morals (they are a business so really that is a fair decision).
Their is no censorship here. They originally made a business decision to support them, now they have made another to drop them. Really they should have avoided making any public statement in the first place and then they probably could have gotten away with the original business decision. Businesses have no responsibility to provide services to such a group and it isn't oppression or censorship to refuse them service, in fact it would be oppression and censorship to force them to support them.
exactly what I was wondering, building a datacentre and powering it are actually the smallest and easiest (and possibly cheapest) problems to overcome, the logistics of being so remote for something that requires a huge amount of incoming and outgoing resources and technical expertise in extremely tight timeframes would be a nightmare to organise. I wonder if they have planned and solved this or they have foolishly left this as a problem to tackle later.
Another way you could put it is that they have an opportunity to be true heros of freedom and help fight the good fight against the kinds of things that make this planet horrible, but instead they choose money.
yep you can look at it that way. Personally I don't believe companies have any such moral responsibilities, their responsibilities are first and foremost to their shareholders.
absolutely, that sort of shit happens all the time. Also don't get me wrong, I fully support CloudFlares decision to continue to service them, they are a business and also have rights to make their own choices regardless of what I think of those choices. I only get pissed off when people try to label this as them protecting freedom of speech which shows pure ignorance of what freedom of speech is and equates their business decision with some sort of moral quality. It is a business decision pure and simple, they believe their businesses profits are best served by not discriminating who they serve, consider them like a paid mercenary, they are their to do a job and don't care whether they are helping support good or evil and I am actually fine with that.
Free speech does not and has never meant providing people a platform to voice their hate. They are free from government persecution to voice it, but NO ONE has to provide them any service to facilitate that, that is also a key part of everyone elses free speech. cloudflare made a business decision, not one about freedom.
them supporting them has nothing to do with free speech. Free speech does not mean you have to provide someone a platform to speak from, if anything they are ignoring free speech as they are not voicing their own opinion by NOT providing the platform to them.