I think it's about time unpaid labor becomes on politicians' radar if they don't want to have 25% unemployment rate in their hands. As advocated by Glen Weyl and Eric Posner.
> It doesn't cost anything to take photos, except your time, so just keep spamming the trigger
This, this, this, and this!!!
My mother is the one that takes the initiative of taking pictures of people during events (whether important or just small outings). What she has a hard time understanding is that you must spam the trigger. She tries to frame the picture perfectly, and everyone on their most photogenic faces. Then, she takes ONE shot and oh... somebody closed their eyes a bit. "Let's go for another one, everyone go back in place!"
What she doesn't understand is that the best and most memorable pictures isn't the one where people are smiling straight into the camera. It's when people are doing something they enjoy and don't even notice the camera and don't do a perfect model pose.
I'm lucky if I delete only 9 of the 10 photos I took!
> > It doesn't cost anything to take photos, except your time, so just keep spamming the trigger
> This, this, this, and this!!!
Except that time is a huge cost. Merely taking the photos is quick, but sorting through them is slow and mind-bogglingly boring. The more photos you take, the larger the chaos is (and the more space gets wasted). If you are the kind of person who diligently categorizes photos right after they are taken, then sure, go ahead spamming the trigger; otherwise you'll just end up with with exhausted storage, and less and less motivation (over time) to start sorting through that ever growing heap of manure.
> Merely taking the photos is quick, but sorting through them is slow and mind-bogglingly boring.
I said this in another comment, but after a typical shooting it takes about 10 seconds - not more - to sort through everything. We don't take hundreds of pictures...
The alternative is taking only one picture and calling it a day - whether you made an ugly face or not. A couple of times I've asked people to take a picture of somebody else and me, and sometimes they only take one picture and either me or that person makes an ugly face... If he pressed the button 4 times I'm sure there would have been a fine picture.
I’ve actually found a lot of benefit in the exact opposite. I started shooting film which does have a pretty big cost per trigger press and it has forced me to consider each shot a lot more.
For me, I found having hundreds of photos on my DSLR’s SD card a daunting task and the raw photos would sit for months before I’d get around to reviewing them (if I even bothered at all).
Sitting down and spending an evening developing/scanning/converting negatives, however, I find rather enjoyable.
To each their own; I think the important thing is to find a workflow that works for you so you can capture as many memories as possible!
For most people, taking pictures is done with their smartphone - which is good enough, right!
My view is that striving for a perfect shot is counter-productive as you will better reminisce the memories by having taken a random picture of someone doing a goofy thing with a weird face.
I usually take 10 seconds after taking the pictures to discard those that don't deserve to be saved. In contrast, my mother, who strives for perfect pictures, has a lot more duplicate pics than I do.
> The command line interface is really badly designed. It’s ugly, hard to learn, difficult to remember, illogical, inconsistent, and just makes no sense to me at all.
I wish they would elaborate a bit more on each single point. I'm quite happy about docker, so I'm especially interested when someone has a negative opinion about it. But here I feel like there's no meat to this article.
I kinda disagree about most of the points (but I don't love a lot of things about Docker, but don't see them being worse than other tools) - but I 100% agree on the networking.
It's kinda badly described and unintuitive. The amount of people who were surprised by the firewall rules messing up their existing firewall setup is very high. And it also just grabs a subnet and you have to dig why it would use that one and not another. Not sure about conflicts. But it's a bit of "it works until it doesn't".
I didn't have many "wtf just happened?" moments with docker, but 100% of them were network-related and half of them were hard to troubleshoot.
Eye of the beholder. There's a ton of Windows folks that use docker and wouldn't have been exposed to ls before. If they used a command line at all, they're using dir on dos.
Granted, The linux subsystem stuff has expanded it's scope, but there's a few folks I know that have never touched linux and are using docker to run stuff.
This stood out to me, too. Git's CLI was very confusing for me to learn, but on Docker the metaphors made sense. An image, like a file system image. A container, something with walls. Exec to execute commands. Rm to delete. Some of the networking stuff took a little to learn (exposing ports to other containers vs outside of docker) but I think that's necessary complexity.
I also found this for criminal prosecutions under section 2 which is the section covering illegal monopolies. Pages 12 and 14 have some quick summary charts and tables.
Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon are the ones in FANMAG off the top of my head.
Also keep in mind that the existence of the law guides decisions around compliance. There is ample evidence that all of the big decisions at FANMAG are viewed through compliance with anti-trust as a concern. Basically, a lot of big companies haven't been prosecuted because they have armies of lawyers working on where exactly that law kicks in, and how much they can step over the line without putting themselves at serious risk.
The existence of the law itself is a deterrence mechanism. It just seems like the justice department is hampered with a century old law in dealing with a modern world.
I personally think that we should be more zealous in enforcing, or better yet, pass better laws. Move the line way back, essentially.
I installed Instagram about 2 years ago and I couldn't bear the number of posts from authors that I did not know about on the main timeline. The point of Instagram for me is to see my friends' pictures.
I uninstalled the app but only use the webapp to send messages to friends every now and then. I was thinking "maybe Instagram Lite is the answer", but it turns out it's the complete opposite; no messaging features, only timeline for doomscrolling.
We are calling it "social" media, but it sure isn't being social with friends. Can't monetize that.
> This is why calorie counting is ballparking to get us a general idea, and not a precise science.
This is true, because of "caloric availability".[1] If you took that into account, you would have a better idea of how many calories your body is absorbing.
I'm sorry to be the pessimist here, but I doubt it. HN users are the most likely to use RSS in the first place. I sincerely doubt that RSS is going to make a comeback this year with all my non-IT friends using it.
Realism shared. I work with journalists, exactly the type of normies who would most benefit from this technology. Years of evangelism has had no effect whatsoever. Nobody they know is using it, they don't see the logo anywhere, or a big friendly "Get started" button. It's all so unfamiliar and technical-sounding. Even the name itself was a disaster, IMO: a hopelessly geeky and opaque acronym. It should have been called Webfeeds! It's all such a wasted opportunity.
In this case having more people asking for it or expecting it can contribute to expanding the availability of RSS feeds to more websites.
While the vast majority of technical stuff I follow uses RSS, the same cannot be said for some other resources I like to read.
While some are kind enough to enable them when asked, I don't expect them to want to support them for just a handful of people in their target audience.
Honestly that might be for the best in some ways. I see rss as "allowed to exist" because not enough people use it. There's plenty of ways to subscribe to things that I enjoy right now that could be nuked if suddenly enough people were using it that they weren't seeing the conversion rates they wanted.
> And most people speak (or at least understand) English.
This is wrong. In cities where there's a lot of tourism, they might understand. Most Swiss people only speak their local languages (German or French). As for those living in Ticino, they tend to be better polyglots.
About 40% of all Swiss inhabitants speak English at least once a week [1].
Anecdotally, I can't think of a single acquaintance younger than 50 years old that doesn't speak fluently. Everyone in Switzerland learns English at school for at least five years. Most even for seven years.
Some of my German speaking friends even talk in English to French speaking people, even when both have learned the other‘s respective language at school.
> Everyone in Switzerland learns English at school for at least five years. Most even for seven years.
We learn the other's respective language for 7 years, too. Yet, as you pointed out, people speak in English because there is no willingness to learn and apply the other's language.
Some of my friends speak English fluently, but I have a very hard bias as I work in IT. My whole family doesn't speak any language other than French. Most of the people I've been to school with don't come close to speaking English casually. None would watch an English content creator.
Due to the shared heritage between the English and German languages, perhaps it's different in the German-speaking region. If you ask someone slightly complicated English questions, they might not be completely lost - after all, some words share the same etymology. But Switzerland is absolutely not an English-speaking country at all.
English is quite common to speak among Swiss from different cantons, since they usually stop caring about the other official languages after the compulsory school classes.
I find kind of ironic that I have better fluency between the official languages than many of my Swiss friends and work colleagues.
I met plenty of people in Lausanne who didn't speak English, or at least didn't want to speak English (it is hard to tell, and anyways, it doesn't really matter). I visited Montreal shortly after my 2 year stay in Lausanne ended and I was surprised on how multi-lingual people were there.
Montreal is not representative of Quebec in general. Montreal itself is very multilingual and anglophone depending on what specific part you're in. In the very touristy parts of Montreal you won't even notice French "requirements". Leave the island of Montreal towards the rest of Quebec (i.e. not towards Ontario) and you will find less and less people willing or able to speak English very very quickly.
Until they think you're a tourist. If they hear you speak another language than English and you seem like you're a tourist, then almost every Quebecer will try his best to speak English even if it means using hand and feet to communicate.
But if they think even for a second that you're actually Canadian, then outside Montreal and even in some parts of Montreal you will be met with the full force of Quebecois pride and nationalism and you better speak French to them.
Y'all are both claiming that the major cities in their region are not representative because they are touristy? That's going to apply to most major cities. Tokyo not representative of Japan, New York not representative of USA, Dublin not representative of Ireland, etc.. But they are.
You definitely won't get 'Southern Charm' or small town feel in NYC. Of course, trying to nail down what exactly is American is gonna be hard to do.
I would definitely not say that if you go to Tokyo you can get the Japanese experience. You get some of it, of course but to say you can get a grasp or even a handful of understanding without ever seeing rice fields and gardens interspersed with houses, beaches with people fishing and immediately turning the catch into sashimi, towns where nothing new has been built since the bubble...
You can't see and feel that in the hustle and bustle, where everyone moves to get away from having neighbors who know all about you, where night is erased by the neon glow.
> You definitely won't get 'Southern Charm' or small town feel in NYC.
This is true but also because the US is geographically and culturally diverse this is impossible in any given city. And that applies equally to none-touristy cities. You're not going to get a broad sense of America from Oklahoma City, either.
The smaller and more homogeneous the country, the easier it is to generalize and get a sense from even a single sample point.
I am not claiming the big city is not representative of Quebec because it's touristy at all. Please read again. But let me try to explain again.
Montreal, never mind tourism, is more English than the rest of Quebec. Depending on which part you're in nobody bats an eye if you don't speak French to them.
In other parts of Montreal and definitely in the rest of Quebec, big city or not, you better speak French unless they think you are a tourist. You can be out in the Beauce but if you look, act and speak like a (non Canadian) tourist they suddenly try their best at English. Quebec City is definitely a city and representative of the rest of Quebec with regards to language (minus tourists). Montreal much less so. There are a bunch of small towns across Quebec that are also very English.
That exists in other provinces as well, where things are very French in the middle of an English speaking province. Acadia comes to mind. Manitoba has some French parts.
Well, it makes sense. Canada still has a significant English-speaking majority. Even if Québec in isolation has a French-speaking majority, there's a very large incentive for French-speaking citizens to learn English because their province is surrounded by primarily Anglophone regions.
There are also other factors at play. Montréal has a fairly large community of native English speakers and receives a lot of tourism from Anglophone Canada and the United States due to its status as the largest city in Québec (and second largest in Canada). It also gets a lot of immigrants, many of which are (at least initially) more proficient in English than in French.
I can't say I'm entirely familiar with the situation in Switzerland, but as far as I know the country has four official languages, none of which are English. It also doesn't border any English-speaking countries. It seems English is mostly used as a lingua franca for communication between citizens who don't otherwise share a language rather than due to the direct presence of native Anglophones. Also, Romansh aside, all national languages of Switzerland (French, German and Italian) are spoken in areas that directly border a country where that language is the national language (France, Italy, Germany/Austria). With Switzerland being in the Schengen Area, its linguistic regions may be considered to be part of a much larger individual linguistic communities, which I feel may also diminish the need to learn other languages.
> I can't say I'm entirely familiar with the situation in Switzerland, but as far as I know the country has four official languages, none of which are English.
The language of French Switzerland is French. You'll never hear German, Italian, or Romansch. If you only spoke German and not French or English, you really couldn't live there very effectively (only places like Bern or Basel are truly multi-lingual), yes you'll get your official docs in German but then what? I assume the same is true in German speaking Switzerland, and I have no idea about Italian Switzerland.
If a Swiss German and Swiss French met for coffee, what language do you think they would wind up speaking? Perhaps English if neither had comfortable fluency in the other language. Not to take away from your point, but English can get you really far in this world.
I'm sorry if this sounds offensive or derogatory. But as a Swiss person, I've never heard anyone call it "Alemannic". Whether it be foreigners, Swiss-French speakers or Swiss-German speakers, everyone called it "German".
> Swiss German (Standard German: Schweizerdeutsch, Alemannic German: Schwiizerdütsch, Schwyzerdütsch, Schwiizertüütsch, Schwizertitsch Mundart, and others; Romansh: Svizzers Tudestg) is any of the Alemannic dialects spoken in the German-speaking part of Switzerland, and in some Alpine communities in Northern Italy bordering Switzerland.
All Swiss-German is an Alemannic dialect, not all Alemannic dialects are Swiss-German, is how I'd interpret that.
