Readit NewsImaginary numbers are also not real.
The whole situation is quite complex.
Complex indeed...
And I'm not suggesting I have a relationship with any of them, parasocial or otherwise.
I wasn't trying to suggest we treat them like people or put them above us or give them a pass... I simply meant that getting rid of them completely could possibly eliminate the problem being discussed, but would also throw out a lot of value that they created and I didn't think that was the best solution.
Apple was revitalized by the iPod and later the iPhone? Great, let them sell as many iPods and iPhones as they possibly can. But when they sell it, do not let them keep control of everything. If they are saying the only they can make money is by keeping the iPhone closed and being the gatekeeper of the app store, it means that they are not really making money on the device, so we shouldn't be rewarding them.
Google search was incredible? Ad sense let publishers earn money online? Great. Then let's reward them for that instead of letting them take 60-70% of the ad publishing market.
Does Facebook want to innovate on the communication space by developing an application on XMPP? When was it even working with Google Talk? Amazing, let's reward them for that instead of letting close things down and please let's not them have WhatsApp to feed their endless appetite for user data.
But they are both huge issues for the companies we're discussing and I absolutely agree with your thoughts on rewarding them for what they do well but not assuming that everything they do must be just as great and giving them a pass for when they get it wrong or actively hostile to their customers.
I am absolutely not surprised by the whining and am in no way giving these companies a pass. Something absolutely must be done to better protect user data and privacy.
But babies and bath water come to mind when I read comments like yours.
The web is practically dead. I use search less and less. Most content creators I know have abandoned/are abandoning blogs and written content because its just not worth competing with the SEO farms and Google’s whimsies.
I found it to be a cesspool before the name change and it's only gotten worse.
I suppose I'm conflating "enjoyable" or "tolerable" with your description of "real" but everything I've glanced at from a distance lately defies your description of Twitter as real.
Do you have some examples of websites that really behave that differently depending on the browser you're using?
Having lived through the "best viewed with..." days I'd hoped we were past all that by now!
But the way he described the phenomenon made it seem pretty common, and indeed, a quick search for "patel cfo scam hotels" turns up a number of relevant results... Seems like it's a pretty well known, frequently occurring event in the hotel industry.
Normally the response to this is, yes, it sucks, but you're not paying Google to host your data.
However, it looks like this journalist did pay Google to host his data. So this immediately puts it in a worse category.
But they've been entrenched for years now, completely dominate so many aspects of the web and get plenty of value out of even their free users.
Given their size and stranglehold on just about everything, pulling an "oops, sorry, I guess you get what you pay for" is just ludicrous at this point.
And sorry if it seems like I'm arguing directly with you, that's not my intention. But I see this a lot and have gone from saying it myself to vehemently disagreeing with it over the last decade or so.
Those works are our literal laws.
Suing people for sharing the law is not an acceptable position in ANY discussion. Period. Full fucking stop.
There is NO way you can claim to be any sort of democracy if we cannot talk about our laws,
I don't fucking care how we got there (I do, but not for this discussion) - the fact that we are here AT ALL is a HUGE flashing alarm blaring about how fucking off the rails the laws here have gotten.
But you're oversimplifying the case here. They weren't complaining that the law was being published, they were complaining that their standards were published. The court agreed with PR that once those standards were incorporated into law, they were subject to fair use publication under the auspices of making available and explaining our laws to the public.
The courts agreed and here we are. But as another user wrote, this wasn't about copyrighting the law, it was about the inclusion of copyrighted material in the law and whether or not it fell under a different category with regards to fair use.
I'm sure I'm oversimplifying or missing something too, but I, who am generally opposed to how copyright is currently handled in the US, can see that there is more nuance to this case than your post admits to.
The sample dataset explicitly excluded 'athletes', so would exclude people that _are_ outrunning a bad diet. We know that a little weekly jog around the park doesn't mean you can eat a cheesecake every day, but anyone who has done extensive 'athletic' physical activity knows that if you don't up your calorie intake that you will lose weight. The study does not conclude, at all, that you cannot outrun a bad diet. Instead, it suggests "that dietary intake plays a far greater role than reduced energy expenditure in obesity related to economic development."
Edit: My point is specifically not about running. I am merely pointing out that if you read the study you will find that it is more of a study on economic development, and not really useful for personal or localised health advice. It observes that economically developed population groups may be more sedentary, but do not expend significantly more energy - so a hunter-gatherer picking berries all day does not burn significantly more energy than an office worker (at least not enough to explain why the office worker is obese). Therefore, the link between economic development and obesity is likely related to food (dietary intake) than daily activity.