It's also pretty naive reasoning. Author thinks a significant enough number of people are going to care? Facebook has survived- no, thrived despite multiple public scandals, some of which were far more substantive than complaining about Apple's privacy policy.
A few months ago, I would have completely agreed with you. But the number of facebook addicts that I know that have quit facebook recently, are starting to make me rethink my position on this. I know it's just anecdotal, but maybe it's also not.
What's with this attitude? The guy wrote a blog post and by definition he can write what's in his mind at his desired level of length and verbiage.
It's not like he was asked to write the eject procedure manual of a spacecraft...
Bro I don't mean to make you the shining example of what I'm talking about but can we please try to be succinct with write-ups? The whole first half of the article could've been summarized with a single sentence: "As is typical with newbie vim enthusiasm, I spent many hours producing a 1000+ line vimrc over a long time that I eventually realized complicates my word editing process more than it helps."
Thanks for the honest feedback, but I think everything you want summarized is in the summary at the top:
> Vim is a highly customizable text editor geared towards writing code. But open-ended configuration possibilities often lure users into wasting time while chasing after perceived minute gains in productivity. This article describes my Vim journey, starting from heavy personal customization and ending with a renewed love for defaults.
One can read it, take the message, and move on.
However if another reader wants details, it's hard to know upfront what kinds of details he/she will care about. Hence, based on the premises in the summary, the article expands on: 1) the ways in which Vim can be over-configured; 2) some examples demonstrating the possibilities of changing default behaviour; 3) the benefits of scaling configuration down; 4) Summary and additional notes.
You might only care about one or few of those. However this, I feel, is where you would have to selectively skip some sections, based on your own judgement.
I don‘t agree with rapferreira. I liked that the article included the actual technical details, including these that were the “old” solutions. Some insights are impossible to be achieved if the details are omitted.
I think it makes sense in context, where many tech enthusiasts do almost fetishise their or other's configurations as nerd cred. Just look at /g/ board on 4chan, people post their neofetches and compare kernels..
Let's all just move on from this trend of things that are sexy in a category being regarded as 'porn': earthporn, cityporn, natureporn. Maybe I am getting old..
I found it informative and enjoyable to read. I'm glad it had the details that it did and would have gotten less out of it if those details had been omitted.
Of course it's fine to value succinctness, but it sounds like your saying the author did something wrong or that he owes you something. Maybe "I found there were too many details and would have preferred it was much more succinct; for example..." would have been a better tone than "can we please try to be succinct"?
Starts with dance videos, Figures our your preferences pretty quickly and I have found it very educational, the short format really cuts to the chase, It has prompted me to learn new techniques in cooking, woodwork, stretching... positive overall!
It does not. Spreading conspiracy is exciting and makes people feel smart. If you use Frida to bypass cert pinning and see what’s sent, TikTok doesn’t collect anything of note in the realm of social media.
Google (and the NSA by extension, via PRISM) has magnitudes more information on you.
I want to think they’re referring more to the culture of doing things you wouldn’t normally do in order to gain popularity. Like that one girl who drank a ton of Benadryl.
The problem is that those people exist on every social media platform, not just TikTok.
Little kids on TikTok are much more vicious than Twitter users. And they are little kids. Tiktok does a decent job with facial recognition to suppress their videos but that doesn’t stop a mass horde of them from stumbling on a couple of videos of mine and turning it into a cesspool.
Now of course that’s not worth the eradication of the app, but it’s not very inspiring to see the next generation being encouraged to act in the worst ways of online discourse.
In March and April, all I saw were Trump's worst moments- his blunders, his viciousness, his arrogance. My distaste for Trump heightened; I became more reactive and further triggered by his incompetence. Then, back in early June, every last thing I saw on TikTok was insane forms of rioting and the worst police brutality there was. TikTok effectively increases national attention to things like this.
The algorithm, of course, is reacting to my behavior- behavior which surely suggests that this is the type of content I "want" to see. If I go searching for basketball videos, I can teach the algorithm to populate my feed with them quite easily. But I never used the search bar.
The danger of the echo-chamber, rabbit hole aspect of the algorithm combined with TikTok potentially hand-selecting the types of content to push by default to American people to stir political dissension is very much there.
Yeah, I'm struggling to see the connection here... All social media was absolutely inundated at those same times with those same events. Twitter was the worst by far. I had to uninstall the app after a while because it was just so full of negativity it was really starting to affect my mental health.
Is Facebook also owned by the CCP? Because that's the same kind of divisive content I see on FB. No need for TikTok to get this result, it is the byproduct of US politics.
>i would argue that no one is obligated to do anything at all thanks to free will.
Ah, sure they are.
By the nature of events which preceded you and produced both your DNA and all entirely external circumstances, you are obligated to carry out your free agency in exactly the way you do.
Society will praise your virtuous stance for its anti-rape sentiments, but your views are equally or perhaps more arbitrary than his Judeo-Christian view. Note that saying a spouse has a "moral obligation" is different than saying the other spouse has the right to demand and force the fulfillment of the obligation.
I mean, it makes sense too. When my girl wants good D, I'm (morally) obliged to give it to her. That's part of the premise of a sexual relationship. I'm not going to deprive her of something that she relies on me for- after all, by virtue of our establishment of monogamous mutual exclusivity, she has to come to me for the fulfillment of that primal desire. She could go get the D from any guy she wants. I have good D, and she knows she can rely on me not to deprive her (and I mean truly deprive, not just playing hard-to-get-i-know-you-want-this deprive). The same goes for her. There is a metaphorical refusal to take no for an answer that comes with a healthy sexual monogamous relationship.
