Job ads being one. Also, HN has behind the scene deals to peddle certain news organizations ( nytimes, wapo, wsj ) and certain ngos with certain agendas.
What do you think HN is? What do you think dang, sctb and the mods do?
> Not only that, but the US government is neither as aggressive nor as forward-looking about such partnerships
What? The chinese modeled their economic system after the US. We love to portray ourselves as having a separation between the "private" and the "public". That is absolute nonsense.
The chinese, like the US and europe and japan and south korea and all major world economies, are corporate mercantilists. When the railroads, mining corps, oil corporations, etc needed the natives to be "gone", it was the US government that exterminated the natives. When US corporate interests needed access to central america, it was the US government that cleared the way. When US corporate interests wanted access to the middle east, east asia, south east asia, etc, it was the US government that lent a hand. The US has always been and always will be a mercantilist nation.
> preferring to let market forces have their way.
You are buying into the propaganda. All "market" forces are human forces. After all, there is no market without humans.
> China is tilting the playing field in its favor, while the world's sole superpower is hobbled by clowns and criminals in the executive branch, and corrupt prime contractors pretend to supply the government with tech that they neither understand nor make themselves.
Oh ye of little faith. China has destroyed its environment and sold its people as slave labor to the west for development. If you look at US-china trade, 80% of the wealth is in US hands and 20% of it is in chinese hands.
Take the iPhone as an example. It sells for $800. What percentage of $800 do you think the chinese gets? What percentage do you think US shareholders gets? Almost all of the iPhone's values goes to US based shareholders. The chinese get peanuts.
The iPhone’s value is tied up in its IP (software, design) and high end components, none of which are actually made in China. The assembly happens in China, and the Chinese derive some profit from that, but it is related to the actual value being provided.
> If you write code on .NET, you should adopt this release ASAP.
If you require the new features maybe, but if you are writing enterprise code, you shouldn't rush into things.
> Doubly so if you care about runtime performance.
Everyone cares about runtime performance, but if your software isn't experiencing performance issues, there is no need to rush into things. Or at the very least, reach out to your clients to get a feel about their schedules and expectations.
Having a proper test suite and updating when the changes are minimal usually leads to better overall product maintenance.
I dont get these claims to not upgrade unless you're also just as worried about changing a line of code and having it all break too? Make the changes, test the changes, and deploy carefully, just as you would for anything else.
I don't think he was suggesting anyone rush into anything. At the same time, a lot of "enterprise" software is still running on Java versions from over a decade ago, so perhaps they'd benefit if they had someone rushing them.
There are lots of ways you can end up with legacy code.
I've seen legacy code get created by people postponing platform updates for so long that the upgrade pathways stop being supported, that's one way.
I've also seen legacy code get created by people adopting the platform of the future super-early, and then being left high and dry when the rest of the world decided that platform wasn't actually the future after all, leaving them as the sole maintainers of the entire platform as well as their dependent code.
If your code currently works on standard .net, there's no reason to be in a massive hurry to move to .net core. There's not necessarily any reason to delay, either. It all depends on your business requirements and the investment required. If it's easy for you to move to .net core then by all means do it. If it's gonna be a massive project, let the smaller groups go first.
> I've seen legacy code get created by people postponing platform updates for so long that the upgrade pathways stop being supported, that's one way.
This is something i've seen many times, when you don't update in long enough entire API's might've changed or been replaced and there's no documentation or anyone even remembering the stuff available anymore.
I agree though that one doesn't have to rush new releases, i do however think there should be a plan to upgrade done as soon as there's a new stable release.
I've been working with a softphone that's built for .net framework 3.5, if you want any library you can forget nuget, must get source build and modify manually. Which is suboptimal.
> Colon and rectal cancers have increased 51% among adults under age 50 since 1994, the cancer society said.
Percentages can be deceiving. 51% off what base? Was it 100 people in 1994 and now it is 151?
> Preventative medicine is cheap.
Sure, if the odds of you getting it is high enough. If the odds of getting it is low, does it make sense for tens of millions of adults to get invasive and potentially dangerous check ups?
Not everything is a conspiracy, but we do know that "institutions" love to fear monger to get more money, funding and exposure.
> If you want your conspiracy to hold some weight, they would be pushing the age in the other direction.
Not necessarily. Collecting $200 from 10 million people each for an annual checkup vs the cost of a few thousands with colon cancer. There is a reason why businesses ( like nflx and amzn ) love the subscription model.
> Percentages can be deceiving. 51% off what base? Was it 100 people in 1994 and now it is 151?
Maybe I'm just too close to the source (my father is an oncologist), but I thought it was well known that colon cancer is one of the most prevalent. It ranks 4th behind breast, lung, and prostate, of which only lung is deadlier. There are 140k cases per year and 50k deaths.
> we do know that "institutions" love to fear monger
I don't know what institutions you're referring to, but I don't think cancer needs any boost from fear mongering, it's already a serious-enough disease.
Sure it's well known. But that's not what he was asking. He was specifically asking about the number of cancers in people below 40. 140k is for all ages.
> Reddit works because it’s anonymous, information-dense and relatively ad-free.
Reddit is none of those now. It's not anonymous ( they track your identity and feed it to the government ). You may be "anonymous" to fellow users, but not anonymous to authorities. It isn't information dense. It's propaganda dense. Almost all the content there now is government, media, ngo, etc propaganda. As for ads, check out the videos, movies, music, etc subs when a particular movie, album, etc comes out. The frontpage will be littered with ad-like submissions ( aka ads ).
Reddit is 80% government, politics and news propaganda and 20% ads ( movies, music, etc ). I think you are confusing the reddit of 2011 with today's reddit.
> It’s been Reddit’s dilemma since the beginning: you can’t monetize a toxic user base that has total freedom.
Actually reddit could and did monetize "toxic content". How do you think reddit has been around for nearly 13 years? And once again, you are confusing reddit of 2011 to reddit of 2018. Today, reddit isn't any more "toxic" than twitter, youtube, facebook, etc. Reddit is heavily censored. Besides, on social media, you don't monetize content, you monetize eyeballs/clicks/data points.
> I’m still skeptical of Reddit’s ability to turn a profit.
Do you really think reddit is unprofitable? Let me guess, you think that youtube is not profitable right? You think these companies have been around for more than a decade because they are not "profitable"?
Their "hollywood" style accounting may make it seem like they are not profitable, but these companies are incredibly profitable. It's why youtube has a valuation over $100 billion and reddit's valuation is in the billions.
> But as a community platform it’s the best out there IMO.
Have to disagree with you there. Any garden variety forum is better than reddit. Also, reddit stopped being a community a long time ago.
I've stopped using it because it's all political nonsense or advertisements.
> You may be "anonymous" to fellow users, but not anonymous to authorities.
True, but this only matters to a very small percentage of its user base. A vast majority of people who use Reddit don't know or don't care about data collection. They only care if their friend/coworker/family can ID them from what they post.
>Reddit is 90% government, politics and new propaganda and 20% ads...
The front page/top posts, maybe. 90% of the content doesn't reach the top of /r/all though. And I don't know if I consider what is popular/part of the echo chamber as an 'ad'.
>Do you really think reddit in unprofitable?
Profitable or not, what's the difference? They've maintained a relatively ad free experience and don't expect you to 'pay to play'. Content isn't pay-walled. Yes they've made cosmetic changes to shift towards a more 'social-media' style experience, but the changes are not that bad and haven't drastically changed the user experience.
>Any garden variety forum is better than reddit.
This is personal and can't be claimed with any objectivity. You may find that certain nice forums offer you more value, personally, but that doesn't apply to everyone.
In my experience, whatever shortcomings Reddit has are greatly outweighed by the information and entertainment I've received.
> Reddit is 80% government, politics and news propaganda and 20% ads ( movies, music, etc ).
I am a heavy Reddit user and I don't notice any of these things, except when I specifically go looking for them. Curate your subreddit list and unsubscribe from all the default subs - they are all garbage, and that isn't even Reddit's fault, it's just inevitable once they reach a certain size.
> I am a heavy Reddit user and I don't notice any of these things
You don't see politics related content on reddit daily? I used reddit since reddit was days old ( years before the digg migration ) so maybe we visited different websites.
> Curate your subreddit list and unsubscribe from all the default subs
That defeats the point of reddit doesn't it? Or what made reddit great. I never used reddit to be part of a bubble. Not only are default subs a bubble today, reddit itself is a bubble.
> and that isn't even Reddit's fault, it's just inevitable once they reach a certain size.
Actually it is reddit's fault. When they allowed and encouraged censorship, it allowed a small faction of political and news media/ngo affiliated mods to turn subreddits into their propaganda platform.
How do you avoid being in a bubble? Usually of your own creation. Whether it is curating the subreddits you see, or selecting the news sites you visit, you are only ever going to see a tiny fraction of what's going on in the world.
I skip pretty much all the political and news subreddits and stick to the focused communities that match my interest. Things like r/3dprinting, or r/omscs, etc. I find most communities are decent as long as they're not enormous. Any significant political content and I bail, I am just too tired of being reminded how horrible many people are.
Simple. By exposing yourself to a variety of ideas, opinions, viewpoints.
>Whether it is curating the subreddits you see, or selecting the news sites you visit, you are only ever going to see a tiny fraction of what's going on in the world.
> It's not anonymous ( they track your identity and feed it to the government )
Are you referring to the missing warrant canary? That's about the time I stopped using Reddit, but I doubt they're selling data to the government. They're probably ordered to give out data due to National Security Letters.
> The frontpage will be littered with ad-like submissions ( aka ads ).
/r/hailcorporate is kinda interesting in that they like to point this out. It's not necessarily advertisers pushing their stuff, but a mix of regular users who just embrace consumerism and corporatism + ad bots. It's sometimes impossible to tell the two apart.
> Actually reddit could and did monetize "toxic content". How do you think reddit has been around for nearly 13 years?
I think OP is talking about all the now banned subs: /r/jailbait (and all the other bait subs), /r/niggers, /r/fatpeoplehate, etc. etc.
> Also, reddit stopped being a community a long time ago
I don't use Reddit anymore, except for local subs sometimes. The combination of the warranty canary and the mass bannings made me fed up. But what pissed me off the most was the CEO that edited comments in the database, and then kept his job with an apology. You should have to step down after that.
I agree though. Reddit isn't a great service. I hope we see more smaller sites based around the concept; maybe more Lobster instances for niche communities.
> Are you referring to the missing warrant canary?
That's certainly part of it. But even before then, reddit was sharing data with the authorities. Just like google removing "don't be evil" didn't mean that they weren't evil before they removed it. It just made it "official".
> I think OP is talking about all the now banned subs:
Right. And reddit was monetized while those subs were around.
> I don't use Reddit anymore, except for local subs sometimes.
The only time I check reddit is if there is a major news event, but the news and worldnews subs are now run by the news media employees, so it's all links to bbc, cnn, nytimes, etc, so even those subs are pointless now.
> You may be "anonymous" to fellow users, but not anonymous to authorities.
reddit doesn't collect a large amount of information about users. They can give authorities the contents of your "private" messages and non-public subreddits, and your IP address. If you're making even a minimal effort to be anonymous, this will not be useful to the authorities.
On the internet of 2018 sites like Reddit/FB/YouTube/Twitter are perceived to have VALUE to users for just one simple reason - instant validation of whatever bull is flitting thro their minds.
The like/upvote/view/retweet counts never existed next to every thoughtful or thoughtless utterances prior to these sites. Just as in the real world. And just as it should have been. Everything your mom says doesn't need a popularity score next it.
The ppl who defend these sites have blindly accepted that popularity scores next to every thought/speech/action have no downside.
These days I don't even expect them to overcome that blindness which is why comments like yours will always get down voted despite the common sense in them.
A couple of us got flashlights and went to the main street and it was pitch dark and quiet and eerie. That was fun. Other than that, living without power got real boring, real quick.
So you want a link snope or politifact link? Even if people provided citations, wouldn't you reject them because it isn't snopes or politifact ( the approved "fact" finders )?
The fact that much of the liberal media and institutions have rallied around snopes should indicate that snopes has a left bias. The fact that you ( likely a left leaning individual working in the media ) support it probably indicates it as well.
> And if you know of a fact-checking resource that has less bias, please share.
Everyone is biased. Especially when politics, money and propaganda is involved.
The issue with news media isn't facts. It's the spin on the facts.
Look at Trump backing out of the NK meeting last week - which is a fact. But look at how CNN and Foxnews spun that.
CNN : "Trump is backing out of NK meeting because he is a bumbling fool failing at NK negotiations"
Foxnews : "Trump is backing out of NK meeting because he a deal making genius who won't let NK screw over the US again."
Same "fact", but wildly different spin. Fact checking is never going to solve this issue because "facts" are only a small part of the news industry. The core of the news industry is to push propaganda and to influence the people to think a certain way.
Also, propaganda isn't necessarily a bad thing. Every country needs propaganda to exist.
If you are interested, here is a former TIME magazine editor speaking on the topic of propaganda, history and news.
Reversing engineering cracks, visiting porn sites just for warez passwords or just wasting time reading 2600. It was the golden age for young kid with a passion for computers.
How is it a great solution when hacker news has ads that most ad blockers can't block?