You realize Wikipedia is only one part of the larger Wikimedia network? If you want to read a public domain book, WikiSource is for that. If you want a textbook, WikiText is for that. Videos, images, audio, etc, can all be hosted on the Wikimedia back end, if they are useful for one of the front end projects like Wikipedia or WikiText.
I thought that when Bungie finally broke away from Microsoft, we might see a return to the old Bungie, from the days of Marathon and Myth.
But then Destiny was... not that... and some people say that that's more Activision's fault than Bungie's.
Maybe now that they're finally free and back to self-publishing like they always used to, before the dark times, before the acquisition, maybe now we'll finally see a return of the old Bungie?
I'm not counting on it. The only person still around from the olden days is Jason. Even Robnar is gone now, and I can't even find where to.
If the shenanigans PPH describes are going on then yeah, that's bad and probably technically illegal (though obviously being done with government assistance, so...).
I was just commenting that the concept of a closed public space is not in itself a weird thing to say.
Public as in not owned by any private individual (but rather by a government), closed as in set aside not to be used for anything. If it is a watershed, like he says it purportedly is, then it's a big open field somewhere meant to collect rainwater, that then goes into the municipal water supply, which is set aside from use for the sake of water quality. Aside from watersheds, there are also nature preserves and so on (e.g. a habitat for an endangered species) where the land is public (government owned) but closed to human use.
That sounds great if mom and dad offer you a place to live instead of charging you rent or just kicking you out, and 20% of a house isn't half a decade of 100% of your earnings.
So yeah, if you have rich generous parents and a good job and live in a cheap area, it's totally easy!
This security problem brought in a new lightweight browser called Firefox. Which supported the standards much better then IE, was faster and didn't use the stuff that allowed people to break into the computer. Then Firefox grew where it started to be too big, that is where Google Chrome came in (at around the same time Safari came in for Apple also based on WebKit)
A couple important missing bits to note in your history here:
- Firefox is powered by Mozilla which was also the core of Netscape Navigator, so Firefox was basically the revenge of Netscape.
- WebKit was created by Apple (as a fork of the KHTML renderer from KDE) specifically to power Safari (all of the OSX/OpenStep/NeXTSTEP libraries are named something-Kit), and then Google adopted that for Chrome, so Safari isn't really just a side note, Safari is essentially the ancestor of Chrome.
The Higgs mechanism isn’t responsible for all or even most inertial mass. It’s just responsible for the little bit that isolated fundamental particles still have after the mass imparted through the better known electronuclear interactions has already been accounted for.
You're missing out on almost all of the history. Net neutrality was not first introduced in 2014; that wasn't even the start of legal battle over sustaining it.
We had net neutrality by default since the start of the internet, because the early internet was a highly competitive market, piggybacking on top of the phone network that was regulated as a common carrier under Title II, between the two of which no ISP could get away shit like breaking net neutrality.
When broadband happened, the last-mile providers (the phone and cable companies) BECAME the internet service providers, and thus internet service was no longer a competitive market, and internet service per se was not explicitly regulated as a Title II common carrier service, so they could start pulling shady shit like breaking net neutrality.
Then a law was passed saying no, in fact, they cannot pull that shit, and have to keep doing things like they always have been.
That law was later overturned because, as internet service was not classified under Title II, it was deemed to be beyond the jurisdiction of the FCC to regulate that way.
Later, in 2014, the FCC reclassified internet service under Title II after all -- as it should have been from the beginning -- and thus the law requiring ISPs to keep behaving as they always had, neutrally, was applicable again.
Now Pai's FCC has reversed that classification, invalidating that law, and once again clearing the way for the ISPs to start doing things differently than they always have been.
There has been a long war to keep ISPs from breaking the internet. 2014 saw one battle in that war won on the side of consumers. But the war is still going on, and now we, the consumers, are losing out.
That is a good way of putting it, thanks! Because the data is coming from industrial activity, so "data industrial complex" just sounds like it's a "complex" of the data industry, but it can't be a complex without something else complicated with it. If "Intelligence" (CIA/FBI/etc like you say) is the something else, then it makes sense.
I'm getting tired of people saying "[Noun] Industrial Complex" without apparently understanding the meaning of the original Military-Industrial Complex. That original phrase meant that the Military and Industry were in a Complicated relationship with each other. It's not talking about an "Industrial Complex" (whatever that is) run by or about the Military.
"Data Industrial Complex" implies that there's something separate from Industry called Data, and that Data and Industry are in a Complicated relationship with each other. That does not seem to be the the way it's used, though.
There isn’t actually any such rating as X or XXX, those are porn marketing terms only. The closest actual rating is NC-17. And it’s not exclusively for porn, though that is probably the only film genre that would accept such a rating, as other film usually aims for a broader audience.
This is precisely why net neutrality wasn't an issue in the era of dialup.
Dialup internet use the telephone network, which is regulated as a common carrier, as its backbone. Anyone could easily set up an ISP with just an office full of modems, piggybacking on that phone network, so there was lots of competition for Internet Service, and the uncompetitive last mile was separately regulated. Between those two things, good behavior like net neutrality was guaranteed.
With the advent of broadband, the last-mile providers (phone and cable companies) became the ISPs, and since they were now selling Internet Service as a separate thing from phone (or cable) service, they were not explicitly to be regulated as common carriers, and as always still had monopolies on their services, so they began to push some shady practices that nobody could get away with back in the dialup era.
Pretty soon laws were passed curtailing those practices, putting things back how they were.
But then those laws were challenged in court on the grounds that Internet Service was not classified the same way as phone service, and so legally could not be regulated the same ways.
Then the last administration's FCC decided that Internet Service really should be classified the same way, and did so, and then the same regulations that always used to apply, since dialup, once again applied.
Now this administration's FCC has reversed that classification, and now claims that because of that, they have no power to regulate Internet Service.
And now places like California have decided that they will once again reinstate the same regulations that there have always been, themselves, within their own states at least.
And the current FCC is claiming that doing so wrongly usurps the power that they just disavowed having? What?
There's a lot of places on Earth that are a lot more hospitable than the Moon -- the middle of the Sahara, Antactica, the seafloor -- that are still pretty inaccessible to us. Yeah, we can get there, and with a continuous supply chain we can stay there a while, but we're not going to have a continuous supply chain to Mars. Whoever goes to Mars has to be able to make it there on their own. So we need to be able to at least have permanent self-sustaining settlements in the most inhospitable places on Earth, if we're ever going to have permanent self-sustaining settlements off-Earth.
And by the time we're able to do that, we've eliminated one of the biggest reasons to have people off-Earth in the first place, because if we have "colonies" on Earth that are capable of surviving Martian conditions, they'll also survive everything that could ever happen to Earth short of the death of the sun. Climate change? Nuclear holocaust? Giant meteor? Living in the aftermath of those is a cake walk compared to living on Mars.
Wait, you're saying that, in a capitalist society, that by definition favors capital-owners over laborers, new ways to rent-seek with your capital (like AirBnB) are paying more than new ways to sell your labor (like Uber)? No way!
Macs never used '060s. The last straight-up Moto chip used in a Mac was the '040, then it switched to PowerPC (which was still partly Moto, but you know what I mean).
Reminds me of a computer class in high school around the time of that switch, and the introduction of the Pentium, when our teacher was saying that Macs used 68020, '030, '040, '050... while PCs used 286, 386, 486, 586... and I had to interrupt and correct him on two counts.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, but for the record, no, it's not okay for "minorities and white trash" to have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet either.
I'm free to work fewer hours per day right now if I want to. But I'm scrambling as fast as I possibly can to dig myself out of the hole I was born into before I die, so I don't. Are you going to force me to work less for less pay? Cause I don't want that; I could have that right now if I did. Are you going to somehow make me paid the same for less work? I don't know what magic you think will accomplish that but if you've got something bring it on.
And you’re still asking the wrong question. It’s not about whether the guy who got tasked with repairing the car can do it — that is important, yeah, and if the answer is no then he won’t be there long, sure — but rather how many other people could actually repair that car if given the chance, but won’t be given the chance.
Where is the "there" that these people got? A job? In any case, they undoubtedly had skill and ability in the opinion of whoever hired them (or whatever it is you're talking about). And I'd give them the benefit of the doubt that they've probably got skill and ability enough in that narrow domain in order for someone to think that of them. But that's not the relevant question. The relevant question is how many other people, with how many other broader abilities that could be useful to whatever position you're talking about, didn't get the job (or position, or whatever) because of the biases of the person making that decision?
The point is that the opinions, of whoever is in the position to be making these decisions, of what counts as skill and who has it, are not necessarily a true measure of who is the best fit for a given role, and that saying that things are organized the way they are now because talent, as measured by the people at the top, floats to the top, is just a post-hoc justification of the status quo, and an example of the just-world hypothesis. It's akin to saying that wealth, or fame, or any other way you might rank people's status, is a measure of intelligence or hard work or something, because "if you're not rich then you're obviously not smart enough in the right way"; when at most those kinds of qualities are just a few of many many factors that go into achieving such status, and many who have those qualities fail to achieve that status because of other confounding factors.
When I first read your post, I was concerned, because "post-meritocracy" sounds like a concerning idea.
Then I actually read the site and you know what it basically is? A critique that so-called "meritocracies" actually aren't, and that despite their lofty ideals of judging people by the quality of their work, that they actually function in practice more like aristocracies, where whoever is in charge declares that the reason they get to be in charge is because are better, and that that makes them the rightful judge of who else's is good enough to share power, which of course is an objective, unbiased evaluation (/s).
Fun fact: the Greek root "ariste" means "excellence", so the literal aristocracy called their reign the "rule of the excellent", which is basically a synonym for meritocracy.
She's not arguing that the quality of work doesn't matter, but that we shouldn't pretend that we actually can objectively measure quality of work in a way that can be used as a basis for the social organization of project, because attempting to do so does nothing but paint an idealistic justification over whatever existing organization there happens to be. "We have this structure with me in charge because it produces the best output, as judged by me, which therefore justifies this structure that puts me in charge."
Fun fact: the Greek root "ariste" means "excellence", so "aristocracy" is literally "rule by the excellent", i.e. it called itself the equivalent of meritocracy. But of course it actually wasn't.
Meritocracy is a wonderful ideal but in in practice it ends up being whoever has power declaring that they have power because they are better and then judging who else in their opinion is good enough to share power, which opinion may or may not actually reflect who really is or isn't good enough.
Slashdot Mirror
You realize Wikipedia is only one part of the larger Wikimedia network? If you want to read a public domain book, WikiSource is for that. If you want a textbook, WikiText is for that. Videos, images, audio, etc, can all be hosted on the Wikimedia back end, if they are useful for one of the front end projects like Wikipedia or WikiText.
I thought that when Bungie finally broke away from Microsoft, we might see a return to the old Bungie, from the days of Marathon and Myth.
But then Destiny was... not that... and some people say that that's more Activision's fault than Bungie's.
Maybe now that they're finally free and back to self-publishing like they always used to, before the dark times, before the acquisition, maybe now we'll finally see a return of the old Bungie?
I'm not counting on it. The only person still around from the olden days is Jason. Even Robnar is gone now, and I can't even find where to.
If the shenanigans PPH describes are going on then yeah, that's bad and probably technically illegal (though obviously being done with government assistance, so...).
I was just commenting that the concept of a closed public space is not in itself a weird thing to say.
Public as in not owned by any private individual (but rather by a government), closed as in set aside not to be used for anything. If it is a watershed, like he says it purportedly is, then it's a big open field somewhere meant to collect rainwater, that then goes into the municipal water supply, which is set aside from use for the sake of water quality. Aside from watersheds, there are also nature preserves and so on (e.g. a habitat for an endangered species) where the land is public (government owned) but closed to human use.
This deserves a Funny mod, not Troll, and if I had mod points I've give it to you.
That sounds great if mom and dad offer you a place to live instead of charging you rent or just kicking you out, and 20% of a house isn't half a decade of 100% of your earnings.
So yeah, if you have rich generous parents and a good job and live in a cheap area, it's totally easy!
This security problem brought in a new lightweight browser called Firefox. Which supported the standards much better then IE, was faster and didn't use the stuff that allowed people to break into the computer. Then Firefox grew where it started to be too big, that is where Google Chrome came in (at around the same time Safari came in for Apple also based on WebKit)
A couple important missing bits to note in your history here:
- Firefox is powered by Mozilla which was also the core of Netscape Navigator, so Firefox was basically the revenge of Netscape.
- WebKit was created by Apple (as a fork of the KHTML renderer from KDE) specifically to power Safari (all of the OSX/OpenStep/NeXTSTEP libraries are named something-Kit), and then Google adopted that for Chrome, so Safari isn't really just a side note, Safari is essentially the ancestor of Chrome.
The Higgs mechanism isn’t responsible for all or even most inertial mass. It’s just responsible for the little bit that isolated fundamental particles still have after the mass imparted through the better known electronuclear interactions has already been accounted for.
You're missing out on almost all of the history. Net neutrality was not first introduced in 2014; that wasn't even the start of legal battle over sustaining it.
We had net neutrality by default since the start of the internet, because the early internet was a highly competitive market, piggybacking on top of the phone network that was regulated as a common carrier under Title II, between the two of which no ISP could get away shit like breaking net neutrality.
When broadband happened, the last-mile providers (the phone and cable companies) BECAME the internet service providers, and thus internet service was no longer a competitive market, and internet service per se was not explicitly regulated as a Title II common carrier service, so they could start pulling shady shit like breaking net neutrality.
Then a law was passed saying no, in fact, they cannot pull that shit, and have to keep doing things like they always have been.
That law was later overturned because, as internet service was not classified under Title II, it was deemed to be beyond the jurisdiction of the FCC to regulate that way.
Later, in 2014, the FCC reclassified internet service under Title II after all -- as it should have been from the beginning -- and thus the law requiring ISPs to keep behaving as they always had, neutrally, was applicable again.
Now Pai's FCC has reversed that classification, invalidating that law, and once again clearing the way for the ISPs to start doing things differently than they always have been.
There has been a long war to keep ISPs from breaking the internet. 2014 saw one battle in that war won on the side of consumers. But the war is still going on, and now we, the consumers, are losing out.
That is a good way of putting it, thanks! Because the data is coming from industrial activity, so "data industrial complex" just sounds like it's a "complex" of the data industry, but it can't be a complex without something else complicated with it. If "Intelligence" (CIA/FBI/etc like you say) is the something else, then it makes sense.
I'm getting tired of people saying "[Noun] Industrial Complex" without apparently understanding the meaning of the original Military-Industrial Complex. That original phrase meant that the Military and Industry were in a Complicated relationship with each other. It's not talking about an "Industrial Complex" (whatever that is) run by or about the Military.
"Data Industrial Complex" implies that there's something separate from Industry called Data, and that Data and Industry are in a Complicated relationship with each other. That does not seem to be the the way it's used, though.
There isn’t actually any such rating as X or XXX, those are porn marketing terms only. The closest actual rating is NC-17. And it’s not exclusively for porn, though that is probably the only film genre that would accept such a rating, as other film usually aims for a broader audience.
This is precisely why net neutrality wasn't an issue in the era of dialup.
Dialup internet use the telephone network, which is regulated as a common carrier, as its backbone. Anyone could easily set up an ISP with just an office full of modems, piggybacking on that phone network, so there was lots of competition for Internet Service, and the uncompetitive last mile was separately regulated. Between those two things, good behavior like net neutrality was guaranteed.
With the advent of broadband, the last-mile providers (phone and cable companies) became the ISPs, and since they were now selling Internet Service as a separate thing from phone (or cable) service, they were not explicitly to be regulated as common carriers, and as always still had monopolies on their services, so they began to push some shady practices that nobody could get away with back in the dialup era.
Pretty soon laws were passed curtailing those practices, putting things back how they were.
But then those laws were challenged in court on the grounds that Internet Service was not classified the same way as phone service, and so legally could not be regulated the same ways.
Then the last administration's FCC decided that Internet Service really should be classified the same way, and did so, and then the same regulations that always used to apply, since dialup, once again applied.
Now this administration's FCC has reversed that classification, and now claims that because of that, they have no power to regulate Internet Service.
And now places like California have decided that they will once again reinstate the same regulations that there have always been, themselves, within their own states at least.
And the current FCC is claiming that doing so wrongly usurps the power that they just disavowed having? What?
There's a lot of places on Earth that are a lot more hospitable than the Moon -- the middle of the Sahara, Antactica, the seafloor -- that are still pretty inaccessible to us. Yeah, we can get there, and with a continuous supply chain we can stay there a while, but we're not going to have a continuous supply chain to Mars. Whoever goes to Mars has to be able to make it there on their own. So we need to be able to at least have permanent self-sustaining settlements in the most inhospitable places on Earth, if we're ever going to have permanent self-sustaining settlements off-Earth.
And by the time we're able to do that, we've eliminated one of the biggest reasons to have people off-Earth in the first place, because if we have "colonies" on Earth that are capable of surviving Martian conditions, they'll also survive everything that could ever happen to Earth short of the death of the sun. Climate change? Nuclear holocaust? Giant meteor? Living in the aftermath of those is a cake walk compared to living on Mars.
Contract rent is a form of economic rent. There's a reason they have the same word in the name, it's not just some coincidence.
Wait, you're saying that, in a capitalist society, that by definition favors capital-owners over laborers, new ways to rent-seek with your capital (like AirBnB) are paying more than new ways to sell your labor (like Uber)? No way!
Macs never used '060s. The last straight-up Moto chip used in a Mac was the '040, then it switched to PowerPC (which was still partly Moto, but you know what I mean).
Reminds me of a computer class in high school around the time of that switch, and the introduction of the Pentium, when our teacher was saying that Macs used 68020, '030, '040, '050... while PCs used 286, 386, 486, 586... and I had to interrupt and correct him on two counts.
You don't understand what words mean.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not, but for the record, no, it's not okay for "minorities and white trash" to have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet either.
I'm free to work fewer hours per day right now if I want to. But I'm scrambling as fast as I possibly can to dig myself out of the hole I was born into before I die, so I don't. Are you going to force me to work less for less pay? Cause I don't want that; I could have that right now if I did. Are you going to somehow make me paid the same for less work? I don't know what magic you think will accomplish that but if you've got something bring it on.
And you’re still asking the wrong question. It’s not about whether the guy who got tasked with repairing the car can do it — that is important, yeah, and if the answer is no then he won’t be there long, sure — but rather how many other people could actually repair that car if given the chance, but won’t be given the chance.
Where is the "there" that these people got? A job? In any case, they undoubtedly had skill and ability in the opinion of whoever hired them (or whatever it is you're talking about). And I'd give them the benefit of the doubt that they've probably got skill and ability enough in that narrow domain in order for someone to think that of them. But that's not the relevant question. The relevant question is how many other people, with how many other broader abilities that could be useful to whatever position you're talking about, didn't get the job (or position, or whatever) because of the biases of the person making that decision?
The point is that the opinions, of whoever is in the position to be making these decisions, of what counts as skill and who has it, are not necessarily a true measure of who is the best fit for a given role, and that saying that things are organized the way they are now because talent, as measured by the people at the top, floats to the top, is just a post-hoc justification of the status quo, and an example of the just-world hypothesis. It's akin to saying that wealth, or fame, or any other way you might rank people's status, is a measure of intelligence or hard work or something, because "if you're not rich then you're obviously not smart enough in the right way"; when at most those kinds of qualities are just a few of many many factors that go into achieving such status, and many who have those qualities fail to achieve that status because of other confounding factors.
When I first read your post, I was concerned, because "post-meritocracy" sounds like a concerning idea.
Then I actually read the site and you know what it basically is? A critique that so-called "meritocracies" actually aren't, and that despite their lofty ideals of judging people by the quality of their work, that they actually function in practice more like aristocracies, where whoever is in charge declares that the reason they get to be in charge is because are better, and that that makes them the rightful judge of who else's is good enough to share power, which of course is an objective, unbiased evaluation (/s).
Fun fact: the Greek root "ariste" means "excellence", so the literal aristocracy called their reign the "rule of the excellent", which is basically a synonym for meritocracy.
She's not arguing that the quality of work doesn't matter, but that we shouldn't pretend that we actually can objectively measure quality of work in a way that can be used as a basis for the social organization of project, because attempting to do so does nothing but paint an idealistic justification over whatever existing organization there happens to be. "We have this structure with me in charge because it produces the best output, as judged by me, which therefore justifies this structure that puts me in charge."
Fun fact: the Greek root "ariste" means "excellence", so "aristocracy" is literally "rule by the excellent", i.e. it called itself the equivalent of meritocracy. But of course it actually wasn't.
Meritocracy is a wonderful ideal but in in practice it ends up being whoever has power declaring that they have power because they are better and then judging who else in their opinion is good enough to share power, which opinion may or may not actually reflect who really is or isn't good enough.
Even setting aside quibbles with the scenario you describe, that still isn't any kind of control.
That's like saying that anarcho-primitivists took control of the country in the 90s because the Unabomber was a thing.