4
points
mvnuweucxqokii
Joined 105 karma
- There is a very clear market desire for desktop style apps delivered through browsers.
Users love it. Users hate installers. Users hate updates. Webpages have neither.
Companies love it. Makes subscription access apps easy to sell. Makes it easy to target all platforms and keep costs low.
Seems very flippant to completely dismiss the dominant trend in this industry over the past 20 years as simply wrong.
I agree the technologies are not well suited to this purpose which is why I avoid frontend at all costs. But powerful web apps generate a lot of value for a lot of people, myself included.
- I don't know the difference between the user and system store, but I do know that apps can choose not to trust certs installed by the user and instead only trust their own that they bring with them. Was frustrated to find this when I was trying to MITM an app to see what it was up to on the wire.
- > Is there a difference between the products, or is it just the Apache versus commercial license? Ie. will you be able, but not allowed, to view and make changes to the commercial product?
The commercial product extends the open source project to add other capabilities. The source for these extensions is not distributed. (The result is a tool distributed in binary form).
- See for example a slide from education advocates which states that asserting "2 + 2 = 4" is "Covert White Supremacy".
https://twitter.com/HTheijsmeijer/status/1571174175162699778...
There was a huge popular discourse in 2020 specifically about whether 2 + 2 = 4. See e.g. Kareem Carr, who was a major participant: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/biostatistics/2020/09/kareem-ca...
The steelman argument for the subjectivity of math would be something like: the process of choosing how to represent/model a real world situation in mathematical terms may influence what conclusions can or will be reached under that model, because biased assumptions can sneak their way into the model.
To be clear, this is good knowledge and should be taught.
However, it is not an effective attack on the coherence of natural number arithmetic. We have to get students to a certain level of objective operational competence before they are ready to think about the subjectivity of mathematical modeling.
- I guess it comes down to how widespread you think the coercion that you mention is. I tend to believe the current rate of non-cis identification is at least an order of magnitude over the "natural" background rate, specifically because of a system of incentives and disincentives which have been set up. Being non-cis grants attention, care, affirmation, and deference from administrators. It is one of the few categories that administrators seem actually willing to go to the mat to protect from vicious bullying. Being cis means being boring, being tacitly oppressive, and not receiving as much attention, affirmation, or defense from administrators and teachers.
I view this all as a negative insofar as it nudges cis kids to identify as non-cis and start edging closer to risks to their mental and physical health as a result.
Maybe in 15 years this will look silly and we'll all know that 10% non-cis is totally normal and all these people will be able to live authentic lives.
But if in 15 years we reach the opposite discovery, my view is that we will have done a lot of damage to individuals and to systems along the way.
- That is a fair ask. To be honest, I am unwilling to devote to this discussion the time which would be required to research examples.
I will concede that if these things never happened, I personally would find the infohazard argument non-compelling, though others may have their own feared infohazards.
On the flip side, if hypothetically these were common ideas animating public school curricula and/or teacher behavior, would you consider that sufficient justification for homeschooling as being discussed here?
- Just to be clear: are you saying the argument is bad because these things are never taught, or are you saying that these things are good to teach actually?
- That's a strawman.
The steelman version is something like the following chain of reasoning: (a) gender identity is something that everyone has that is distinct from sex, (b) with enough introspection, everyone can discover their true gender identity, (c) if you don't have a strongly felt gender identity, you need to introspect, (d) if introspection does not yield certainty then this suggests genderfluidity, or even worse that puberty ought be delayed until certainty is achieved.
Or how about: an AMAB child playing with a Barbie doll often is strongly suggestive that he might actually be trans.
Or how about: values like "being on time" or believing that a math problem has one correct answer are inherently white supremacist and racist.
etc.
- Fair point!
- > “People don’t buy Swiss watches to tell the time,” he said. “Apple probably sells more watches than the entire Swiss watch industry but does that matter if they’ve grown during that period?”
Exactly. That diamonds are expensive is almost the entire point. If it becomes possible to buy artificial diamond rings for like $50, the tradition will disappear entirely. People will find some other signaling act.
- I think airlines actually face a lot of liability around the transport of unaccompanied minors--what if they lost the kid? The few times I traveled unaccompanied as a minor, the flight attendants were always checking in on me, knew my itinerary, etc. My parents had to come to the gate and the airlines would not release me to anyone else nor let me wander off.
From that perspective, they face huge downside if they fail to convey a minor to the contracted final destination and then the minor goes missing. A minor who announces the intention to wander away not according to plan sets off alarm bells in someone who has this perspective.
- okay, that's just an idiosyncratic requirement. i don't ask that anyone do that for any of the cultures i'm from, nor does anybody that i know. hell, i haven't even read my own culture's classic literature!
- I think I default more to guess culture? I certainly don't ask for help much--almost never--but I think that might be because I'm very independent. My personal problem with ask culture is when the relationship becomes very asymmetrical. Some ask culture people that I know will freely make requests all the time. In their minds, I assume, they'll get me back when I ask for it. The problem is that I don't ask for help, so instead I will help them out a dozen times in a row, my frustration building all the time, my opinion of them tending toward "freeloader".
My relationships that work well have a very strong unstated premise of turn-taking. If my friend paid for lunch last time, of course I'm getting it this time, and vice-versa--to me that's just obvious. If I stay at someone's house while traveling, it goes without saying that I will host them at my house (or return the favor in some other way of equivalent value) before imposing on them again.
- Can you please describe a kind of engagement with Asian culture or products that you will not dismiss as orientalism? I fear that everything will fit neatly into Asian hate or orientalism in your taxonomy.
Americans love Asian cars. Tons of Hondas, Toyotas, Hyundais, Kias, etc. Also while some weeby anime fans may be orientalist, not all are, and love for Gangnam style was genuine. It was a great song and people loved it for that, not because traded on Asian stereotypes. The American geopolitical strategy in the Pacific rests heavily on a very deep trust of Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, among other partners.
- Americans love kpop and anime. The hate is not for Asians.
- The concern is not data collection. The concern is demoralizing content.
- > Sure, why not? It's not like it's a huge sacrifice on my part. It's just a little reduction in convenience. No big deal.
I can easily imagine a world where in ~20-30 years, there are no bank branches or phones or ATM machines or cash--because 99.99% of people have no interest in using those things anymore. In that world, suddenly it becomes an almost insurmountable inconvenience not to acquiesce to whatever is required to use online banking.
Offering something then taking it away is materially different from never having offered it at all.