"Say" in the sense of demonstrate peacefully for this? Then I'm impressed. If someone else can confirm this? Is this because of USA being a federal union? Before Ukraine declared independence, there were voices to make Ukraine a federal state, so that people in the West part of Ukraine can live their way of life and people living 1600 km (!) away in the East and Southern parts would be not much affected from that and vice versa. Voices for the unitary state were stronger because of stability of the state. Would be interesting to see some documentary "what if", whether a federal state would be more stable against pulling from the west (Europe, US) and the east (Russia).
> Is this because of USA being a federal union? Before Ukraine declared independence, there were voices to make Ukraine a federal state, so that people in the West part of Ukraine can live their way of life and people living 1600 km (!) away in the East and Southern parts would be not much affected from that and vice versa.
You are falling for Russian propaganda about evil western-Ukrainian nazis attempting to enslave peaceful-Russian-speaking-peoples-of-Donbass-or-whatever who were just minding their own business ("way of life"). As a Russian-speaking Ukrainian neither do I want Putin to protect me (apparently by looting my apartment and raping my girlfriend or in whichever way he is trying to do it these days), nor do absolute majority of population of, say, Kharkiv, Odesa or Kherson.
> Voices for the unitary state were stronger because of stability of the state. Would be interesting to see some documentary "what if", whether a federal state would be more stable against pulling from the west (Europe, US) and the east (Russia).
As a Ukrainian I find that idea quite laughable. It is not really possible for a part of federal union (say a state of USA or a Swiss canton) to join NATO and for other part to "decide" to become a Russian-occupied quasi-state like Belarus. Same goes for a part of it joining EU while some other part decides it wants to be part of EAEU Customs Union. State's foreign affairs are still decided by some central government.
Also, you can research how great "deciding on their own way of life" works in Russian Federation. You could start with first and second Chechen Wars.
I was glad after discovering [1]. In one of the videos the interviewer explains, why he was not arrested. The channel is for English-speaking auditory outside of Russia. It was enough to "close eyes" for some openly expressed critiques. Though it was painfully to listen to some people who were not against the war.
Safe and socially acceptable:
"war is bad and I wish it will end sooner". "We should be friends with Ukraine and/or West". "Putin was not right to start a war". "I want that Putin resigns and/or voted out"
Safe for regular person, but socially risky:
"We should surrender and pay reparations" "This war is totally Putin'a fault" "Putin is corrupt dictator" "Zelensky is a good guy"
Could in theory lead to a fine and/or losing job, but mostly safe:
"I support Navalny", donation to ACF or some kind of western-affiliated NGO.
Could lead to a fine and/or prison time, when it done in social media or on the square:
"Slava Ukraine", Butcha fakes, Let's willingly donate to Ukraine war effort, etc
A huge chunk of activism is pointless and annoying. Especially when every cause is lumped together into Activism (TM) and the Omnicause.
I don’t agree with them and I don’t think they should be in my software, or dealing with anything they don’t understand (for instance crime, homeless people, geopolitics, or really anything outside of overpriced vegan coffee shops). All they really do is end up getting Fox News people to vote for fascists like Trump out of spite
> A huge chunk of activism is pointless and annoying.
Activism can be annoying, but it's never pointless (not even when it fails to be effective).
> All they really do is end up getting Fox News people to vote for fascists like Trump out of spite
It wouldn't be worthwhile for activists to resign themselves to inaction out of fear of offending the "Fox news people". "Fox news people" are already more likely than not to vote for fascists like Trump, and they'll use any excuse/justification they're being fed including "I don't like the way the wrong people are using their freedom to protest the wrong things".
I don't think this is really true if you look at the results of the last election. Activism just on the transgender issue alone looks to have swung a lot of votes.
> Activism just on the transgender issue alone looks to have swung a lot of votes.
What activism was that? Were there sit-ins? Millions marching in the streets? Were trans people chaining themselves to bathrooms? What was the terrible activism so extreme that it pushed "fox news people" into voting for an R when they'd normally vote for a D? My guess is that there are effectively 0 "fox news people" who'd ever vote for a D to start with and that fox news watchers didn't actually see or experience much activism on the transgender issue. Instead what they mostly had a problem with was policy put in place by non-transgendered people, library books that included transgender characters, and the existence of trans people generally. No activism needed.
Sure, but that's not a problem for the short term, and these guys can beef up support to keep it going if needed, just not invest in new features or chasing competitors.
Just like an old building, their business model is to sweat the asset until it's no longer viable. In the meantime, the cashflow goes directly to the bottom line.
Why would that ever happen? Software is too important for people to not sell outside of communism and free software people aren’t as good as making consumer products as capitalists
Software is too important for people not to _share_. And too important for people to have to waste endless resources in re-developing in multiple closed contexts.
As for "communism" - if by whiskey, I mean if by Communism you mean soviet-union-style social arrangements, then I'm pretty sure they had closed-source software which the government controlled and people could not use and alter freely; but if you mean "communism" as in software being a "commons", then, yeah, free software will win when that is again the case.
The Blackberry Storm sold 500,000 units in its first month and 1 million units by January 2009.[15] However, Verizon had to replace almost all of the one million Storm smartphones sold in 2008 due to issues with the SurePress touch screen [16] and claimed $500 million in losses.
To elaborate - Nokia innovated a lot. But internally Nokia was chaotic. They were Google, before Google got the reputation for creating projects only to kill them when they had hardly started.
Couple this with the absolute dictatorship that the Symbian division had over what they were releasing as a cellular device, and Meego/Maemo never had a chance. Up till the N900 the Maemo division was blocked from having cellular. After the N900 it was too late really. They clambered to make the N9, but it was at the breaking point and so they did the burning memo thing. The N9 was basically the blueprint for the Windows Phone models Nokia released.
Also there are way more women applying, to the point where you’re more than double as likely to get in as a man than as a woman. There’s a huge argument about this but no one actually looked up the data for some reason:
https://www.clarkecollegeinsight.com/blog/how-to-get-into-ca...
Good Lord. I'd never get into any of these schools these days. (Three people from my 59 person high school class got into MIT and we weren't a high-powered school.) Though I guess if it's any consolation a bunch of the great professors would never get tenure either because they were more tinkerers than theoreticians.
> You're less than half as likely to get in as a man.
This is a bit of a misunderstanding of how statistics works. This does not reflect your personal chances of being accepted, only the chances of the subset of men who applied. You are assuming that all the men were equally qualified as the women and there were no other distinguishing characteristics between the two groups.
For instance, if there is a pre-selection process for one group that there was not for another it could skew the numbers significantly and make one group much smaller with a higher acceptance rate.
While the percentage differences could indicate bias against men, it could also indicate something else.
Of course, you don't know what the distribution of applicants looks like. Though I do strongly suspect that some groups (by gender, geography, even athletic credentials, etc.) almost certainly have a better shot than others all other things being equal.
MIT these days is about half men and half women undergrad. Pretty consistently, about twice as many men as women apply. So you can do the math. There are some other factors like I believe a slightly lower percentage of women accept than men and, of course, you don't know the relative quality academically of the applicant pool (which MIT doesn't publish any data on).
However, it would be really hard to believe the curves for the two populations are that different even if I can certainly believe men are a bit more likely to roll the dice by applying just in case they luck out.
I suspect an admissions officer, if they were candid, would probably say something like: Look, all the students with absolutely impeccable credentials applying are probably getting admitted. Those that are unqualified are not. So we're now figuring out what's most important to us as an institution from the middle tier of applicants especially given that we're dealing with a lot of noisy signal. And, yes, one of these things is that MIT decided years ago it wanted a reasonably balanced gender ratio which we didn't used to remotely have.
You can’t be against the Ukraine war in Russia because Putin is an evil dictator