I don't think you can point at a specific action, but the leaked (Podesta, I think) emails seemed to show that the DNC was working to help the Clinton campaign to the detriment of Sanders during the primary. This lead to the resignation of Debbie Wasserman Schultz from the DNC chairman position.
Later, it turned out the Clinton campaign had essentially taken over the DNC far in advance of the primary results which is highly unusual, to the say the least. [1]
The idea here is to make a clear split between owning and licensing. If the company decides they are selling the items themselves then the items should be repairable by the new owner. If the company decides they are merely selling the rights to use the items then it is reasonable for the user to be unable to repair it, provided the owner (the company) is willing to keep it in working condition.
That should absolutely include wear and tear as well as accidental damage. Intentional damage is an issue, but there shouldn't be much motivation for it under such a system.
I don't think there needs to be parity between the prosecution and defense in this matter. Those technicalities on the defense side serve to help protect the rights of the accused, while on the prosecution side they just obscure the truth of the matter.
That's not really a meaningful argument. You're talking about a large multi-cellular organism that has tissues, organs, and all that and comparing it to something that doesn't even have cells.
> The difference here is that neo-nazis make a decision to be bigots. They could stop. Most LGBT people consider their status to be a matter of birth.
I don't understand why this argument gets thrown about so often. Obviously not so much about neo-nazis in particular, but whenever a comparison is made to LGBT people. And before anybody jumps to conclusions, I am not about to argue that sexual orientation is a choice.
Even in the face of overwhelming evidence of all kinds, from all sorts of sources, there are people that seem to honestly believe the earth is flat. There is no way to make a reasoned decision to believe that. It must be something they are not in control of. It could be something they were born with, something in their experiences, or both, but it's clearly something they are not rationally deciding.
I'm not certain it can be said that the neo-nazis are definitely making a choice. It seems to be a pretty vehement emotional response, which would indicate it's not.
I don't mean to say we should tolerate neo-nazis in the sense that we just let them do their thing. But I do think we might be better off treating them as people that have some predisposition to being neo-nazis than as people that just decided to be one.
Muslims make a decision to follow Islam. They could stop.
But then they would be considered an apostate by most of the people they have ever known, and some of those people may consider apostasy to be a capital crime.
Do you really think it that easy for someone who is immersed in a niche culture to walk away from it, particularly if it is an insular and unpopular culture? It happens, but not everyone is strong enough to overcome the cognitive dissonance and leave behind everything they have ever been taught.
It isn't a matter of expecting a neo-Nazi to suddenly decide to stop being one, but in getting one to a cult deprogrammer counselor and providing sufficient social support afterwards, as they will likely have to discard all previous friends and family in the process. It would be similar to a homosexual kid coming out to fundamentalist parents. "Mom, Dad... I have decided that all people are created equal, and I want to judge people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." "I knowed we never shoulda sent you to no public school. Get out."
For most humans, leaving an accidental community requires subsequent joining of an intentional community. And the stronger the stigma and adversity against that original community, the harder it is for someone to believe they could be accepted by anyone else upon leaving it.
But that really only applies to the passive followers, who go along to get along. There are always true die-hard believers, for whom facts and contrary evidence simply dissolve under the light of their religious or pseudo-religious faith. They have intentionally excised their own capacity to question their beliefs. How much effort are you willing to expend to crack open that nut and "save" them? They are certainly never going to pull themselves out under their own power.
I don't understand the extreme focus on brevity, though it does seem to be mentioned regularly. In practice I don't notice a difference between "begin" and "{". It's not something I have to think about, and my typing speed exceeds the speed at which I'm able to determine what to type next.
I understand avoiding excessive amounts of large boiler plate where standard patterns are constantly repeated for no particular reason, but that's not a comparable situation to individual keywords.
Did you figure out why customers would leave? I've been thinking about doing something in the "most people use a spreadsheet" space and hearing that people went back to it after a year of using a dedicated product is a little worrying.
I have a similar story - one of our products at $DAYJOB is a kind of CRM/ERP SaaS for a specific niche.
It pays its way, but at a huge cost of time spent on support and maintenance. When non-trivial feature requests come in, we can't feasibly drop everything else for long enough to implement it. We signal this by asking the customer to pay a lot (compared to our SaaS subscription price). Usually this dissuades them.
Every so often, we lose a customer -> support dies down -> we can add some real direction and features to the product -> we gain more customers -> we get swamped under support and maintenance. The cycle continues. I don't know what the solution is.
With spreadsheets, the customer can always fall back to cobbling together a new report or visualization by themselves.
It was hard to get all the company to use it. If you use it just for small subset than it is not that valuable.
Say you are tracking work done in vineyard, but nothing else. Then your calculation of price of produce is off, because you havent add the price of input. There are multiple roles in the company and they are usualy using they own systems for reporting.
Also quite a lot of production tracking have to be done on paper using special notepad with marked pages (another funny story) and people dont want to do this bookkeeping twice.
Do you feel bad for using any of the multitude of tax-payer funded services available?
Taxes are already pretty divorced from use of the services they pay for. People with more money than you have had more of it "forcefully" taken from them to pay for the roads, emergency services, and so on that you use.
The reason is that things today are "fast enough." These days most slowdowns aren't the result of the CPU not executing instructions fast enough. Other factors dominate, such as memory access patterns, network delays, and interfacing with other complex software such as databases.
Unless you are doing compute-heavy code, the speed of the CPU isn't much of a factor in estimating how fast the program will run.
I'm not infrequently surprised how people don't spot that something is orders of magnitude slower than it should be or pick the wrong architecture because they can't or won't do simple mental math to work out very roughly how long it should take to move some data around in memory, ssd or over the network or perform some simple computation on it.
I'm having trouble believing that people who think a CPU can do thousands of instructions per second will do well at this (or reasoning about the memory hierarchy).
I don't think there's much predictive power there. The people who are answering thousands clearly just haven't though about it before and are on the spot. Humans are just terrible with big numbers, and thousands sounds like a lot already.
You may as well ask any other sort of technical trivia question and figure the people that happen to carry around more random facts about tech are more likely to understand the bigger things that do matter. It isn't necessarily wrong it's a pretty obtuse way to make a judgment. Why not just ask them about the memory hierarchy or network delays or whatever directly?
It takes significantly less than a second to turn a screw once. A couple orders of magnitude less actually, to give it some relation to the computer question.
Which really just demonstrates the point, I think. At some point things are "fast enough" that it just doesn't matter. We've reached that point with computers. Unless you are working in a niche field that needs serious compute, the sources of performance problems are almost never going to arise from issues like trying to execute too many add instructions in a given period. The delays will come from things that are significantly harder to see - network, database, or program architecture + runtime.
Later, it turned out the Clinton campaign had essentially taken over the DNC far in advance of the primary results which is highly unusual, to the say the least. [1]
[1] https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-b...