Bing is totally behind, agreed. I probably shouldn't have included the part that maybe Google had the issue and fixed it because I actually don't believe that, and it detracts from the point. I totally agree Google has the absolute high ground here. Which, I won't lie, made me suspicious; particularly with Microsoft doing well in the press recently and Google, well, not.
I'm biased because I generally like Microsoft better than Google, but this whole thing begs the question: why was this directed to the media before Microsoft? Both could've been made aware. Plenty of disclosure-like articles are written with the claim "at press time, the <problem> is no longer showing" and they're no less impactful. With child pornography, of all things, why the hell is Tech Crunch pushing this story so quickly that they had to issue a warning to not look up the links because you could be liable? Like, Microsoft is going to be rightfully shamed either way, ya really need to maximize the shock value with that extra bit? At the cost of leaving active child pornography in the open. Come on.
There's a reason this was shared with TechCrunch before it was shared with Microsoft.
Do we know Google didn't also have this issue? Or did they have it, patch it, and then make the press aware. Look back at Facebook's PR groups spamming TechCrunch with "tips" and hoping to seed negative articles about their adversaries. This whole thing, while a very valid problem that needs to be addressed immediately- reads exactly like some PR group dropping tips on a client's competitors to TechCrunch.
Forgive me if I'm skeptical of the motives of someone who cares more about the press finding out first that Bing is leaking potential child porn, over actually removing access to child porn.
Agreed. Also, what exact architecture were they using, how were they segmenting, etc. This feels like a rehashing of known challenges using a random implementation struggle to make some broad "AI" judgement.
There are some extremely opinionated assumptions underlying your question. VS isn't really bloated, given what it's trying to do- and in recent years it's been rock-solid stable. Visual Studio for Mac exists (old Xamarin Studio) and is coming along. And the engineering team has made its point on 64 bit clear that they don't believe it will bring the performance people like to say it will.
But more importantly VS and VS Code are two different approaches- IDE vs TextEditor. The vast majority people would say C#, as a compiled language, is best in an IDE. Either way, I'm pretty confident in predicting that there is no way Visual Studio gets "dropped."
Possibly. But if comparison is an endgoal that number should only be used against other forms energy that are also adjusted for their respective subsidies. But why is direct subsidy the only thing we should adjust for? How about cost the government pays indirectly for other energy forms? Environmental cleanup or other indirect costs for mishaps, etc. If we want a more holistic comparison let’s keep going up.
Probably the part where he doesn't actually ever say it's a difference in perspective- that's your take. He says AKS is terrible, etc, etc. You're giving him a benefit of the doubt, which I appreciate, but he's gone too far in his bias. Maybe underlying it is a real issue, that clearly hackernews wants to indulge, but the threshold has been crossed.
Well, this is on the front page, the top comment is misinformation, the posters left out details that made them look bad, and they seem to be going on a smear campaign out of spite on every platform they have. at what point is any of this in good faith?
I would say that's kind of the point, the manner in which that opinions is expressed aside. There isn't evidence in either direction that's been released to the public. So why respond to a comment with more conjecture?