Skip Navigation

Posts
7
Comments
875
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • That's true, but for the first few months, Reddit was not like Usenet, mailing lists, or message boards at all. There were no text-only posts (and certainly no image or video posts), nor were there comments. It was purely designed to share links to other websites.

  • Most social media that got popular took something that people were already doing and brought it to a wider audience. Here are some examples:

    Myspace

    In the late 1990s and early 2000s, it was common for people, especially teenagers to make personal sites introducing themselves and linking to a few of their friends. Sometimes they would add life updates to the sites, but often linked to a blog hosted elsewhere (e.g. Livejournal). Myspace just institutionalized that.

    Facebook

    At first, it was pretty much Myspace for adults, then it integrated something a lot like an internal RSS reader.

    Flickr

    As digital cameras became popular, people started putting photo albums on their personal sites. Flickr made it easy.

    Twitter

    A blog and feed reader combination you could post to by SMS at a time when most phones didn't have internet.

    Instagram

    Image-focused Twitter designed to be used from a smartphone.

    Reddit

    A then-popular social bookmarking site called Delicious had a "popular" section for links many people bookmarked. Instead of people having to find the links independently, Reddit added vote arrows. Eventually they added comments and it became a forum, which is also a thing people were doing already.

    Youtube

    This is the exception. Hosting videos was ridiculously expensive in 2005 so people weren't doing it much. Youtube set VC money on fire until Google bought it and set Google money on fire for a decade or so until it finally started to be profitable.

  • Aside from emphasizing the hat, that also seems like an opportunity to emphasize the importance of positively identifying one's target and backstop. It's reckless to shoot at something that might be a valid target.

  • can the SC please pick a lane and stick to it with the precedence that they themselves create?

    A normal Supreme Court? Yes. This Supreme Court? I think we all know the answer to that.

  • The EU's goal is to increase competition. They want businesses, especially EU-based businesses to be more able to compete with established tech firms.

    The EU does not particularly care about your ownership of your device or your right to create or install whatever software you want. The EU may even be a bit opposed to that and prefer a situation where it can pressure Apple and Google to ban things it doesn't like.

    EU regulators are no more on your side than Apple is when it says its app store monopoly is for your protection.

  • This is absolutely not fine, but it's probably not illegal under the EU DMA.

  • The EU requires Apple to allow direct installation of apps, but tolerates Apple requiring the apps to be signed with an Apple-approved key, which makes it possible for Apple to ban developers.

    Google's plan seems to be similar.

  • I imagine things would be much closer if they put a giant heatsink that Ryzen 370 they're comparing and ran it at its 54W configurable TDP instead of the default 28W.

  • A while ago, I came across a curated list of no-BS games for Android and iOS.

    BS consists of ads or barriers to progress that can't be removed with a one-time payment. It has user ratings, and the highly-rated games are nearly certain to be good examples of their category.

  • It works when you're not at home, so probably better for a mobile device.

  • Should it fall upon me?

    Maybe.

    One option is a proactively regulated market where only companies pre-approved by the government can sell anything, and every product must be checked and approved before it's offered for sale. Such a market won't have many fake products, but it also won't have much competition or innovation. It's also very likely to attract corruption, where the government conditions approvals on unrelated behavior that the current leadership prefers or requires bribes to do business. We're seeing the former in the USA with the Trump administration for certain types of businesses, and it isn't pretty.

    The current situation for most product categories is a reactively regulated market. Deceptive practices are illegal, but enforcement depends on someone noticing and reporting them. More deceptive products make it to consumers, but more groundbreaking products do as well. It's hard for government officials to blackmail most businesses.

  • This was never the concern that caused people to call users "glassholes".

  • Meta spying is its own issue, and I think a very legitimate concern.

    I'm understanding the concern the article mentions about smart glasses in general (independent of who manufactures them) being the user recording people. That's what people seemed to be upset about when Google Glass launched as well.

  • Smart glasses also raise many privacy concerns, as their cameras and microphones may be recording at any given time, which can be unnerving to people.

    This reaction has always struck me as, at best ill-informed. If I search for spy camera glasses on Amazon, I can find much cheaper and less obvious options to record people without their knowledge. If glasses are getting extra scrutiny lately, maybe I'd be better off with a spy camera pen or something like this which can be disguised as part of a button-up shirt.

    Of course actually using any of these to record people without their consent in most situations makes you an asshole, but that capability already existed and is continually expanding.

  • If even 2% of the population would never vote for a women or a person of color then it was enough to have mattered

    I suspect the majority of that 2% would also never vote for a Democrat.

  • Have you seen the man work a crowd?

    His antics don't work on you, or on me, or likely on most people you or I would be friends with. They clearly work on a huge swath of the population though, or we wouldn't be where we are today.