Did you have the information necessary to make the correct decision? Most problems or failures I've encountered in software come to missing information much more often than any other reason. Having justifications for the decisions you reach given the information you had available should lead you to feeling confident in the actions you take. No one has all the pertinent information available at all times, and anyone who acts that way is disingenuous.
I believe it is human nature to put more emphasis on failure than success, but I also believe that people set themselves up for failure by assuming that their decisions are somehow flawed compared to others. Most decisions we make are based on incomplete information, so the only recourse is to build stating your justifications with your decisions so that others's may review them in the light of the information you had available.
I had stopped attempting to answer or ask anything on the site due to the behavior I observed. It was pure gamesmanship for people trying to rack up their SO score and then summarily abuse it with enforcement of opaque, draconian rules. My favorite was when a question would be marked as a duplicate incorrectly, so what was the takeaway? That solution was barred from discussion on the site?
Since then I simply look at SO when it happens to come up in a search. I'm not ever logged into the site anymore. If I want to describe how I fixed something, I do it in my own space, and only reference answer when linking to SO.
Good point, I remember the game storefront being announced but had not heard about their subscriptions.
I still wouldn't recommend using it for anything because of the potential gold mine they have with the user data. I can imagine Tencent or someone similar coming in for the data alone.
I refuse to use Discord because I don't know how or to whom they are going to sell my data yet. It's possible they go to a subscription model but I doubt it, it seems more likely they'll be acquired by one of the big data brokers at some point.
Just like rms, PETA and the ACLU do things I don't agree with, but philosophically, especially with FSF, EFF, and the ACLU, I think that their overall goal is one I agree with.
No one has the time and attention to address everything, and so I am glad there are those that focus on each of these individual issues.
The only disagreement I have with his statements is that I think the Itanic and blind vendor buy-in is what sunk non-x86 processors. amd64 is what actually brought x86 ubiquity while ia64 never reached any relative market share.
"Q: How do you determine which accounts are classified as fake news?
Classifying fake news accounts is a manual process. We review hundreds of tweets and retweets during the review process. If an account has a large number of followers and a high percentage of misleading and/or factually incorrect tweets, that account could be classified as Fake News."
"Q: Why is my account rated problematic or alarming?
Our machine learning model was developed to identify accounts that exhibit irregular tweet activity related to politics. The more you exhibit irregular tweet activity, the higher your trollbot score will be."
So how much is manual and how much is their model? By what criteria do the manual reviews judge tweets?
It all seems way too opaque without more information.
Thanks for posting this. It's all too often people (like in this article) want to lean on bureaucracy and legislation to fix their problems as opposed to actually doing something about it. Not using Twitter and Facebook has a positive step for my sanity, much like not watching 24 hour cable news was another positive step. I don't need the government to break up CNN or News Corp to solve that problem.