Couldn't agree more with this comment and the thread in general, it's a relief to see. I get so frustrated as so many of my colleagues seem to cling to this very old concept of the testing pyramid and associated definitions. It's completely meaningless in a modern setting. We should mock as little and as far back as possible, yet others seem to delight in locking huge chunks of functionally out of the test base just 'because'.
Do you actually connect your phone for anything other than charging? Not trying to poke at you, I'm just honestly surprised this is a big issue for anyone really.
We use reusable nappies for our toddler, and the washing machine is powered by solar so I only really need to feel bad about any excessive water use. But then we still have to use disposables when they're at their nursery for a few days a week, or the staff don't smell anything and they get bad rashes we spend all week dealing with. At the very least though the nursery deals with nappies as a specific form of waste that they process separately, though I'm not sure to what end.
Despite being a techie myself, I'm frequently irritated by how much technical conversation there is on here. I seem to see comments all the time that use some unrelated computer programming concept as a metaphor or a similar non sequitur. It reeks of intellectual elitism and is just a reminder of what a small community we still are. I kind of miss the amount of 'normal' people on reddit with more varied interests. That said, generally speaking the quality of conversation on here is really high which is amazing.
Really great comment, thank you for the effort you put into this. That said, I can't say I feel convinced by the reasoning. Are you suggesting that gender in these languages was an intentional decision to solve the problems you raise? Because as other comments point out, it seems it's still very possible to have an ambiguous sentence making this seem like an overly confusing addition.
Secondly in your example of gendered language assisting in derivation, surely this ends up with the same problems given that the language only represents a limited number of genders? I do not remotely know Portuguese, but how does this derivation quality help with the word for an apple seed? I presume the same logic can't apply?
I agree with you, but you may be missing the point - this recommendation is sponsored, so likely it wouldn't have been recommended unless the artist paid.
Thanks for the distinction, I enjoyed reading your message. I would still say that in a colloquial manner it's not reaching that far to call piracy stealing, but I take your point.
I wouldn't try to make the point you said about not paying $10 being theft itself, I agree that that isn't a valid argument. What I do feel is that to say "your work is worth nothing to me" while simultaneously consuming and enjoying it, is hypocritical and similar to other less favoured actions like trying to pay someone in 'exposure'. It does largely have damaging effects on wider communities.
I agree with you that there's nuance and that I probably came on a little strong in my original comment. When it comes to TV, films, games, and music though, which is what I'm guessing is the vast majority of piracy discussed here, I don't think it's unreasonable to pay or to otherwise just not consume whatever content. Again I understand there's more than just those 4 things, and even within those listed categories there may be things like games and films that are not even purchasable. I'm not trying to suggest we should all be perfect and piracy should never happen or whatever, it's just odd to me that it seems to get so much defense that it almost feels like the consensus is that it's something to be proud of.
I'll grant you that I may have used an overly absolute statement, and your example of the free distribution of scientific materials is a great counter-example. Maybe a better term is 'morally grey'. The key point I wanted to make was just that in the majority of cases it is near impossible to argue that it is a 'right' thing to do. It's not hard to see the more complex moral arguments sharing scientific studies, however I don't think this really applies if we're talking about an episode of Suits.
As for a system of ethics, to me this can be approached very simply. What would be the consequences of piracy if we all did it? At least for arts and entertainment, I don't think there would be anything to pirate very quickly.
Insults aside, I think this is a bit of a stretch honestly. You could say the same thing about huge swathes of the information sector.
This is a pretty weak analogy, but I hope it illustrates my feelings on this. Imagine a museum that charged for entry, to help pay for its staff and for maintenance. And say you could break in at night without damaging anything, just to look at the artifacts for free. You may not be stealing, as as you say perhaps you would never pay for entry, but you are choosing to deny other human beings any kind of compensation for the work they've done. If everybody did this, how would the museum continue to function?
I absolutely agree with you that piracy is largely a response to real issues that businesses should address. Of course it's not fair that a subscription fee will feel different to people of different economic status. I guess it's tough to feel the individual side of that.
I enjoyed the first few seasons of Star Trek Discovery (another reason for me to get downvotes lol). It was on Netflix in my country and then shortly before a new season was due to start CBS pulled it for their own platform. It wasn't even available for months. I was disappointed but I've never seen the newer episodes. I really appreciate your reasoning and don't judge you for it, I just personally feel that I won't buy a product if I don't like the box it comes in etc.
Thanks for this image, I was thinking the same. I feel like it would work to just put the ears on top of the C. Maybe add a nod to the whiskers with some lines around the edge.
I'm sure this comment will receive plenty of hate, but I'm really struggling to understand why piracy seems to get so staunchly defended by seemingly everyone here. Piracy is stealing. It is morally wrong. We can argue all day about how it's a 'victimless crime' or how media conglomerates are greedy and deserve it, but at the end of the day there's nothing that makes it 'right'. With maybe a few exceptions, no one needs the things they're pirating and it's just childish to refuse to pay for content and go on pretending it's a necessity. What needs to happen is more money going to the creators whose content we all enjoy so much.
There's plenty of places to go where you can still interact with these communities, and we shouldn't be surprised that a large and general instance wants to be distant from them. Personally I applaud the decision.
I feel completely opposite. I love chromecast and was so disappointed to find that they shifted to the Google TV crap and added a remote like the Fire stick, Roku, etc. IMO those remotes and the accompanying interfaces are what get in the way. Having one remote (ie my phone) feels great to me. I have a number of casting sources around the house and it's great.
That said, AppleTV as mentioned elsewhere is a really nice responsive interface.
Ah, I didn't have the setting on to open in an external browser. I'd still prefer article links to open in the app, but apps opening correctly and image links still being in the app is better, thanks!
Just to add to this, I'm not quite sure of the mechanics but it would be great to open links that are app links without going to the browser, like images. Ie a YouTube link might take you straight to YouTube.
It's tough for me to accept that these poor people still exist haha. I remember back in 2005 or so clearing upwards of 5 toolbars from various relatives' browsers, but not so much since. I suppose notification management is the modern equivalent.
Yes, while not a guarrentee many countries do well out of hosting events. There's some funding as you say, plus large boosts to the local economy if a given city is able to support the huge influx of tourists. London 2012 for example was heralded as a huge success for the UK. Beyond any sense of 'profit', it's also an investment in your own country. Former Olympic cities are generally left with great sports infrastructure (and transport), and it's good for international relations, which is hard to put a monitary value on.
Couldn't agree more with this comment and the thread in general, it's a relief to see. I get so frustrated as so many of my colleagues seem to cling to this very old concept of the testing pyramid and associated definitions. It's completely meaningless in a modern setting. We should mock as little and as far back as possible, yet others seem to delight in locking huge chunks of functionally out of the test base just 'because'.