@sj_zero @leespringfield1903 Yeah.
A fair amount of this coincides with the Gates -> Ballmer transition. The stuff and pace you're impressed with was Gates or started under him, as well as the OS/2 work. Which had Microsoft despairing because IBM demanded it work on a 286 because they'd promised their corporate IT disciples after all the first generation PC chaos the PC-IT would be the last PC they'd have to buy for a long time.
So Microsoft continued its Windows work, which became practical with the 386, and when DEC's Ken Olsen canceled both the hardware and OS work for a RISC replacement of the VAX Microsoft took the opportunity to hire a proven OS team headed by one of the very few men who'd ever done more than one OS. Who later did foundational low level OS type work for Azure, can't keep a man like Cutler down it would seem.
Once your org chart really and truly looks like this thanks to stack ranking, it's a miracle if anything gets done, see them blowing a billion dollars on the Kin. Although the pajeet replacement might be making people nostalgic for even a botch like Windows 8??? I mean, one of the first things he did was fire most of the people who tested Windows, especially the complete experience team....
"it must have been consensual, she was outside without her husband or a male relative"
Probably not an actual quote. Probably.
Probably not an actual quote. Probably.
Good enough comparisons imo given just how long it's been.
I mean, Microsoft made NT, made the 9x line, ended the 9x line, and even participated in the os/2 project, and all in less time than they've had to make 8 work. If you look at it that way it looks even worse.
I mean, Microsoft made NT, made the 9x line, ended the 9x line, and even participated in the os/2 project, and all in less time than they've had to make 8 work. If you look at it that way it looks even worse.
I copied the text and pasted it into notepad. It says "The best I can do is pretend to redact things"
These retards have had 15 years to make windows after 8 work properly and we're still using windows 2000 era utilities for basic stuff like managing network adapters.
They just can't do it.
Just think about how based and Chadlt the old Microsoft developers were: they went from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 in 5 years. They went from Windows 95 Windows 2000 in another 4 years.
I do not believe for a second that given nine years the Microsoft of today could go from Windows 3.1 to Windows 2000. We're still basically running Windows 8 lite.
They just can't do it.
Just think about how based and Chadlt the old Microsoft developers were: they went from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 in 5 years. They went from Windows 95 Windows 2000 in another 4 years.
I do not believe for a second that given nine years the Microsoft of today could go from Windows 3.1 to Windows 2000. We're still basically running Windows 8 lite.
Hey I know we can do let's act like a bunch of pathetic mean girls to Donald Trump some more! That always helps!
Canada's economy shrinks by 0.3%
https://financialpost.com/news/economy/canada-economy-shrinks-october?utm_source=flipboard&utm_medium=activitypub
Posted into Financial News @financial-news-NationalPost
If the car were 70 years older it probably wouldn't even have a scratch on it, but it definitely would have killed the driver.
Every government that is in deficit, and every individual in that government who calls for proprietary software, should be forced to write a 100 page essay on why our unborn great grandkids should be forced to buy Windows 11 and SharePoint for us. Every year.
Same Toronto police service that said to comply with home invaders.
We need to get rid of that red Tory in charge and get a mike Harris back.
We need to get rid of that red Tory in charge and get a mike Harris back.
Just because Trump isn't president doesn't mean the numbers are suddenly trustworthy. I think most people with jobs and grocery bills still feel squeezed.
As far as I'm concerned, activism funded by taxpayer dollars should be illegal.
Imagine how insane it is to pay yourself to convince yourself to do something that you want to do. I can't imagine anything much more wasteful.
Imagine how insane it is to pay yourself to convince yourself to do something that you want to do. I can't imagine anything much more wasteful.
oh no now countless worthless corpo meetings that couldn't have been resheduled for after Jan 1 will have to be rescheduled for after Jan 1.
The history of section 230 is that prior to 230 it was the law of the land that most internet services were not moderated at all and therefore the people operating the services had limited liability for anything posted on them unless and until it was reported.
There was one early case involving compuserve, and because that server and didn't moderate editorial, they were treated like a newsstand that sells newspapers other people published, and so CompuServe was not liable for the individual things written by the posters. By contrast, There was a case involving Prodigy I think, where the service claimed to be moderated and thus safer for young people to go on to. This opened them up to liability because they asserted editorial moderation and some of the content they allowed through was found to be defamatory. Therefore, the state of the internet prior to section 230 was this: limited editorial moderation which limited liability for the things said, or editorial moderation where the website provider took on the liability for the things that were posted and also took on liability for damages when they moderate.
If suction 230 were to be removed, this would be the way things would go back to. Legally, if you never made any pretenses of moderation, you would be protected from the individual things that people post. And if you did choose to moderate, you would be personally responsible for everything that was posted on your website.
This is why a lot of free speech people were pushing for the abolishment of section 230 altogether, because at that point either everything becomes usenet again and largely unmoderated for editorial, for what remains becomes so fully locked down it would no longer be interactive. In other words, individuals who believe that abolishing section 230 would result in moderation that they like becoming the norm are likely incorrect. The more likely result would be that once section 230 was removed, remaining services that didn't immediately lock down would not have any editorial controls at all.
But I should tell you that if you are on the political left, there's an awful lot of stuff that would immediately get taken down because no company would want to potentially be treated as the speaker of a lot of that speech. In particular, accusations that a certain company did X or that a certain individual did Y would almost certainly be banned out right because the company's running the platforms would not want to be "saying" such things in court.
Of course on the political right there would be a lot of stuff taken down too, but not the stuff most lefties would want. Legally, there's generally nothing wrong with what is called hate speech, at least not in the United States. Therefore, we're talking about a certain company dumping talk to chemicals into a river maybe actionable defamation and therefore might be moderated, or making statements of fact about a certain politician maybe actionable defamation and therefore might be moderated, you can legally talk about your opinions on different races all day long.
A lot of politically neutral services would likely be up in the air as well. Things like recommendation algorithms or monetization decisions could have to change to accommodate the elimination of section 230 and the resulting legal regime.
There was one early case involving compuserve, and because that server and didn't moderate editorial, they were treated like a newsstand that sells newspapers other people published, and so CompuServe was not liable for the individual things written by the posters. By contrast, There was a case involving Prodigy I think, where the service claimed to be moderated and thus safer for young people to go on to. This opened them up to liability because they asserted editorial moderation and some of the content they allowed through was found to be defamatory. Therefore, the state of the internet prior to section 230 was this: limited editorial moderation which limited liability for the things said, or editorial moderation where the website provider took on the liability for the things that were posted and also took on liability for damages when they moderate.
If suction 230 were to be removed, this would be the way things would go back to. Legally, if you never made any pretenses of moderation, you would be protected from the individual things that people post. And if you did choose to moderate, you would be personally responsible for everything that was posted on your website.
This is why a lot of free speech people were pushing for the abolishment of section 230 altogether, because at that point either everything becomes usenet again and largely unmoderated for editorial, for what remains becomes so fully locked down it would no longer be interactive. In other words, individuals who believe that abolishing section 230 would result in moderation that they like becoming the norm are likely incorrect. The more likely result would be that once section 230 was removed, remaining services that didn't immediately lock down would not have any editorial controls at all.
But I should tell you that if you are on the political left, there's an awful lot of stuff that would immediately get taken down because no company would want to potentially be treated as the speaker of a lot of that speech. In particular, accusations that a certain company did X or that a certain individual did Y would almost certainly be banned out right because the company's running the platforms would not want to be "saying" such things in court.
Of course on the political right there would be a lot of stuff taken down too, but not the stuff most lefties would want. Legally, there's generally nothing wrong with what is called hate speech, at least not in the United States. Therefore, we're talking about a certain company dumping talk to chemicals into a river maybe actionable defamation and therefore might be moderated, or making statements of fact about a certain politician maybe actionable defamation and therefore might be moderated, you can legally talk about your opinions on different races all day long.
A lot of politically neutral services would likely be up in the air as well. Things like recommendation algorithms or monetization decisions could have to change to accommodate the elimination of section 230 and the resulting legal regime.
From a superpositional standpoint it's pretty obvious.
People support the police because they do a bunch of things that people do respect and want. If there's murder to be solved, people want the police to be in there. If your house gets robbed, they want the police to come find the guy who did it and lock them up.
At their best, police are protecting people's individual rights from being infringed by others.
People hate the police state because instead of providing basic order and thereby protecting people's rights, they end up using the pretext of order to harm people's individual rights on behalf of the government system.
In a sense, it's similar to left wing arguments against guns: the tool can be misused and often is so we should eliminate the thing. There's a nice first order logic to it, but we live in a multiple order world with multiple effects to an action.
Of course, it could be that having a tool like the police will inevitably mean it gets corrupted and break it's mandate, and that may be true too. Power corrupts, after all.
But it's also true that without some force capable of using force to enforce societal norms, someone else will come in and use force to enforce whatever they want and thus use of force is required.
Does that have to look like contemporary police forces? Not necessarily, but I don't think people who support police are necessarily so fixated on a specific form.
I do think a healthy society is one with mechanisms other than violent enforcement of norms to maintain order. A healthy society has cultural norms and mores, values and concepts such as honor or guilt that serve to get people to act in ways that don't need enforcement in the first place.
People support the police because they do a bunch of things that people do respect and want. If there's murder to be solved, people want the police to be in there. If your house gets robbed, they want the police to come find the guy who did it and lock them up.
At their best, police are protecting people's individual rights from being infringed by others.
People hate the police state because instead of providing basic order and thereby protecting people's rights, they end up using the pretext of order to harm people's individual rights on behalf of the government system.
In a sense, it's similar to left wing arguments against guns: the tool can be misused and often is so we should eliminate the thing. There's a nice first order logic to it, but we live in a multiple order world with multiple effects to an action.
Of course, it could be that having a tool like the police will inevitably mean it gets corrupted and break it's mandate, and that may be true too. Power corrupts, after all.
But it's also true that without some force capable of using force to enforce societal norms, someone else will come in and use force to enforce whatever they want and thus use of force is required.
Does that have to look like contemporary police forces? Not necessarily, but I don't think people who support police are necessarily so fixated on a specific form.
I do think a healthy society is one with mechanisms other than violent enforcement of norms to maintain order. A healthy society has cultural norms and mores, values and concepts such as honor or guilt that serve to get people to act in ways that don't need enforcement in the first place.
One of my favorite facts is that if your kid is yellow they put your kid in blue.
I really think about the amount hospitals probably charge to blue the yellow out of your kid.
I really think about the amount hospitals probably charge to blue the yellow out of your kid.
My first vehicle was an '83 Bronco II that was long past its prime, it didn't have the foot switch, but I'm pretty sure late 70s F150s and the like would have had them. The Bronco II wasn't based on the F150 platform but the ranger, so it already did a lot differently.