The site has a Janet repl (downloads pressing Esc) with autocomplete. That's enough, now I have to give the book a spin.
The fact the author points out, being able to distribute the program without requirements, is a big plus. Multiple times I have been doing some bash script that later I can't share with my non-techy friends until I translate it in some google sheets or something they can use. If Janet can let me do simple script stuff and let me share it just sending the binary as a file on some chat app, then I'm more than interested
I think I read that the image you distribute expects to use a C compiler in it's execution, and not every computer has a C compiler - or did I misunderstand?
The run-in-browser blob cannot make that assumption, but perhaps that's a special case?
> Welcome Center now has a mobile-friendly layout. The content itself is still fairly desktop-focused, but this will soon change as well!
Why can the desktop have a desktop-focused look and the mobile a mobile-friendly layout? Said another way, Why does the experience for everyone must degrade the most popular common denominator?
> People say this like it's a truism, but the notion that social media only shows successful people or is like a highlight reel of life, is possibly false. Unless your social circle is limited to tech founders or celebrities, most people live pretty mundane lives.
The article is missing the whole point of envy. Envy manifest for those around you that have it better than you. The coworker that started with you and ended up climbing positions faster and has a better salary. The photos of the weeding of an old crush. Is about someone being an step up and the what-ifs that would have made it so you had that now.
If you are start up founder yes, it makes sense being envious if you went in a round and someone got the investment you wanted; or an acquaintance is already retiring while you are still iterating on your 5th failure business. Envy adjust to the grandeur delusions people have. Tech founders and celebrities may be yours, but for most people those around them that have it better.
It just means when the article was published, the need was real and make was useful. Context matters.
Based on that commit they don't need to download the data to generate the .json file, so they don't, Make became irrelevant. If anything this shows that a tool can be really useful but you don't need to marry it. Don't use if you don't have to.
They took 7 months to install the panels. I'm sure times during all that the OP thought if they forgot about him, called them to ask for a installation date, etc.
As a way to curb any thought about undue wait time, the company made a contract guaranteeing installation between 6 month after signing. They didn't comply and the loan lapsed. Now the company needed to negotiate a new contract with OP or go for the legal route. There is nothing unethical about this.
The company had everything to lose going the the legal option, with all the long terms procedures, paying money for a pay back that may never come. They are probably grateful that OP just asked for a discount instead.
I dont consider strong arming someone due to your now advantageous position against something you previously agreed upon and reasonably similarly delivered (7 months instead of 6, we're not talking about multiple years later here).
A similar ethical framework would allow someone in marriage say "I quit my job, can get alimony from you, better do as I say or I'm filing for divorce" -- It's all legal. Still unethical.
OP wasn't planning a devious plan here. The 6 month contract seems standard from the company side. They shoot themselves on the foot and the loan just got voided. OP would be paying the company for nothing without a new loan
> (7 months instead of 6, we're not talking about multiple years later here)
Maybe this is a disagreement based on past experiences, but the most infuriating thing when working with home contractors is chasing them around so they do they finish their job. I get if this were business to business transaction that are used to year long delays, but as a person I find having a half finished ceiling to by a big disruption in my daily life.
Being fair OP didn't say anything about having to fix their roof before installing the solar panels, but having to put up with business delays in your home projects isn't the most pleasant experience.
If we go to the ethical side of things, in this case the company installed something without doing proper diligence in their part. This could have been solved if they presented a new contract in OP home when they went to install the panels. Paying without a loan would have been foolish from OP side, same if he paid it at the more expensive 2022 prices. In fact OP would probably be forced to do if they asked him about it before installing the panels. This would be unethical from the company side: delaying 6+ months the installation and proposing a more expensive loan before installation.
Let's not skip the company trying to swindle OP to pay without a proper contract by scaring him. Some of us may be used to this kind of threats. Doesn't mean they are ethical at all. They should have been upfront with the problem from the beginning, not bullying people with scary letters.
> Let's not skip the company trying to swindle OP to pay without a proper contract by scaring him. Some of us may be used to this kind of threats. Doesn't mean they are ethical at all. They should have been upfront with the problem from the beginning, not bullying people with scary letters.
If I understand correctly those only came after OP refused to pay their bill.
Expand the argument to the economy as a whole, and it's just the Prisoner's Dilemma. You'll get screwed by someone else someday, the solar company will screw someone other than you etc. I'll certainly agree it would be better if everyone cooperated. Whether it's unethical depends on your ethical framework.
"The manufacturers have lost their bearings and know not which way to turn. They can no longer find the raw material to satisfy the lawless depraved passion of their laborers for work. In our woolen districts dirty and half rotten rags are raveled out to use in making certain cloths sold under the name of renaissance, which have about the same durability as the promises made to voters. At Lyons, instead of leaving the silk fiber in its natural simplicity and suppleness, it is loaded down with mineral salts, which while increasing its weight, make it friable and far from durable. All our products are adulterated to aid in their sale and shorten their life. Our epoch will be called the “Age of adulteration” just as the first epochs of humanity received the names of “The Age of Stone”, “The Age of Bronze”, from the character of their production"
On the other had, we are a lot better at making things out of cheap materials. Clothes from Target are relatively durable considering the price, especially if you do basic repairs like they would have back then.
Even the food is probably better now.
It's not perfect, but modern products are pretty amazing. A shirt can sell for $2 and last 20 years in some cases.
Of course sweatshops and pollution are still awful.
Sure, clothes from Target might be relatively durable considering the price. But you need more clothing now. In a lot of places, it is socially unacceptable to wear the same thing for days in a row, even if you change your undergarments. You also don't have a realistic choice to make your own clothing. Cloth, thread, buttons and zippers aren't cheap and it became more out of reach in the late 80s and through the 90's (my mother sews and has for decades). That's not even considering things like a sewing machine, fabric scissors, and the fact that you might look like your clothes are homemade (which doesn't always fare well). Your Target clothing also won't be usable when it is worn, so you can't piece it together to make a new garment or even a blanket even if the stretchy material was easier to work with. You really can't do basic repairs like they used to do.
Boo hoo. The fact that society has upgraded is no argument against clothes getting cheaper, an absolute gain. The issue of repairability is mostly one of demand: almost no one wants to repair his own clothes, given how inexpensive they've become. Electronics and appliances are the same. For many people, it's not worth repairing something that can be bought new for a day's or even a week's wages. If people started valuing repair more, then you'd see more products with it available. Repairability is an extra feature, and costs more, something people don't want to pay for.
Anyway, there is an environmental price as well as a $$$ price to clothing production. What you pay might not be the true price (eg. aquifers getting drained, soil erosion, CO2 emission etc, possible deforestation).
Even ignoring my point about non-fiscal cost "that can be bought new for a day's or even a week's wages" is great if you're rich, even relatively speaking. From wiki: "...which found roughly 734 million people [in the world] remained in absolute poverty [circa 2015]". I guess you grew up not having your parents unable to buy except as a last resort and having to patch everything repeatedly.
Your point was that, now, "it is socially unacceptable to wear the same thing for days in a row, even if you change your undergarments", ergo, society has upgraded (its expectations of acceptable wear), i.e., moved the "goal posts". That means, we solved the old problem of not putting people in rags, and have a new problem, of constantly new outfits. Absolute gain: clothing problem "solved", replaced with new "wardrobe problem". This is what progress looks like. We always find new, harder, problems. The fact that there is a problem distracts people from admitting we have solved some.
You're moving the goal posts in your rebuttal by adding environmental concerns.
Absolute poverty has been dropping dramatically as a fraction of the growing world population. Look at the trends, not the snapshot. Show some fricking gratitude for the world of plenty in which humanity exists.
I grew up in Indiana, in the interior of the US. I'm female, if that helps. It was never acceptable for me to wear the same thing for days in a row. This is so pervasive that I used to have a system to make sure I avoided that while not having to launder things if they weren't dirty. The first person I met that did that was an exchange student from Germany - we were both 17 at the time. I've since moved to Norway and really don't know anymore if folks notice: I always just wear black and usually buy multiples of the same item. Even if I wear something different, it looks the same. Plus, half of my social group is other immigrants and might not represent society really well.
I've heard similar things from women who worked in majority-women offices in e.g. HR. They were expected to steadily rotate, even wearing the same vest over other stuff two days in a row would result in questions "where they had slept last night" from their co-workers.
> In a lot of places, it is socially unacceptable to wear the same thing for days in a row, even if you change your undergarments.
Maybe depends upon how you own the choice. You react negatively to snide or snark: you lose power and social standing.
You shrug neutrally then move on unaffected, and only when pressed do you explain you save time making decisions over unimportant clothing that you put to turning a profit: you're hailed a visionary and VC's clamor to be let into your Series A's.
I wouldn't mind spending the time and money on Ship-of-Theseus-replacing what wears out on a few items of extremely high-quality high-durability clothing, except I have not been able to establish suppliers for replacements. For example, I was excited about American Giant when they first came out. Until I determined I cannot purchase from them swatches of the same fabric, thread, and hardware they use to repair whatever I get from them, much less offer a pay-to-repair option.
As a personal preference, I do not mind paying 50% or more (even >100%) for a tailor to repair my clothing than I can "buy new", and if there are repair options in other possessions I also pursue prioritizing repair over buy. "Trash" is shorthand for, "my civilization is not scientifically literate enough and/or too energy-poor to re-structure diffused baryonic matter up the energy gradient sufficiently to use it again".
The world has not changed that much since then. We are still the same apes and are still motivated by the same things (getting food, status, power, or accomplishment, in various orders of priority depending on your social position).
A very good thing to read to realize that when one hears this kind of complaining today there is nothing new in it and it is not a signal of the apocalypse coming or of a unique new age. Well, the apocalypse or a new age might be coming, but this is not an indication that it is. It always was the case that one should pay attention to from whom one is buying.
It's also an indication that the corporate squeezes that are being done on people are nothing new as well and they are just as problematic today as they were 140 years ago.
So yeah, perspective. Your take seems to defend companies, my take wants people to have more leisure time. Guess you already picked your poison.
Yes, I believe I did read the correct comment that they replied to. However, here, it is not always possible to be 100% certain to whom or from whom one is replying to or from and/or which specific comment in any given paragraph is being referenced (unless specified/re-quoted) - hence my quote and question. And I am very open to being corrected. Thank you.
>Can someone ELI5 what Mozilla did to deserve this derision?
I would say its because Mozilla isn't the incorruptible champion of web browsing. Yes, they have done bad decisions, bad(and good) products have been axed that are unrelated to a browser, and they have being influenced by political issues because, well, people work at Mozilla and people get to be influenced by that. So bad impressions triumph over any campaign they have done, like the ones quoted from the article below.
Browsers and the Quest for More Private Advertising
- 2009 - Mozilla leads the Do-Not-Track (“DNT”) Working Group at W3C. This
is a signal sent by the browser to websites indicating that the user does not
wish to be tracked online. All major browsers implement DNT. The advertising
industry fails to adopt DNT and the initiative ultimately fails.
- 2015 - Firefox launches “Tracking Protection.” This was an important but small
step. It is off by default and blocks ads that track.
2018 - Firefox launches Facebook Container based on several months of
work to isolate first party cookies.96 This is another small step forward
against tracking.
- 2019 - Firefox launches with Enhanced Tracking Protection (“ETP”) based
on learnings from earlier efforts alongside an “anti-tracking policy”.97 ETP is a
success, and drives all major browsers except Chrome to implement similar
features.
- 2020 - Firefox blocks third-party fingerprinting resources98 and includes pro-
tections against redirect tracking.99 Mozilla leads the formation of the Privacy
Community Group at the W3C.100
- 2021 - Firefox takes on supercookies,101 introduces Total Cookie Protection,102
and trims HTTP Referrers to protect privacy.103 Mozilla leads the formation of
the Privacy Advertising Technology Community Group at the W3C.104
- 2022 - Firefox launches Total Cookie Protection by default105 and adds manual
protections against link decoration.106 Mozilla continues work on Privacy Pre-
serving Advertising107 through both criticism of and collaboration with Google,
Apple, Meta and others.
The fact the author points out, being able to distribute the program without requirements, is a big plus. Multiple times I have been doing some bash script that later I can't share with my non-techy friends until I translate it in some google sheets or something they can use. If Janet can let me do simple script stuff and let me share it just sending the binary as a file on some chat app, then I'm more than interested