orcrist

I think you're mixing up conspiracy theories. Please try again, and keep your facts straight. The NSA is going to be getting data from Google no matter what happens. They don't need another government organization to make Google spend millions of dollars on lawyers for that to continue.

I like Google's weak argument that technology has shifted to mobile so advertising is different than it was before, and therefore they can't have a monopoly. Because they're not arguing that they don't have monopoly, they're arguing that the monopoly is less impactful. But if that's true, then forcing them to split companies isn't such a big deal, because surely they as a company have similarly shifted in focus, so they would only be losing a piece of their total advertising branch, not the whole thing.

There is no answer for that kind of question, is there? It all depends what you want and what you like.

Let me give you an example. I have a very cheap small Nissan. It has zero features. Well, it has A/C and power windows, which were considered "features" half a century ago. It doesn't look stylish, but you could say that it's cute if you're feeling sympathetic. It's flimsy enough that you wouldn't want to wreck in it. It has great gas mileage, and it fits my needs perfectly.

But is this car good for you? Probably not, because you have different needs. A small car with no safety features would be terrible for a large family. Do you need cruise control for your long commune? If so, you don't want my car. Do you drive in snowy mountains? This isn't the vehicle for that. What is "stylish" to you? Do you mean "cute" or "strong" or "smooth" or "futuristic", or something else?

Nissan makes all kinds of cars. Even if the above car sound suitable or unsuitable for you, that wouldn't give you much information about the Nissan lineup as a whole. They make all kinds of cars with all kinds of characteristics.

In other words, if you can provide more details of your situation (within reason, of course), that would be helpful. Have fun shopping!

You shouldn't take it seriously. The 24-hour news cycle depends on data like this. It just doesn't tell us anything.

As the story stands, we probably don't have anything showing intent to suppress free speech, which is what I supposed to lawsuit would be based on. It's possible that there's information we don't know yet, or that isn't written in the article, but at the moment I don't think a lawsuit would get very far.

This is one of those situations where it feels like you ought to be able to sue, but maybe the best remedy is by voting in different state-level politicians.

I'll try to show why what you're saying is not entirely accurate.

Here's the easy reason. Most people don't live in swing states. If they vote third party, or if they stay home, it's not likely to change the result of the election. My vote has never made a difference in the presidential race, not once in my life.

Then we get into the more complicated reasons.

Depending on the candidate, I might feel that they don't plan on pushing any policies that would make my life better or that I think are important. So why would I vote for them? Of course my motivation would be low.

The strategy of triangulation, where the Democrat candidate moves farther to the right because people don't have any other choice, we saw that fail already. I hope you haven't forgotten Hillary Clinton's loss. I think if Clinton had been left wing instead of a centrist hawk, that she would have gotten more votes and she could have won the election. You can blame her loss on people who voted third party, or people who stayed home, but the reality is that it was a predictable situation. She gambled that they would believe in the wisdom that you're pushing, and she was wrong.

Some people like to say that every vote is equal. And others rebut that with the comment, "everyone's equal but only on election day", and yet others note that the electoral college means we're not even equal on election day. All of which is to say, as voters, we have more power to impact policy before the election than we do after it. You're suggesting that we throw that power away. Meh.

Finally, I'm not on either candidate's side, because neither candidate is on my side. We are all on our own sides, advocating for the things that we think are important or good for us and our community. There's nothing wrong with saying that you disagree with a candidate on several major issues, even if you think they are generally a solid choice. Many of us strongly value honesty and integrity.

You used the expression "bitch and moan", which is self-destructive. If you're complaining that other people are complaining, that means you are "bitching and moaning" too. And you're not going to get any support with that kind of antagonistic hypocrisy. (I'm not trying to attack you here, simply to point out the kind of attack that your position encourages.)

It felt like the authors of the article accurately pointed out how skewed mainstream media's portrayal is. I appreciate that.

It's not a question of what's the better option. In reality we have a lot of software that already exists and works, and you can't replace it all in bulk at the same time. So the question is whether the implementation of Rust makes logistical sense, given the difficulties of maintaining currently existing software while replacing some parts of it.

It's only partly American. There are basic failures in police systems and departments all around the world. Although it's theoretically possible that your country got it right when so many others have failed, it's interesting to note that you didn't actually say what country you were praising.

If you feel confident, name the country and open up the door to other commenters who also live or have lived there to chime in with their opinion. I've lived in several countries in my life, and I've seen a fair amount of incompetent or bad policing in most of them. Of course the details vary by place.

You're seeing how the game is played. It's easy to set the system up where refusing to work makes your life significantly worse.