Are you saying that you don't think there is anyone on Windows who is using a VPN to hide their pirating activities? If so, you can borrow a needle from me and pop that bubble.
So, I'm not arguing "USA #1". Never would, and to be honest, I haven't been to every country to compare. But their reasoning for ranking it low is 'Trump cracking down' blah blah. Go to CNN's website right now, their top headline is literally calling him a sham. The press here is free to do this, naturally, despite alarmist theories.
Some of the countries ranked higher(in rank = lower number) are not even so safe to be in. How can you consider liberty among a place people can't even freely go where they want to report?
You probably won't get a reply. At least a rational one. I experienced similar sentiment here on HN when discussion the topic of freedom a while back.
Reporters without borders is probably one of the best sources to evaluate the quality of Freedom of Press worldwide.
But for some people arguing that not all is great with their freedom in the US challenges a part of their identity. And that makes rational discussion at least difficult.
As an example:
Growing up near the Iron Curtain (on the western side) I believed for a long time, that we were the universally free side, while there was no freedom in the east.
During the last 10 years or so I realized that there were freedoms on the other side I didn't know of. And have never had in this so called free society.
I came to realize that there are different freedoms and that every society has different limits to these freedoms. Sometimes even within one country there are different limits to the same freedom for different social groups. Take Germany for example. The freedom to receive a good to great education depends massively on the affluency of one's family. There is nearly no chance of social movement for the poor. Or take the freedom to tell your boss what a bad idea it is to increase dividends for shareholders by 10% while letting people go (with the official reason being told is, that the company is struggling) and telling the rest, that there is no mt enough earnings to warrant a raise. I know people who were fired because of this.
Or take the outcry at Google when someone at Google published an internal mail with right wing leaning (if I remember correctly).
I am very much left leaning, but I would not challenge some parts of the ideological agendas being pushed at my workplace because I fear being ostracized.
So to make a long argument short I think freedom isn't an absolute. And the ideology behind it is often part of someone's identity. That makes rational discussion difficult.
You appear to be comparing the 2 kinds of liberty Isiah Berlin outlined[1], that of negative and positive liberty. English (and hence) American conceptions of liberty historically tend strongly to negative liberty, European countries like Germany emphasise positive liberty more - though as you point out there's a mix everywhere and to differing degrees.
One of my favourite interviews is with Berlin[2] where he talks about why positive liberty is so dangerous.
The problem with 'positive' liberty is simple. You can't have it without taking negative liberty away first- i.e. Universal Healthcare as a 'right'- you have to compel multiple levels of society via coercion in order to fulfill that right, thus weakening their negative rights to be free from such coercion.
For some reason, many people seem cling to a nebulous idea of 'government,' that is more a wish fulfillment mechanism than concrete enforcer entity, can provide positive rights without impinging on the more basic negative rights.
> As an example: Growing up near the Iron Curtain (on the western side) I believed for a long time, that we were the universally free side, while there was no freedom in the east.
> During the last 10 years or so I realized that there were freedoms on the other side I didn't know of. And have never had in this so called free society.
For example there were many instances, were people were telling their boss what an idiot he/she was and I know of many cases were it even came to push, punch and shove. They did not loose their jobs for speaking their mind freely. On the other hand - while the west was allowed to tell their government what idiots they were, they boss was spared, because he/she could fire you (more or less) at will.
Also the freedom of social upwards movement was way greater in eastern Germany than in western Germany. Also the freedom of a better educational system (propaganda was massive in both systems none the less).
> Or take the outcry at Google when someone at Google published an internal mail with right wing leaning (if I remember correctly).
The only thing that comes to mind for me here is the Damore memo, except 1) he didn't publish it, and 2) it was very left-leaning. It was about how to actually achieve the company's diversity goals, there were just some parts of it based on actual research that went against accepted narratives.
I have changed some default ports and seeing the number of connection attempts drop from <many> down to close to zero was just nice. There are just fewer connections opened, fewer logs to analyze and so on. In my view, fewer connection attempts means less data to analyze which in my view is a security and cost benefit.
> Did you spend any significant time working with C#?
I have no experience with it at the corporate level. There, I have seen, it mixes a lot with .NET. So, I guess that the corporate equivalent to Java is "C#/.NET".
I spend some time several years ago with C# in Unity3D, thou.
I really liked the C# language. I found the Auto-Implemented Properties a neat compromise between encapsulation and verbosity (Verbosity has no value if does not add information).
Java is trying to be everything to everyone and that is a mistake. I liked Java more in the past, and I would have added just a few things from the past iterations of the language (e.g. Modules is a good idea that actually simplifies the language and moves much code to "frameworks" instead of being part of the core language).
C# seemed more focused on its initial style were Java is stretching all over the place.
You are right. I see that some of that features were added much later on.
For non null references, I used to work with C++ and I really liked some of its reference/pointer/smart-pointer semantics even that everything can be used also really badly.
I have done some basic training in Rust, and I am happy to see that it seems quite close at the way I was using C++.
But, I see C# in the future replacing part of what Javascript does nowadays once WebAssembly takes off. I would like to learn more about that.
If you define “what your software is” so precisely that it must be running on iOS to count as your software, then sure, by definition your software can’t exist on Google Play. But that’s just as ludicrous as manufacturing shirts and defining “what your product is” as “shirts being sold at Walmart,” then complaining that you cannot by definition sell your shirts at Target because they would no longer be your shirts.
I mean, it's not unreasonable to say that "my software" = My binary that is running on a device.
With android, I can have an .apk that is distributed via the play store or I can have that exact same .apk distributed via any other store that exists for that device.
