Readit NewsI sometimes wonder if this is how industries end up not innovating or solving obvious problems for decades because they get strangled with bureaucracy which doesn't solve the original problem highlighted in his own example (vendor choosing to ignore to patch a vulnerability).
I can't tell if this is satire or not.
I'll concede that sentence is a little too wide. If they were standing up for themselves on some newly introduced corporal punishment laws, for instance, I'd be a lot less keen.
Perhaps I should rephrase - "I'm not sure how much I agree with this law, it seems to have some merit though may not come from the best of places, but I applaud the Australian government for standing up to facebook nonetheless."
I don't buy "you should pay to link" but news articles are a large part of what makes up a facebook feed these days, usually in the form of a large-ish picture, a full headline and the lead-in sentence. I can definitely see the argument that they are using it as content.
And Google cannot choose to not index news site. Literally making Google a propaganda machine. How is this not clear to anyone?
The entire thing will make Google a propaganda machine for news corp and other media giants as Google can neither rank them low nor remove them from search results and be forced to pay to sustain them.
Why are people willing to protect ad ridden news industry when they hate big tech adware so much? What's the difference? Shouldn't you be against both? Have you seen how bad trackers on news site are? I would rather use Google than generic news site full of trackers from everywhere.
Everyone wants to stick it to big tech but big media is suddenly good?
Every newscorp owned site is a cess pool of nazi defender and propaganda.
Any legislation which targets specific companies so blatantly isn't good. Anything which sets a precedent for paying for linking to someone isn't a good idea.
Come up with better anti trust laws instead of whatever this is and target every big tech company.
Edit: I will be more blunt since some replies show they don't understand what I find weird:
Why do you need a private social media company to stop your president from planting terrorism in your own country because he thinks the election is fake instead of congress/government/whatever??!
I read the book as part of a philosophy course I took in university and as a decidedly non-libertarian person (Caplan is a libertarian economist), I found it a very challenging argument to confront. What was so vexing was how much his points seemed to agree with my experiences.
My peers and fellow classmates were doing exactly as he described in the book: taking “bird courses” instead of challenging ones, only taking the minimum requirements for their degree and avoiding the optional challenging electives, memorizing / begging / borrowing / stealing / cheating their way to the best grades possible in their classes at the expense of actual learning.
In the COVID era of online classes, class averages have gone way up. The academic integrity offices of most faculties have been overwhelmed with cheating cases. If the true purpose of education is to better oneself, why are so many people taking the opportunity to cheat at a time when schools have less ability to monitor for it? This is a question that vexes me endlessly, as a student trying to get the most out of his education. I have been taking as many challenging courses as I can, and plan to continue doing so for the remainder of my degree. I don’t cheat and consequently I find myself well below the high class averages.
It leaves me wondering: am I the naïve one?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_Against_Education
I never cheated and it got me really nowhere. I was a top student throughout school but I only lost time I could have used for better if I had cheated. People don't even put little effort into cheating.
I complained about students who cheated blatantly and got punished by the teacher because he was chewed by the management. At graduation, the cheaters get the same certificate. There is almost no difference and most schools don't care about cheating but enrolling more students.
I was a fool for doing busy work for school while everyone copied or ignored it.
I don't see the world outside school as more honest. You can't change the world without political power and money and to have both, you need to be as bad as the person sitting on the throne. People care about party names, political slogans, etc more than actual work. They care about media shout outs, endorsed by celebrity, institution name etc more.
I'd consider static type checker as optional if you are playing around with small or throwaway scripts, but for any half serious project, it should be a requirement.
IME I don't consider it slow, and it's definitely not visibly slower than pylint, flake8, or similar tools for other languages.
Dropbox, which has one of the biggest Python codebases, uses it, and most mypy maintainers including Guido work there.