> if everyone on earth just sat still for a couple of weeks, this thing would just vanish.
Actually that in itself would cripple economies, despite being a really good idea (sitting still for a while I mean).
The whole world is operating under an economic paradigm that requires infinite growth forever; the model is decoupled from reality. If we all sat still for a couple weeks, everyone would be better off, but the economy would tank. Better get back to work!
Have you had bad experiences with Windows subsystem for Linux? In my experience it's useful, effective, and works out of the box with no configuration.
I'm being massively downvoted here, thanks for asking the why ! Been using windows 95,98,2k,7,10. I've had countless problems with it for more than 10+ years. Countless steps for system setup, bad/missing drivers, malware, spyware, performance degradation over time, system creeping more and more resources, cannot fix bugs upstream...
Since then I've switched to linux (less gaming) which has its own flaws and pains, but I love it.
Regarding WSL, why bother mixing two philosophies together ? Switch to linux and you've got it all, unaltered, and open source.
If you can, great. For a lot of us Windows is a reality we've made our peace with so having WSL is great. And tbh, W10 has been basically rock solid for me.
How is it a reality that you HAVE to make peace with? I've been interviewing a lot lately, and the vast, vast majority of workplaces have no problem with me running Linux as my daily driver. Most even offer Macs.
I can relate to your pain. At a previous position we had special windows workstations to deal with all of windows-specific software, and all of our personal workstations were using linux.
Now that I manage teams, I don't care about what OS people use. The more productive they are the better. The only dev (over 15 people) that used windows told me after a few months he regretted keeping windows on his machine !
Just to add another anecdote to yours, I've had none of your 'countless problems'. The W10 machine that I'm typing this on hasn't been rebooted in 8-9 months (bribed IT into putting my box in a no-update GPO :D). Its been nothing but rock stable for me. Heck, until a month ago, I was using a old sony W7 laptop with the original W7 installed from 2011 and it was just as performant as it was on day 1.
I believe you, but I don't know what you're doing that makes it so unstable. Or maybe I'm just a bit more OCD than others. I am extremely selective about kernel-mode components and what I install on my machine.
Taking away somebody's right to make a living with their chosen profession or otherwise participate in commerce is economic violence.
Say you have built up a following of people over many years and you are making thousands of dollars a month from YouTube, and they they decide to shut you down overnight, I bet it's going to feel like violence when it comes time to pay bills and you no longer have any of that income you have become accustomed to.
Shift your perspective. YouTube is a video distribution service provider and one of many ways to publish a video. You can choose to publish on YouTube, but you don’t have the right to compel YouTube to do business with you anymore than a coffee shop has a right to compel their current coffee roaster to do business with them.
If YouTube cancels their contract with you, they’ve taken away your ability to make a living on YouTube. What they haven’t taken away is your ability to make a living. You can even make a living in video production, if you can find the means to do so.
YouTube certainly enabled many more people to viably live as video producers, but that doesn’t entitle people to make a living in that profession anymore than it entitles them to make a living roasting coffee or serving in a public office or performing heart surgery.
Maybe we should make you persona non grata at the three largest supermarket chains in your area, plus Walmart and Amazon. You can get your meals at Burger King and 7-11.
I see your angle, but that would still leave me with countless other places to purchase groceries, any one of which could choose not to do business with me.
Indeed, the market for food is more fragmented than that for a large video audience. That's why it's a screwjob by Google. And it's a good reason to break Google into pieces.
What consequences are appropriate for someone acting badly enough to get specifically, independently targeted by that many major local businesses and two massive transnational corporations?
>Taking away somebody's right to make a living with their chosen profession or otherwise participate in commerce is economic violence.
The thing is, no company is taking away a creator's right to their living. They may take away the opportunity to make a living on that company's platform, but there's a distinct difference.
YouTube (or Twitch, etc) are providing a service to content creators, that service being hosting and broadcasting their content. Service agreements come with clauses about termination of service. A content creator should never put all their eggs into a single basket lest that service cease to support them for whatever reason.
> YouTube (or Twitch, etc) are providing a service to content creators, that service being hosting and broadcasting their content. Service agreements come with clauses about termination of service. A content creator should never put all their eggs into a single basket lest that service cease to support them for whatever reason.
This is normally true, but in the "winner takes all" world, not having access to Youtube (or Twitch, etc) is effectively like being cut off from all customers. I experienced this in the past when running an ad supported website. Adsense paid by far the best (> 10x everyone else), so being shut off by them was like being shut off altogether.
And the problem is that for marketplaces it typically is "winner takes all".
Should this, should that. I have heard this so many times. If you are a app developer and became successful on the Google playstore, but not on iTunes store then who are you to say that you should never put all your eggs into a single basket. This would never be a deliberate choice. Fact is, that many business lost everything due dragonic decisions made by big tech companies. Unacceptable. That's why those companies need to be split up. Regions like Europe need to restrict massive US invasion and come up with their own alternatives.
Even if YouTube (or the Play Store) was its own entity, they can still prevent you from publishing on their platforms on a whim. You solve nothing by breaking them up.
Don’t hold your breath on Europe coming up with dominant consumer tech anytime soon.
When I was at Google, a few people there posted on internal forums to celebrate how successfully the deplatforming was in causing financial troubles for the targets.
Advocating for some minority group's interests (white knighting) is oppression, but opposing white knighting is also oppression? Seems like a no-win situation for the so-called "oppressor class"
> Advocating for some minority group's interests (white knighting)
White knighting has the same relation to advocating for a minority groups interests as mansplaining has to serving women’s educational interests, and for the same reason: it involves substituting an outsiders preferences as to what the interests of those notionally served should be for their actual interests.
>“No one thought of this,” she said. “We didn’t think of it. The astronomy community didn’t think of it.”
That is absolutely ridiculous. The Iridium satellites were decommissioned recently and it was a big deal because, for the longest time, you had to check for "iridium flares" if you were using any type of sensitive equipment. Basically, the entire class of iridium satellites was highly reflective and they tended to create shooting star type phenomena, sometimes really really bright, bright enough to be seen during the daytime!
Maybe she didn't think of it, but to say the astronomy comunity didn't think of it is just blatantly absurd on its face.
On another note, I miss spotting iridium flares and I'm looking forward to a new class of satellites being added into my weekly observations.
They announced their plans years ago. The astronomy community could have raised concerns then. The fact that they didn't would indicate nobody connected the dots.
> The fact that they didn't would indicate nobody connected the dots.
Or that nobody knew who/where to contact someone to raise their concerns. A lot of people will think that if I just had this thought, then it must be pretty obvious so that others will have the same thought as well. No need for further action. Others will just not feel the need to spend their time/effort trying to look up the complaints department. Others might not even feel like it is their place to say anything.
> nobody knew who/where to contact someone to raise their concerns
SpaceX had to get approval from the FCC to launch these satellites. There was a comment period intended to provide an opportunity to voice these concerns. I looked into this the last time it was in the news (late May?), and could not find any petitions that raised concerns about reflecting light. There were several from other satellite companies requesting that the FCC deny the application based on concerns about increased risks of collision and/or radiointerference with their licensed bands.
FCC isn't going to reject a radio license based on reflection of unregulated frequencies (light).
But IAU publicly decried satellite constellations in January, months before May-- and this public statement followed literally years of IAU discussions and discussions with SpaceX, etc.
Despite that, years later, SpaceX is only just getting around to taking small mitigation measures now, after two launches.
It wasn't a "radio license." It was an authorization to "construct, deploy, and operate a proposed non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) satellite system comprising 4,425 satellites for the provision of fixed-satellite service (FSS) around the world."
I don't see why the FCC wouldn't consider impact to visual astronomy, when they did consider increased collision risk (also unrelated to any regulated frequencies).
> IAU publicly decried satellite constellations in January, months before May
Yup, they are supposed to evaluate orbital debris and collision risk, too, 47 CFR 25.114(d)(14). That, and equitable service (for some services) to Alaska/Hawaii are the only non-radio concerns they are permitted by regulation to consider.
Where is the restriction to only those concerns? 47 CFR § 25.156 has some pretty vague language about "the public interest, convenience and necessity."
Thanks for pointing out that the FCC is required to evaluate orbital debris and collision risk, but I don't think the FCC is prohibited from considering other concerns (and i might be wrong on that).
OK, OK, insert "explicitly" in front of "permitted by regulation."
The public comments relate to the adequacy of the application, which is required to address those points.
Yes, users of radio frequency spectrum do have public interest obligations. Thus far, for spacecraft this has been entirely confined to coverage requirements (aka, helping out Alaska when it's not infeasible).
It would be highly unusual-- and likely to be overturned in judicial review-- if the FCC were to decline to issue a radio license because of secondary impacts of the business. (Outside the specific areas where the FCC has been granted oversight-- environmental impacts of radio towers, space debris mitigation, safe operation of radio facilities, etc).
Your theory is that corporate responsibility ends when you make the first press release? That if specialists everywhere aren't paying attention to the business news, we've arrived at "who could have known"?
(not wasteful) != frugal