I reject that USA has been a totalitarian cause it has had slaves or women has not always been allowed to vote.
I think you must look at the way the rest of the world was during the same time to get a honest picture of the "totalitarian state" of USA.
Hand pick some historic situation and then comparing versus a "Perfect World" (and since USA was not as good as this Perfect world.. then it must totalitarian/evil/..)
This is not an honest way to frame the argument
I think determinism would be way better than a system with some pseudo random setup.
I think hand waving away the specific language used, ie "determinism" without really talking about what it means or why it does (not) matter is dishonest.
I think that most social media is increasing the power of bad faith compared to good faith actors.
Normal perspective versus an extreme perspective then I fear that the more normal perspective people often has a more diverse situation with many other sources and influences.
A less extreme person arguing in good faith probably has many other things in his/her life to worry about, like children/parents/work/neighbours etc.
While bad faith actors often have much less distractions, and can more easily afford to just keep the point going. I think a bad faith actor will relative easy force out more moderate/normal people out of the forum or conversation thread.
Why keep going, if you got a family and work and .. to take cary about, and arguing in good faith will be hard to get anywhere good ?
I think this give a much bigger loudspeaker to people with more extrem views, and help shut up people with more moderate positions.
I suspect the the setup of social media and the tools they use, and the tools within forums influence this.
Engagement is probably increased if such extreme versus moderate is argued, and I think the more extreme position win is likely increasing income for social media.
In a debate when someone say they understand the motivation of their enemy and that the enemy is evil, this is often not very accurate.
When one side of the political side express why someone on the other side is doing something, then it is good to take a big chunk of salt..
If svn covers 99% of your use cases, then you need more experience with distributed version control systems.
Able to commit locally, examine changes work with them and then push is a something you might not need or require if you think about version system like SVN.
But if you have learned Git or Mercurial or some other distributed system you would never go back to svn.
My counter example is slavery, which would lead to a very big wealth gap.
I think that large slavery state or system would need metal working, but will guess it has existed without.
A storage with pure diff would be impossible to recover if you get a error in any commit.
It would also be much slower to examine the data, and newer version control do not use pure diff.
The version control system Mercurial had description about these problems on the homepage, "behind the scense", which was good reading.
I am not sure if GIT is the best solution, but at least a "pure snapshot" is okey, but where a diff storage must in practise include some snapshot logic as well.
I disagree, he has DONE a common data format that works.
If you do mod it, for example add comment to the data sent, 99.9% of the people agree, it is no longer JSON.
It is a big weakness, that the companies cannot be force to state if they are acting as a platform or as a publisher.
I think companies are way too power full right now, and the ability to shift position, sometimes they are a platform and sometimes a publisher.
Companies should not be allowed to "shift" depending on how asks the question.
I think a normal human would be forced to answer (in court), if they said different answer to different people.
But these companies get away with it.
Much of the conditions that has helped shape the current situation might shaping new efforts as well..
Support and client questions etc will probably be avoid as much as possible.
Example do NOT explain why a BAN was issued, give as little chance to appeal as possible, and avoid all discussions about why something was done.
Just say that they broke a rule, do not mention what rules or where in the text / video the "crime" was committed.
Appeal process is very expensive, and if a company gave reason for example when they did a BAN that would sometime cause the banned person to appeal.
If they stated why, a person in USA could appeal using the common justice system and perhaps claim in-justice, or lying
(I guess a person might have a chance if the company did not apply its rule consistently, or if they could prove a lie)
If they can avoid to given any reason for it, there is no way they will keep any rules well defined, it gives them much more power if the rules could be flexed a bit.
I think the "common justice system" with defender, accuser and judge would be much better.
A court also has to keep record of decisions and reasons.
But I think no company would do that, it would limit their control/power and probably be expensive as well.
I still think the companies have a bit too much power, and in a way wonder if they could be forced to solve "justice" better than now.
NPM could handle different OS, I would guess they run more than 1 os.
(It is also a tool which the team is used to handle, as they have been using node + npm)
Support for Hitler was not uncommon, he seemed to get
the economy re-started, build roads etc.
If you ask for REF here.. then I think you ought to ask for REF when people say there were anti as well..
I think you must look at the way the rest of the world was during the same time to get a honest picture of the "totalitarian state" of USA.
Hand pick some historic situation and then comparing versus a "Perfect World" (and since USA was not as good as this Perfect world.. then it must totalitarian/evil/..) This is not an honest way to frame the argument