The problem is if we’re not just saying “yes” to everything, especially AI, we’re sidelined and ignored. So what inevitably happens is there is a bifurcation of the employee base between those who have actual principles and experience enough to see the bullshit and enshittification that CEOs are doing with “AI”, and those who will continue to lick their boots in order to get paid. “AI” is yet another in a long line of divisive tools that leadership are happy to employ.

Probably dead. I’m old enough to likely not survive 3 more decades.

Literally nothing is disqualifying for his supporters. This is what they want and believe. This is what a lack of proper critical-thinking-based education wreaks.

If Kamala wins, and the house gets Democratic control, this nightmare, for now at least, will be over, despite any threats Trump and his ilk will lob. If either of those turn out the other way, I do not expect this will end well.

I also have family who support him. It is the worst feeling seeing people we respect (or at least had respected) turn into Trump sycophants simply because of identity politics and hatred of anyone who isn’t them.

It shows who they have been, this whole time. And it’s like being shot in the heart.

Nothing will turn his supporters. They already sold any shred of intelligence they may have had by simply supporting him. They know exactly who and what he is — and they love him for it.

Dammit, I was a day late on making this joke. Filthy Bagginses.

Yes. And they didn’t not endorse Trump, as well. Which is the whole point here. They are laying down their arms just in case the wannabe authoritarian fascist dictator happens to win.

And the one fighting chance, outside of voting, and taking up arms, is a free press. Benjamin Franklin knew this and used it to its fullest capacity. And that is what is dying — without a free press, the vote is then in danger because any semblance of truth is already dead.

Then what are we left with?

Guns. And death.

And guess who benefits from that?

That’s because it’s pure bullshit. And this repo will be deleted or abandoned in a month.

The planet is in the Goldilocks zone of this solar system and it allowed life to propagate and evolve.

Removed by mod

There is a clear and stark difference between the two current candidates and one of them is a convicted felon. This both-sides-ism is what will get that felon elected.

Nothing is perfect, the idea is to work toward a “more perfect union.” People seem to ignore that just so they can try to make a point while letting things burn down around them.

Because they’re willing to chop off their nose to spite their face, as the saying goes. Only in doing so they’re going to screw over the rest of us and apparently they don’t care.

Harris is the only sane choice.

No, I specifically stated that the technology has moved past that, especially in the fiber business. That is not ignoring it, I’m stating he’s flat wrong. This isn’t coaxial shared bandwidth like the late 1990s/early-mid 2000s. That time has passed. The problem here is a fundamental misunderstanding that the technology no longer requires such data cap/bandwidth tradeoffs (in the wireless business, this may still be necessary due to the congestive nature of wireless signals and how towers handoff/pickup/etc, but it is not necessary in the wired business any more). And if an ISP can’t properly support 1Gbps, they shouldn’t offer it. Anecdotally, for my use case (I don’t saturate my 1Gbps synchronous fiber 100% of the time, but there are times I’m downloading on Steam, many many GBs) my ISP handles it perfectly fine – and not once has a data cap been introduced.

Outside of the wireless space, data caps are a money grab – pure and simple. And playing psychological games with consumers, as you have alluded to, in order to get them to not use the bandwidth they pay for is also quite unethical, in my opinion.

I ignored nothing. You misunderstand technology. Data caps are not necessary – they are an artificial price hike. Either you see that, or you don’t, and you clearly don’t. Also, a large portion of the United States has a choice of ONE broadband provider, so your point of “I can pick a provider” is complete nonsense. Just because something doesn’t affect you, doesn’t mean it’s not an issue.

Good bye.

I’m confused where you believe consumers are given choice here.

Data caps are usually scaled up with faster bandwidth, not the other way around as you attempt to define. And that’s simple marketing that attempts to excuse the use of data caps.

Also, data caps are artificial and are literally a money grab under the erroneous guise that data is manufactured and thus has intrinsic value. A congressman literally compared it to manufacturing Oreos — which is complete nonsense.

Also, if what you say is true, then why does AT&T impose no data caps on their fiber network? Clearly this is a marketing issue, not a technical one. And perhaps in the past with the way coaxial internet was engineered, an argument could be made for data caps. The industry has grown up since then, technically speaking, and there is no cause for data caps except to continue to line the pockets of ISPs.

I agree with you that working toward consumers having a choice of ISP is where most efforts should lie, but the FCC can walk and chew gum at the same time and remove anti-consumer practices such as data caps, all the while pushing for more competition at the last mile. They’re not mutually exclusive concepts.

Again, good luck :)

Pretty subjective that what you’re advocating is “right” and not just simple opinion. It also is easily construed as semantics with little benefit to argue. But I admire your convictions. Good luck.

Interview wasn’t bad. I especially like Torvalds’s take on meetings and interruption of flow.

Going to be pretty lonely on that hill.

Good news is that he’ll be quite dead soon from all the fast food and his old age. I would piss on his grave if I could.