Not quite the same; Jevons Paradox notes that increased efficiency of use is an effective reduction in cost. The fact that when you make something cheaper to use it gets used more is just simple supply and demand.
There's always been the odd liberal or conservative biased pieces that get posted to HN over the 11+ years I've been here. But there's been a ton of conservative pieces lately and they often seem to be from newer HN accounts. It seems similar to some of the patterns seen in some of the subreddits I subscribe to.
This is the most ideological time of my life (I’m in my 40s). Every non trivial thread on HN has comments that could be fairly characterized as political in some way.
My real world experience is not quite that extreme but it’s certainly more so than it used to be, particularly in any gathering that includes twenty-somethings.
Maybe the 60s were like this, I’d be interested to hear a comparison from someone that lived through them.
Please don't take HN threads into ideological flamewar hell. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for. For one thing, it is exceedingly repetitive and therefore tedious and therefore usually nasty.
We want curious conversation here. That means people hearing each other and learning from each other across differences. This is very different from (and incompatible with) ideological battle, in which the goal is simply to defeat the other side: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23959679.
We've had to ask you about this quite a few times before. Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart? We'd appreciate it.
There's a time and a place for these kinds of claims but underneath an article titled "Our nation cannot censor its way back to cultural health" may not be it. ;)
Not really. Paradox of tolerance means not tolerating intolerance. The word “inherent” makes it wrong, though. There’s nothing inherent about conservatism that is anti-democratic.
The Paradox of tolerance only endorses the right of being intolerant towards intolerance; it in no way suggests that it's always a good idea to practice such intolerance. On the contrary, the actual "paradoxical" idea is that some limited tolerance should be extended even to the intolerant to the extent practical, since this helps promote the norm of tolerance in the first place even when intolerant ideas might otherwise appear to be prevalent. IOW, Popper's position is, to a limited extent, consistent with the one most clearly phrased by Thomas Jefferson: "let [the intolerant] stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
People keep parroting this term, but I don't know if they have actually read the quote on Wikipedia.
In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise.
Because a core value of modern conservatism in the U.S. (as expressed through the leadership of the Republican Party) is questioning the outcomes of freely- and fairly-held elections (including the last Presidential election), to place new obstacles in allowing qualified citizens to vote, and resisting changes that would make it easier for more people to vote (such as voting by mobile phone, or on a weekend).
You won't find liberals questioning election outcomes that were determined by a margin of thousands of votes with a clear paper trail. The 2000 election in Florida, which you're probably thinking of, involved just a few hundred votes where the intent of the voter wasn't super clear (hence the "hanging chads" brouhaha); and once the election outcome was finally determined, liberals let things go. While they disagreed with the procedure and were upset about the outcome for a while, they didn't let it define their party for the next 4+ years.
Observations of possible irregularities in an election are not proof, however, a fairly held election is one in which the votes can be explicitly audited by any of the candidates, and each voter's valid status can be verified after the vote is completed and counted and a winner is declared. Is that true in today's elections? (and was it ever true). If so, any questions can be resolved through executing an audit, and no one needs to seek the Supreme Court.
Allowing the votes of qualified citizens to be counted in an election is part and parcel of operating a fully auditable election. Whatever fully auditable approach offers the fewest obstacles is where we should land, as long as feasibility and practicality are contemplated. At least once, each voter needs to provide evidence that they are a US citizen, and that they reside in the district for which they are voting. Thereafter, there needs to be an auditable trail connecting their vote with their eligibility.
> a fairly held election is one in which the votes can be explicitly audited by any of the candidates
You're confusing a verification procedure with an outcome. A fairly held election -- i.e., the outcome -- is simply one in which the pollsters and voters adhered to all the rules. And it is possible for an election to be fairly held that is not auditable. Sure, it might make people feel better post hoc about whether it was fair, but that doesn't mean that an unauditable election cannot be fairly held.
We've largely had non-auditable elections throughout our nation's history, and we've survived reasonably well thus far as a democracy. If there were past evidence of fraud that might be serious enough to change the outcome of an election, then the case for strict auditing would be much stronger. But to date, compelling evidence of fraud has never appeared.
I've become conditioned to react to Firefox version announcements with 'I wonder how Mozilla has screwed up the browser this time'. Either by introducing useless features or by removing options I considered useful. I hope I'm wrong this time.
They had a couple big blunders with the ugly border/expansion when clicking the address bar, and "Ctrl+Tab cycles through tabs in recently used order".. both of these things should have never been the default (or at least we should've been given the option to select a default when they were first added, similar to what they did with the new color theme support), but besides that then I can't think of anything terrible and always happy to see new updates.
I would especially love to see deeper integration with their Multi-Account Containers add-on, e.g. allow us to tell a bookmark to open in X container, or allow us to always open X container based on URL path instead of just domain name.
> but besides that then I can't think of anything terrible
How about stuff getting removed from the right-click / context menu, e.g. "page information" or "site information" (or whatever it used to be called in English)? How about no longer being able to remove specific (i.e. single) cookies? How about no longer being able to install arbitrary extensions?
I've been using Firefox for almost two decades now and have generally liked it a lot but GP has a point: The fact that the Mozilla devs have repeatedly removed (or at least hidden) more advanced features really is annoying.
> and "Ctrl+Tab cycles through tabs in recently used order".. both of these things should have never been the default
Personally, Ctrl+Tab-bing cycling through tabs in most recently used order is greatly useful. Maybe its just me, but everytime I go back to Edge or Chrome, it becomes painful to the point I have to use the mouse for moving through tabs.
I think you can compare it to "natural scrolling" - imagine if an operating system suddenly flipped the default scrolling direction without even presenting a dialog where you could choose your preferred option.
> everytime I go back to Edge or Chrome, it becomes painful to the point I have to use the mouse for moving through tabs
Sometimes I worry if that's exactly what they hoped would happen, similar to how Windows/Linux users often hate using a MacOS keyboard layout and vice versa.. but hopefully that isn't the case, especially because I can't think of any other software where you don't cycle through the tabs in their located order.
> Sometimes I worry if that's exactly what they hoped would happen, similar to how Windows/Linux users often hate using a MacOS keyboard layout and vice versa
Well, think of it this way: In what order do windows appear when you Alt-Tab through them? Surely its not the order in which they are located on your taskbar?
I'm still traumatized from the time they broke all and I mean ALL extensions. I've only gotten back ti using Firefox very recently because I have an issue where chrome keeps hibernating, and nothing short if a complete restart of my computer fixes it.
I usually expect some relatively insignificant but highly maligned UI adjustment, like adding an extra pixel or two of padding or bouncing back and forth between rounded and square cornered tabs. After one of the more egregious changes awhile back I modified some thing (I don't even remember what it was anymore) and it's been fine since, but I still expect something to change every time.
The top reason NOT to switch to Linux should be "Because someone told you to." The Linux community has a terrible problem with proselytizing and then gatekeeping ("Welcome to Linux! Oh, you're using Linux Mint? Get fucked, then.")
I just want to say that I thoroughly enjoyed that site. It feels incredibly grounded and a place where the author can have some fun. It tweaks some sort of nostalgia nerve while still having some good insights in his writings. The page on Aesthetics[1] makes me happy to see.
Right. I was going to comment "Reason #12 to switch to Linux: you love reformatting the entire system every once in a while, typically after struggling to fix a driver for hours and completely screwing everything up in a way you can't figure out how to undo."
This is an interesting observation, considering that traditionally Windows has had these opaque failure and degradation modes that are "unfixable" unless you reinstall. Personally, it doesn't ring true to me - I've been using the very same OS install for around a decade now, I just kept moving it from machine to machine and I think my laptop install is actually a duplicate. I've restored it from backups a few times, though the leading cause is "accidentally powered off during system update".
I wonder how much this has to do with first impressions.
Back in the late 90s when I first started experimenting with Linux, the parent's post definitely described my experience. I remember booting up into a text-mode login prompt and running 'startx' and having to do a lot of messing around with manual configuration files. One mistake with an init file could leave your machine un-bootable and you'd have to use a rescue shell to recover. Driver support was a mixed bag for sure.
In current year it's literally the exact opposite experience. I have more issues with installing Windows apps that will make driver changes or add stuff to the registry that causes weird unexpected issues than I have with Linux. Linux is quick and easy to install and tends to "just work" for me once it's up and running.
I'm sure choice of hardware still has something to do with mixed experiences. I did have one bad experience in recent memory with a work-issued laptop and the track-pad not working with Linux. I had to use a personal device while I was employed there since it was a known issue with that particular brand and the fix was an upcoming kernel update. But that seems to be the extreme rare exception for me. Most devices I've installed Linux on have worked perfectly right out of the install and have required me to do zero configuration to make it usable.
Yeah; one of my favorites in recent history was the Windows 11 developer preview. I installed it ahead of time to test an application my company distributes. Eventually, Windows 11 is released, and I think: Well, I'd like to get this machine off of the "dev channel" and on to stable, so I can (1) run what my users are running, and (2) not deal with instability.
You can't. Their official recommendation, in the Windows 11 Settings app, is to reinstall Windows 11. There's no way to migrate "backwards" on update channels, you can only go "more unstable".
I have updated my laptop across 4 major releases of Debian now, never reformating the system. And the copy of my home directory (think user profile in windows) is even older. If you don't know what you are doing, saving a full system backup to an external hard drive is actually easy so you can try things and revert if it doesn't work.
Same here. The only reason the last install was a fresh one was because I upgraded the storage on the laptop.
My home folder has files that have been with me since 2006 or so. This laptop is 7 years old and this is the third fresh OS install it has in its lifetime - With one exception, it's always been updated to the latest Ubuntu version as needed with the Ubuntu tooling.
What I have been doing to prevent data loss (that never happened) is to keep the interesting parts of my home folder on a separate filesystem and symlink them into my home folder. This allowed the previous fresh install to format the root partition and I didn't need to worry about my data being deleted.
I haven't done that once in 25 years of desktop Linux use. One of the reasons I use Linux is that I can actually understand and fix problems.
On my main desktop the image has been rolling forward since 2008 when I switched to 64 bit. Naturally the hardware has been replaced around it several times since then.
This is a good article. This very thread has a ton of examples of what the author talks about.
I've used Linux as my main OS for years now and I love it, but I've stopped trying to evangelize it. Just use whatever OS you want, I'm happy on Linux.
Unfortunately it is not catching up by the way of 1st party support. The compatibility layers are getting pretty good, don't get me wrong. But if to you a computer is just a tool that runs specific programs you need, then you should probably stick with what the software developer recommends you run their software on.
I'm surprised you can't see that this counter-article is just plain old FUD.
It should be a no-brainer that an operative system that is free, open, democratic, well documented and consisting of over 50,000 quality software packages---Debian, for example---is better than an OS which isn't any of those things.
Of course software is (also) about ideology. If you find yourself advocating putting more money in the pockets of the already super rich, or pretending that there isn't a digital part of human life where people have rights, well then obviously you have picked sides.
> I'm surprised you can't see that this counter-article is just plain old FUD.
Content-less emotional manipulation - just the kind of thing that I hate to see on HN.
You answered none of the points in the article itself, dismissing the entire thing out of hand with an acronym describing a concept that you provided no evidence actually applied to any of the arguments.
> It should be a no-brainer that an operative system that is free, open, democratic, well documented and consisting of over 50,000 quality software packages---Debian, for example---is better than an OS which isn't any of those things.
No. I've been using Linux as my daily driver for over a decade (and have spent far more time using it than Windows), and gotten a few other people on it, so I can say that, for actually getting things done and software just working, Windows is far better than Linux. An operating system where you have to struggle to get things done is a bad operating system.
Linux isn't "democratic", either - Linus Torvalds controls kernel development, and the userspace components have wildly differing development practices.
Nor is it "well documented" - Linux-related documentation is generally terrible to read. Technically correct? Sure - but that's not "well documented", that's an encyclopedia.
Neither can you say that those "50,000" software packages are "quality" - the vast majority of open-source software that I've seen is buggy, under-documented, incomplete, and difficult to use. (I mean, so is the vast majority of proprietary software - but that software being "also bad" doesn't make OSS software "good")
> Of course software is (also) about ideology. [...] well then obviously you have picked sides.
Please leave your manipulative speech out of HN, and don't try to drag me (or anyone) into your idealistic flamewar.
Microsoft is a company that is predatory towards its users, and that's why I recommend Linux despite all of its problems. Pretending that it has no problems, or is technically superior to Windows, and then piling on inflammatory dialog, does nobody any good.
Well, Debian is free, open source, is more or less fully documented (and translated!) and has over 50,000 software packages that meticulously tested before the stable release every two years. That's not me being emotional or manipulative. It is a fact.
I don't actually need to prove that software is (also) about ideology, as you just acknowledged it. But anyway, it is also a fact that if you use Windows, you are giving even more money and power to 1 American company that currently has like 85% total market share. Distribution of wealth and power over human (digital) life are clearly ideological issues.
What is emotional is your statement that you think Windows is far better, that you think Linus Torvalds work somehow makes Debian undemocratic, that you think the documentation is terrible to read and that the vast majority of OSS you've seen is buggy etc. Being a software guy, I'm sure you can recognize a pattern, here :).
Also, I understand that your time with GNU/Linux is supposed to impress. But to me it just means that you came in at least a decade after the FUD-era in the late nineties, which may explain why you can't see how the counter-article maps near perfectly to the old arguments about community, hardware support, lacking software and "not for everyone."
Lastly, I'm not trying to start a flamewar. I'm just pointing out that the counter-article, which some other posters found well written, is classic FUD.
The deceit and misdirection present in your response is astonishing.
> Well, Debian is [...] That's not me being emotional or manipulative. It is a fact.
You know very well that "emotional manipulation" was in response to your statement "I'm surprised you can't see that this counter-article is just plain old FUD." because I wrote me response directly after your quoted statement.
This is one of the most deceitful things I've seen on HN in a while. Other HN readers: look at the beginning of my comment[1] and you'll see what a blatant mischaracterization this is.
And, no, claiming that Debian is "more or less fully documented" and that those packages are "meticulously tested" is not "a fact"; those are highly subjective terms that I happen to strongly disagree with.
> I don't actually need to prove that software is (also) about ideology, as you just acknowledged it.
Yet another claim without any evidence.
> What is emotional is your statement that you think Windows is far better, that you think Linus Torvalds work somehow makes Debian undemocratic, that you think the documentation is terrible to read and that the vast majority of OSS you've seen is buggy etc.
False, false, and false. My belief that Windows is far better is not "emotional" - it's just that, a belief (believing that the earth is round is not emotional), based on my personal experiences, which are factual. Similarly, the fact that the vast majority of OSS that I've seen is buggy is also factual - it might not be representative, but calling it "emotional" is a false statement. Finally, it's a fact that having a benevolent dictator at the head of a project makes it undemocratic, unless you actually care to make an actual argument about it.
> Being a software guy, I'm sure you can recognize a pattern, here :). Also, I understand that your time with GNU/Linux is supposed to impress.
More manipulation, and snide comments. Pretty clear you're not acting in good faith.
> which may explain why you can't see how the counter-article maps near perfectly to the old arguments
I read the Halloween papers? However, I'm also capable of rational thought, and making arguments, and seeing logical fallacies - and you haven't presented a single actual argument that any of the points in the article are invalid, nor have you justified your assertion that the article is FUD - you've just claimed it and stopped.
> Lastly, I'm not trying to start a flamewar.
Your statement "well then obviously you have picked sides." suggests that that's false. If you're not actually trying to start a flamewar - your behavior suggests otherwise.
> I'm just pointing out that the counter-article, which some other posters found well written, is classic FUD.
False. You haven't "pointed out" anything - you made a claim that the article was FUD without actually addressing any of the points or providing any evidence whatsoever.
Future HN readers: notice how cleverly this poster avoided making any logical arguments, or answering any of my points, or justifying their claims that the article was FUD. Beware - there are a lot of people who like to use labels to slander a person or organization without actually being able to show that those labels are accurate (because they're not). When reading a response to a comment, watch out to see if the response actually addresses the points made, or whether it tries to libel the previous comment, or strawman arguments, or just straight-up say things that are false.
Dude, you seem to think you have a big audience :).
The reason you think my posts are astonishing, misdirecting, examples of clever deceit, manipulative, snide etc. is because you fail to counter them properly. And as it is apparently unthinkable for you that it has to do with anything on your side, it must be my fault. But consider the below points:
+ Saying something is similar to another thing because they have the same shape is an argument. That is what I did when pointing to the similarities (made explicit for your benefit in my second post) between the counter-article and classic anti-Linux FUD. You can't counter that with "prove it!", because it only indicates that you can't distinguish between a discussion about an article and some query about pointers and memory objects.
+ It is factual that people have personal experiences, strong emotions etc., but that doesn't turn these things into factual states of affairs.
+ Nobody gets to decide whether their actions, opinions, choices etc. are ideological or not. That is a judgement passed by others. For example, if you want to call LT a dictator, there isn't much I can do about it. But I can at least---gently---point out that he open sourced the Linux kernel decades ago. If you want to fork it and build and OS without GNU on top of it, go ahead. If you just want to look inside and change something, go ahead. If you want to make a commerical endeavor out of it, go ahead. My point about taking sides is that you can't do any of that with Windows.
Well he is right. Linux is not for everyone. It's for people who can learn how to double click an icon that looks different from the one in Windows. That excludes probably 50% of Windows users right there.
It's quite easy to be smug when dispensing advice to a random internet recipient behind the wall of anonymity. It's much more so when someone comes to you, in person, asking for help.
I spent the better part of an hour this week helping a family friend over Zoom, trying to help her digitally sign a document. Her browser's PDF viewer couldn't render the form input boxes, so I had to help her download Adobe Acrobat Reader (yuck, I know, but, I'm not going to argue with her employer about alternatives). She's not dull by any stretch--she has a PhD. Just unfamiliar with the process. And when you see the process through fresh eyes, you get the sense that, oh, maybe this actually isn't intuitive at all if you've never done it before.
I don't know why so much of the Linux community lacks that feeling of empathy. Perhaps because their journey through Linux was a giant hazing ritual, and they feel like they've earned the right to haze the next generation? I have no idea.
I totally agree. I am still a Linux user, but at home I use a Mac now. Why? Because I got sick of having to work out why my laptop couldn't print things anymore after an update. Not once has that happened to the Windows or Apple devices that my family own. Linux is great for doing all sorts of clever stuff; it's not so good at doing the ordinary stuff reliably.
Honestly, it's true. People are creatures of habit. My mother has been an accountant for 20 or so years and will still call me to complain about having to learn a new Excel version (when they moved to the 'stripe' interface? God help me...), or moving to a job where they use any software that's different from what she's used to. God forbid her iPhone changes absolutely anything when it upgrades.
And yes, Windows users have complained mightily about nearly every upgrade (remember the Windows 8 fiasco? Windows 10 was lesser, but people still found fault, now 11...) but still use it. Oh well.
Also, there was a lot of bitching about Ubuntu moving from Gnome 2 to Unity. It led to a DE fork and an entire distro picking up the cause. So Linux users bitch too. But with OSS you can change what you want and the companies can also tell you to piss off...
Software for the masses seems to always be dumbed down, lose functionality, or otherwise become less useful over time as its targeted at the lowest common denominator. I'm good with there being an OS that's primarily for people who have the time and desire to understand their tools and want to get the most out of them.
This isn't some dig at casual users, it's about market segmentation. Not everything needs to be for everyone, and that's okay. With few exceptions, the average PC has plenty of choice in its operating systems.
No, he's right. It's like maths. A vast majority of people like to not like / learn it.
I've spent a lot of time with average users of all kinds. They couldn't care less. To them it's a thing that has less value than a coffee cup.
I could, and would sit down and explain to them everything that is cool, cute about every layers of a computer, with simple language and pragmatic use, with history context, and bits of benefits for their lives. They just don't want to hear it.
Some will say it's geek stuff. Some will say "I'm too scared". Some will try and forget 13 seconds later.
The insane side of this is that these people will spend grands on a new machine that will tickle their sense of free improvement (which will not happen). Again every 3-5 years.. forced by ecosystemic pressure to push old stuff out.
ps: I agree that GP was a bit smug, but even then, the population is what it is.
pps: even at work, if I offer to explain something, or write a script, or a macro to help, most people will react negatively for various reasons (very often its petty emotions, like jealousy, or disdain).
No, he's not right. A computer is a tool. A tool should help you accomplish tasks. A well-designed tool that is meant to be used in the average household should be easy to use and hard to screw up. It shouldn't feel like it's getting in the way.
There's no reason why anyone should need to know the details of how a computer works to use the computer. The history you're so eager to tell should just be trivia.
> There's no reason why anyone should need to know the details of how a computer works to use the computer.
Paraphrasing the CEO of Sun Microsystems (IIRC): you don't need to know how to operate a nuclear power plant to get light when you flick the light switch.
Have you ever tried to teach people how to use a computer or is that paper talk ? because in theory everything is well designed, but very few things are.
Of course "in theory" good tools are solid and simple.. in reality bro how insane the world is. Every update, every fix, changes the poor ground of habits users tried to build. Just yesterday I had to help a neighbor because she couldn't grasp a word document embedding a invisible table as layout forbidding the caret to move right as she used too. I think you're very much misunderstanding the vastness of psychologies, of tooling variations, of hidden variables and parameters and the immense layering of software.
People are confused by the slightest change in computer interaction. How do you want to make them understand when to click, double click, right click, drag, press. What's an URL, what happens when they click save, why errors or not ? people don't even know what saving a file is. Really, go in any office you can pick 30% of users totally clueless about folders and files.
Every attempt at hiding information causes trouble, it taps into shallow understanding and rote memory. People become mere users and it sucks. History is interesting, details are interesting, your brain loves it, if it's tied to a tangible concept and use for the people. It's not about making VBA6 classes or a talk about Linus Torvalds acrobatics for the sake of geek pleasure. It's to situate what are the reasons (as in reasoning) for why things are the way they are. Even your keyboard has a long history.
This is the exact elitist mentality that the article writer is talking about. Not only are you saying everyone who can't figure it out is dumb, but you forget, there are actually people who probably can't understand it because its a different icon like very elderly people. My grandma would only use a browser if I set the icon to the little IE6 icon. lol
Did you make this, so good can I add it to the website or link over to it? I am being careful with ROMs as people have been in a bit of trouble for adding them onto their website
The keys don't seem to work for me. Chrome/Windows. Trying to play Combat. I see the key mappings under the Gear icon. Clicking seems to bring up the menu items but the game never starts or I cant make it start.
