Not even the most anti-china, anti-communist person in the world operating on half a brain cell would call china communist. How are you buying things from china with capital if they're communist?
You won't ever see a youtube competitor. Youtube is running with google's proprietary search engine and has a decade and a half of content a competitor simply wont have. It will always be better than its competitors and some nonsense ban on a word won't stop anyone except 10 or 11 people on hackernews.
Good luck with that. Their services are essential to my life and I don't think they're doing this dramatic draconian version of censorship everyone thinks. Never seen this kind of hate from the HN crowd towards amazon or apple's manufacturers and warehouse workers working in deplorable conditions, which is far and away the worst thing a company could be doing. Not whatever this is.
they are all despicable to me. I boycott amazon and apple for those reasons. Google is so entrenched in everyone's life that is much harder to let go. And that's why I keep trying to get rid of it... nothing left holds me except the huge amount of google docs that I share with many others
I simply said they were not the same. You and another commenter have incorrectly inferred that I was talking about their victims. Says a lot more about you than it does about me.
It is because the rich and powerful own the land that georgism is hard to push through. You could implement georgist laws simply, but the rich and powerful have connections that you don't and politics will always favour them, so you won't get any of that policy to hold. This isn't georgism's fault in particular, but the fault of just about any tax scheme.
I believe they’re referring to the web as port 80/443 http(s) traffic. It’s the old World Wide Web vs internet distinction, if you will.
Email really is just a protocol for message sending, and it lives on it’s own port with its own server. If you have an email client and access to an email server (POP/SMTP/however), you can use email over the internet but without the “web”.
Basically, the web email client ought not be the only email client.
`Web`[0] is shorthand for `World Wide Web` which is specifically about HTTP/HTTPS and/or the applications built on that protocol. It is an entirely unambiguous word in this context.
`Internet`[1] is distinct, and that's the general purpose network of networks that you refer to which the Web is built on top of.
Totally fair! Frankly, I only know the distinction from a high school computers teacher who was adamant about the distinction.
I guess the easiest way to get the name is to see the “Web” as a “web” of hyper text documents, where hyperlinks act as the strands in the web (graph edges, if you will).
Honestly, like you say, it’s all built on top of a computer network (yet another web/graph). As a consequence, the distinction never really made a ton of sense to me, either.
Alas, this is the common parlance, so it is what it is.
Nope, different protocols. You don't need web browsers for email, and the email clients that run in web browsers are using mail servers to send and receive.
If the web didn't exist, which it didn't prior to 1991, email would still work fine. There just wouldn't be any web-based email clients.
It is ridiculous that you've boiled it down to those two options. The 3rd is cutting executive salary and paying low wage workers. Also amazon is not cheap compared to my local competitor and aliexpress, people buy from amazon because of convenience.
And amazon makes profit on non-AWS products as well, don't be silly. I can literally google their financial statements to prove this.
I am often amazed at how executive pay is overlooked in these debates. I have no qualms with founders making a pretty penny from taking the risk of starting the company. Most executives appointed once company has gained momentum don't deserve the huge pay they get. Don't get me wrong they deserve to be well paid but not as much as we are paying them. I have been in companies where people said to be "absolutely" critical leave announced and company continues to function without missing a beat.
They aren't magicians, or doing something only they can do. In fact, name any other job that pays as well, even for failure. As mentioned earlier they take no risk and get all the reward. C level pay is the biggest scam of our time. And nice dodge with the ad honinem. A third option was presented as reducing c level pay and your response was to call anyone critical of thus bullshit an armchair expert. Why is your opinion so weighty? Bigger arms on your chair?
The fundamental problem with this solution is a simple, numeric one: there are very few executives and a lot of low-wage workers, so large-sounding pay decreases for the former can only fund tiny pay increases for the latter.
If your execs earn a billion dollars a year collectively, and you have 200000 employees, you can distribute 2500 dollars to them all and the execs would still earn more than the low wage workers. So if simple arithmetic is your thing, there you go.
Amazon has around 570000 employees, and 22 executives. One of those executives actually earns a lot more than 1 billion dollars. Nevertheless, with just 2 billion dollars you can give a decent pay raise to every single one of those employees. Some don't need it as much as others, but whatever.
You realise in this case the money is coming from existing taxes being used on stuff like military anyway? These are also incredibly rich nations with reserves of money that were produced sometimes centuries ago. No one thinks it's coming from thin air.
This is so vacuous. Does it imply that UBI money is coming from thin air? That's obviously false.
Also the article says a type of UBI is being used to stimulate job creation and work for industries that are rapidly losing in these areas. This is literally on par with what Elon said, how could it be a counter argument?
This is the rare Elon quote where I don't even have to attack his behaviour to discredit. It's just not applicable in this context as a counterpoint.
