> And besides, who didn’t flex a slide or two to show future numbers how they hoped it will look instead of honest truth. If thats the case then DOJ has to come and knock at door of every Hacker News user, or any IT person in that matter.
Unethical people commonly state their belief that everybody else does as they do. This is self-delusion meant to assuage feelings of guilt.
Hence the proverb (which I understand to exist in numerous languages): A thief thinks every man steals.
Sometimes tribal/"team sport" group dynamics keep employees inline too. Executives can foster an "us against the world" mentality that blinds workers to that which is obvious to everybody else. When in this mindset, people have the ability to ignore even the most damning evidence.
Here's an example: When Enron's CEO verbally attacked wall street analyst Richard Grubman for questioning Enron's accounting practices, Enron employees thought this was hilarious and adopted the insult as a sort of inside joke. They didn't consider Richard Grubman's position, they just took delight in 'their team' dunking on 'opposing team.'
Does windows have anything analogous to quicklook? That's one feature I think Apple did well with.. though it's obnoxious it can no longer be extended to support non-MPEG-LA video formats...
I've experimented with using mpv controlled over json IPC as a FOSS substitute to quicklook, which works well for media but not documents...
It's obviously not a configuration suitable for everybody, but I read epubs in a similar manner with Emacs, using the read-aloud and nov packages. It highlights each sentence as it's read, using the system TTS (MacOS's `say` in my case.)
If you keep a child out of the kitchen because the stove is hot, you'll protect them burning themselves, but you'll also prevent them from learning how to cook.
If people don't get the opportunity to fuck up, you arrest their development. Stupid software users then becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Users will become dumber than they ever were before, and therefore more and more reliant on software developers to do/make everything for them. In my cynical moments, I suspect this is all intentional... Imagine if the fast food industry were throwing their weight around to promote the idea that children should be kept out of kitchens.
Nah not really, there is loads of stuff invented by by humans that, as far as we know, did not appear in the universe before we did it. For example, I'm unaware of any natural implementation of a free spinning wheel attached to an axle.
Like tobacco, it will probably take the US government several decades to react appropriately to the threat after the harm has become clear to the scientific community. Corporate lobbyists will fight it tooth and nail, just like they have in the past, stalling progress by bribing immoral politicians and confusing well meaning but stupid politicians with carefully worded bullshit.
Maybe a better invention would be a device that fires a high-power laser beam directly into the eyes of anybody who tries to 'innovate' in the addictive substance industry.
I never said 'just', but you've got to start somewhere and there is nowhere better to start than at the top. When people lower down the food chain are the first targets, there is a nasty tendency for the matter to stop there. (First rule of plumbing: shit flows downhill...)
Godspeed. These companies have proven themselves morally reprehensible time and time again. I'd love to see serious criminal charges for the executives though.
In practice the introduction of high-tech options reduces the availability of the manual options as manufacturers seek to reduce costs. Touch screen AC controls don't supplement manual controls, they replace them. This leaves people without irrational infatuations with tech high and dry, hence why I'm annoyed at anybody who advocates for it. If you've been in the market for a new car recently you'd see what I mean. Considering the state of the automotive industry right now, I think my comment was gentle. The suggestion that defrosting windows should be a matter delegated to a computer because it's confusing made me roll my eyes so hard, I was nearly blinded.
Manual works just fine. I just drove clear across the Trans-Canadian Highway, east to west, in a car with manual controls and it all worked great. Your eyes stay on the road because sober people can reach out and grab objects, like knobs or buttons, without looking. If the matter of defrosting confuses you then maybe you should sit down in your car for five minutes and learn how the multi-ton machine works before attempting to operate it; you owe that much to the rest of society. Don't ruin a car just because you are too lazy to work a damn knob.
(Warm dry air evaporates water that's condensing on cold surfaces. That's very far from rocket science.)
Because when the sensor goes screwy I don't want my car to start flipping shit like the defroster on when it's not needed? Because manual controls make such automation totally unnecessary? Because even if the automated system were designed to be "fail safe", the state that's 'safe' is actually context dependent, therefore manual controls will be necessary anyway?
The very term "conspiracy theory" is frustratingly flawed in the first case, in practice being nothing more than a perjorative for anything that runs contrary to the official narrative, where 'official' is highly context sensitive.
In practice it means 'a theory about a conspiracy' with the implication that conspiracies aren't real and therefore the a theory involving a conspiracy is wacky bunk. But sometimes the official narrative is that there was in fact a conspiracy, and in those cases the term 'conspiracy theory' is not typically used. A prime example is the 9/11 Commission Report which describes in great detail a conspiracy to commit mass murder. When it comes to 9/11, everybody agrees there was a conspiracy. I've yet to even hear rumor of anybody who believes that day was a series of unlikely coincidences. Whether you think it was bin Laden or Dick Cheney, it's obvious somebody was doing some conspiring.
I think the difference between the logical and practical meanings of the term is rooted in a specific case in which popular theories were theories about conspiracies, but for which the official narrative is that the guilty party didn't conspire with anybody. Obviously I'm talking about the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
A similar power imbalance exists between workers and employers. If the worker doesn't get paid, they face the prospect of having no money for rent, let alone suing their employer.
Happily, the Department of Labor exists and merely mentioning their name is frequently enough to scare an employer into compliance. I think a similar arrangement could probably be found to even the playing field in copyright, but finding the political willpower to get this done will probably prove difficult.
Unethical people commonly state their belief that everybody else does as they do. This is self-delusion meant to assuage feelings of guilt.
Hence the proverb (which I understand to exist in numerous languages): A thief thinks every man steals.