i did that edit for you https://gram.social/p/Joe_0237/582801487814840095
- Posts
- 3
- Comments
- 70
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 3
- Comments
- 70
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
That is when you should have gone to sleep by now, but you just want to figure this out first, and of course it feels impossible because youaree far too tired to think
We have all been there ...
Fuck yes! D-flat
c-hash?
This comment is absolute Gold
Dunmber than funny, but ill give you the upvote lol
Phonetics is my favorite. When i was a kid i tried to write out a phonetic alphabet for all English sounds. Then when i looked back after after learning the IPA and realized that i had assigned a single character to every double consonant and double vowel. But the alphabet did work and i did write things in it.
Don't detail exactly what the innovation is before its ready to sell, it takes time to get something into a product and to get that product into production. Name recognition is everything, for some time the small starup is the name of the innovation, and that recognition does not just vanish. Other companies have built comparable or beter electric cars by now, but you know who im talking about when i say that electric car company.
Alternateivly copy something a large corporation is doing, or better yet, build on something they are doing.
Also employee owned companies tend not to aggressively expand. And governments need to break up the kind of company that is large enough to destroy all competition. That leads me to another opinion, buying another company should not be allowed in a capitalist economy, because that only ever makes the market less free.
I love linguistics and the study of language, but i struggle exactly as you. Programming languages are a lot simpler to learn.
Beautifully said, especially in that last paragraph!
For the purpose of the question, i think thoes count as computer languages. :)
Taxes spent well make a society more wealthy, the money in its use can produce knowledge, stimulate innovation, and get people educated. Then, even when its wasted, its not like its thrown in a fire, it goes into the economy and lands back in the pockets of the working people who paid the taxes to begin with.
I'm a libertarian, leftist, socialist, and I'm strongly against digital copyright, politics and patents. I believe in freedom and free competition, and government investment in education, technology, and quality of life.
Libertarian: People are overwhelmingly good, and freedom allows the good people to reliability outmenuver the bad. People should have every freedom in so far as they are not encroaching on the equal or greater freedoms of anyone else. No technology is inherently bad, tech in the hands all results in the victory of the good. A notable acception is weapons of mass destruction, as any use against any population is very bad morally. In general when tech is outlawed the good loose the ability to use it against the bad or for the betterment of humanity, and the bad maintain access and use it against the good. When only the bad guys have Drugs, Encryption, Guns, The internet, etc ... the society is much worse off for it.
Leftist: When governments invest tax money into the common good of the people, via things like education, technology, and quality of life, then societies are healther, wealthier, more innovative, and the people are happier for it. No one wants to be homeless, sick, or stupid, or to be surrounded by people who are. Government investment stimulates the economy, and if money is spent domestically it lands right back in the pockets of working tax payers.
Socialist: When workers own stake in the companiess they work for, companies act in the interest of the workers (socialism). When companies are owned by investors, they act in the interst of the investors, usually against the interest of workers (capitalism). When companies act in the interst of the workers, wages are higher, workers are more free, and cost of living is lower. The people are happier. Governments does not need to be so big to keep the peace like they do today.
Digital copyright: the belief in the lie that copying and or improving upon an ethereal digital resource constitutes theft, is a massive detriment to society. It is clearly false because no one looses anything. It is defended by perpetuating the fear that it it would be harder to profit if information was free. It would be a different world, but you can still make a profit through art on a physical medium, and in other ways. The lie is used to justify unjust control of software vendors over their customers, and to justify fake sales in which the physical computer hardware is sold but the ability to actually control it is not part of the sale. And sales where a book or movie is sold, but the user is never given the copy they purchased. It is also used to deprive the poor access to educational material, and to justify the destruction of cultural archives for future generations.
Politics: Politicians are lower quality than ordinary people, because they are the people who wanted to rule, not the people who understand the impact of positive and negative of every singe decision. A monarchy has better chances of honest leadership because the quality if the monarch is random, instead of picked by might of advertising dollars out of a list of the worst people. The way to make a real good government involves a little lotocracy and a little meritocracy. My vision in short: a console, selected at random from the population, chooses qualification criteria for voting on a proposition, and a console is selected at random from the qualified public to make a decision.
Pattents: A temporary government issued monopoly on a process or mechanism. Patents were the single worst lapse in logic of our society, they are anticompetitive and slow innovation (the incredibly successful free software community, operating on very little time and money, is a glimpse of what a patenless society could be). A free market cannot coexist with patents. Arguments for pattens boil down to, if i invest as though i have patent protection from competition and i don't have it, my investment won't pan out. In a society without patents, companies build and improve on each others work, making R&D cheaper and faster. Sure, billion dollar research investments would not pan out, but they would also be completely unnecessary, because starting from scratch or waiting a decade would not be required to participate in innovation.
I use an tracker blocker, because the way advertising is done today by google and similar is immoral, and its shocking that it is not illegal.
The way ads are put on duckduckgo, based on your search terms, or the way companies sponsor creators is great, that's the way advertising should be, and Iwant to support that.
But if you are going to be a creepy company (Google, Meta, ...) who wants to unconsensually track and profile me when my browser explicitly includes do not track requests, in order to manipulate my beliefs of purchasing habitats. As somebody who is aware of the problem, not using a tracker blocker like privacy badger would be wrong and immortal, because by allowing them to make money though abusing me, i would be supporting and aiding them in the evil they engage in.
Use a tracker blocker, don't help google be evil, and don't support anyone who demonizes you for refusing to support modern evil for their personal gain.
I myself am interested in both, I decided to specialize in programming, but did take a linguistics class back in highschool, in the class we constructed a fantasy language, and i still wave and occasionally update the documentation.
Coding languages and constructed human languages are bothan designed system of communication, its just that the targets are different. Coding languages (usually) unambiguously define a means of communicating structure and function, whereas human languages elvolve or are designed to communicate experience, something a lot more ... nebulous.
- No Dumb Questions
- World's Greatest Con
- Saftey Third
These are my favorites
The difference is that in your later two examples, a business lost something, their time / labor. If you took someones seat at the theater, there will be a disruption at the least, maybe the customer does not get their seat or you have to be kicked out or cleaned up after, but if you don't disrupt anything or make a mess, you caused no harm whatsoever.
No one looses anything when someone copies a file without permission. The FBI and other propaganda sources would have you believe that media companies would make more money if you didn't copy the file, there is no evidence of that, only evidence to the contrary, even so, if it were true, taking an action that causes someone to earn less money than if the action were not taken is not theft. If I open up a store, next to your store, and sell the kind of products you sell, you will make less money than if i don't, but no person with any self respect would ever claim that I stole anything from you, except you, the angry store owner. The reality is that these laws and their associated propaganda exist because the wealthy ruling class is terrified of making slightly less money for their investors.
Think back to the moment you learned that copying was considered theft, you knew it was ridiculous at the time, but you've seen so many FBI warnings, and so much of your favorite youtubers whining about facebook videos that belong to them with more views than theirs, steeling their precious views, even though almost no one on earth watches videos on facebook and on youtube, and no one who knows and wants to support a creator would ever watch their content in a way that would instead support someone else who provided no new value. The reality is that the youtuber was never going to get any views from the audience of the facebook video if the facebook video didn't exist, but because it did, many people followed the comment saying that the video was stolen right back to the original creator. Likewise the people who are pirating software or media are probably not going to buy it in any timeline, but now that they copied the content, they might promote it to people who will actually buy it, people who otherwise would not know about it.