Nothing, because then you are on google sites all the time and google gets all the ad dollars.
For some reasons, google wants to become AOoL, introducing the A with their AMP service (or with Applied Semantics).
This rises the question: Will content owners create their own content network? If Google steals your content on the internet, why put your content on the internet? Why not have an app that delivers content to paying customers? Now each content provider tries this on his own with his own app. why not combine the efforts and just offer a browser for their closed network or embrace the Brave browser? If all content producers pull this off together, the audience will be there.
Facebook could offer a Facebook content network on their own because they already have the audience, and Genius and all those Recipe sites could publish their content in a secure way. Maybe Instagram with its text pictures is already the predecessor.
It seems like Google was taken over by Applied Semantics in the same way that Boeing was taken over by McDonnell Douglas because in the long run, nobody offers up his content for search if it is ripped off.
How about a Hippocratic Oath for business leaders? This is shifting the responsibility from management towards the engineers. It's not the engineers who pulled the trigger at Facebook - or Microsoft. They build the weapons. Management fires them.
This is a hypocritic ode. If somebody is acting unethically at MS then it is management. All the innovation that is not happening because MS is abusing their position. Two times they have killed a universal software platform to preserve theirs: Java and websites. Ironically they are pushing websites now that the platform has shifted to mobile with objective c and Google's variation of Java.
>According to Brad Smith, just like it is the Pope’s job to bring religion closer to today’s technology, it is the software developer’s job to bring technology closer to the humanities.
The Pope is to religion as is the President of the biggest software company to software development. It is his responsibility, not theirs. Or does he see himself as that software developer? I guess it is more a Balmer developer and he means software engineers.
He could start by handing out software licenses / EULAS that take full responsibility for any damage the software does cause, like any other sold product has to do. Then, by business processes, management will take care of the ethical issues to minimize risks.
Building weapons is immoral? Tell that to the WW2 industrial complex that supported the war.
Not building weapons for the war effort is not always right. That is an intentional double negative because I think it's the most clear if you read it twice. Building weapons for the war effort is sometimes right would be the boolean negative of that statement.
>Microsoft executives have literally decided to build actual weapons.
Yep. Literally they did. Clearly all US weapons are evil in your opinion because you disagree with all US weapon usage I'm guessing? You have to combine the argument that they are literally making weapons with the fact that those weapons are being used in a way you don't agree with.
Keep in mind that most of these advanced weapons they are literally making are not designed against the current wars you most likely disagree with. They are built, to include AI, to keep pace with advanced threats from other countries. Allowing us to fall behind technologically, due to perceived moral black/white issues of current wars, could lead to a whole new world in 40 years as you make your arguments in a well protected environment. Not researching advanced topics will lead to an asymmetric fight... not in our favor... if the enemy so chooses.
Reference our usage of nuclear weapons. If you think that was evil, then you wouldn't want an evil country / group of people to gain such an asymmetric advantage. If you think it was necessary, then you want to have an asymmetric advantage when it is necessary against an evil group. Yes I recognize the inherent cyclical issue with the above statement. Either way, allowing all people to gain an asymmetric advantage while we just discard all research in hopes that others will follow is ignorant of history - war theory is a thing.
Crocodile tears, and a lot of cheap virtue signaling.
I have some friends who have worked at MSFT for a long time, about 20 years or so. There was a time when they used to talk about open source as if it was cancer (~2011). When MSFT started embracing the cancer, they didn't really up and leave. Now they are all talking about how great this open source thing is.
But even funnier was when they used to complain about Google's rampant user tracking. And then one day they added targeted ads into Windows 10. Did these people suddenly decide "enough is enough" and go and join the EFF? You already know the answer to that.
If you’re in management at an engineering dept/co and make decisions about what is going to be engineered and how that’s going to be deployed you are in engineering yourself and should obviously take the oath yourself.
Not saying I’m in favor of this oath, just that it seems silly to distinguish different roles in the engineering process.
I don't think the exercise of drawing the line between "engineering" and "not engineering" is a useful one here. The actual decisions and the pressure to perform for the job crosses disciplines up at the top of the management hierarchy.
The broader point is that in most companies engineering decisions don't come purely from the engineering department. They are often decisions made as part of bigger projects or efforts. For example, it's probably not up to engineers in most companies whether the any of the tech giants sell to the military. If it is, it's up to people who were engineers at some point and might still exist up at the top of the "product" part of the company, but who for all intents and purposes stopped writing any code or even managing anyone who writes code a long, long time ago.
This doesn't feel right. There are already ` for multi-line comments. Why not use them? Changing the meaning of " breaks the ability to copy paste an rjson file into regular sourcecode.
Construction workers don't just wear them for reassurance either.
They protect the most vulnerable part of your body. You might not immediately go tell tales of it if you get hit in your helmet by anything but a small caliber or shrapnel (a large caliber will still inflict significant head trauma), but your chances of survival are way up from pretty much zero.
Also there might be all kinds of stuff flying around on a battlefield, and even if it isn't necessarily lethal, it's nice to not get hit in the head by a rock or whatever.
In the first world war they apparently shielded the wearer effectively from debris caused by artillery shells that would have otherwise killed them. Here's an interesting video about the statistics behind it (and how they were misinterpreted at first): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IQE0uZUMys
They probably aren't that effective at stopping bullets coming straight on, but they will protect against ricochets, shrapnel, falling debris, and so on.
Soviet tank crew wore padded helmets inside their tanks to protect their heads from impacts with the sides and equipment, e.g. while crossing rough terrain or from ill-considered sudden movement
Isn't this the reason why it is called Rome? In JavaScript history, we are past Babel (and the Greek city states) and a centralized tooling will allow for an unprecedented language economy?
Constantinople and Moscow are waiting, as well as Venice and London. A plugin system that wants to incorporate everything will risk having to maintain Byzantine diplomatic relations. On the other hand, restricting the plugin system to its core will create a local powerhouse that will utterly fail to adapt once new ventures become available.
I am waiting for the TypeScript / JavaScript split.
Because they like milk. You can justify anything if you want it to be true.
Where does this end? Industrial farming kills insects. We obviously don't have the same amount of love for insects as we have for cows. But why should cows live and insects die?
This comes back to killing humans, one way or the other. How many insects are a foetus? Are poor people not allowed to have children so that insects can keep on living?
I think most people acknowledge that just by existing they’re causing harm. If you cut meat and diary out of your diet, you’re vastly reducing that harm. This isn’t just taking into consideration the cows, it’s also the vast quantities of crops that are grown to feed livestock. The largest study done on farm use was done by Oxford University a couple of years back and they found that “80 percent of the planet’s total farmland is used to rear livestock.” It continues with “freeing up land mass the size of Australia, China, the EU, and the U.S. – combined. This would lead to immensely fewer greenhouse gas emissions. It would also lessen the amount of wild land lost to agriculture, which is one of the leading causes of mass wildlife species extinction.”
So for me, it ends at the meat and diary have a huge negative impact on the environment and I’ll do my best to reduce my share by avoiding meat and diary.
> Where does this end? Industrial farming kills insects. We obviously don't have the same amount of love for insects as we have for cows. But why should cows live and insects die?
Instead of doing nothing because there aren't any perfect solutions, start by aiming to minimise harm when there's realistic options to do so? e.g. avoid cow milk in favour of oat or soy milk.
Dairy cows eat crops from industrial farming as well so if you're concerned about insects dying, less diary will likely help e.g. you could make milk directly from soy beans instead of feeding them to cows.
Of course they will relive their desktop experience because some other environment will at some point be better due to fierce competition. It's kind of their omen that the company with the bitten apple from paradise has to created a walled garden. The difference will be that there is no Steve to rescue them again.
Funny thing is, their first logo was Newton's apple. Imagine the difference.
Well, Newton's life was heavily influenced by an intellectual property battle over the invention of calculus, and he spent his later life hunting and executing counterfeiters, so, maybe appropriate after all?
While I see where you're coming from, I think there's a pretty big difference between software and hardware expandability. Anyone can write software for a Mac and run it, then and now. (Nowadays users need to right click to open apps from unidentified developers, but that's not so onerous.)
Long-term, the only valuable resource is attention. Content is accumulating, faster and faster due to automation, thus its value is declining.
Artists can make money with concerts so they will pay you to become part of your life. Even now, youtube is already playing entire songs as advertisement. Why should it stop there?
If you consistently churn out good content, you will have people's attention, and that attention is monetizable. It has never been easier to go from nobody in the middle of nowhere to somebody known everywhere. There isn't one big category of losers so much as pockets of people who don't adapt well to the platform economy.
I do, however, think that we should reduce monopolistic behavior by platforms to enhance gains to content producers and consumers. I also think that the government should provide a better safety net, so that content producers don't have to lose several years of their life to a miserable, existential slog with the hope of stardom. It might still be a slog, but it doesn't have to be so miserable (no government health insurance is a big factor in America).
For some reasons, google wants to become AOoL, introducing the A with their AMP service (or with Applied Semantics).
This rises the question: Will content owners create their own content network? If Google steals your content on the internet, why put your content on the internet? Why not have an app that delivers content to paying customers? Now each content provider tries this on his own with his own app. why not combine the efforts and just offer a browser for their closed network or embrace the Brave browser? If all content producers pull this off together, the audience will be there.
Facebook could offer a Facebook content network on their own because they already have the audience, and Genius and all those Recipe sites could publish their content in a secure way. Maybe Instagram with its text pictures is already the predecessor.
It seems like Google was taken over by Applied Semantics in the same way that Boeing was taken over by McDonnell Douglas because in the long run, nobody offers up his content for search if it is ripped off.