trebuchet

Exactly. Humans are funny, irrational beings. We feel these things like sympathy super strongly when we see another person suffering.

Without the direct sight though, we don't feel it.

So maybe the CEO would if he was there, but chances are he isn't so he doesn't.

It's a big part about why it's not what you know but who you know that's so important in life.

Big we're accusing you not because we have evidence but because it's what we would do vibes.

Wow optional is a big word here that should be at the very top of the article and this discussion.

This is also interesting in that the far more commonly heard story on social media is when the theft victim is the poster, and the police refuse to take action to help recover their property even though they have the Find My Phone on the thief's location.

If anyone is using empty sophistry around here I'd say it's you.

What purpose does your dismissive analogy serve? It displays only shallow insight on the actual topic at hand. Just because something very sophisticated can be called the logical conclusion of something simple does not in any way take away from the value of the more sophisticated.

Let's look at: The Internet is literally a LAN brought to its logical conclusion, don't bring your stupid sophistry into this. It's completely shallow and fails to appreciate all of the very significant differences in scale and development. It only serves as words that sound good to a listener on first impression but completely fall apart under actual consideration - i.e sophistry.

I haven't done any serious programming in a long time. Is this mostly about corporate process and hierarchies for programming or does this apply to open source projects as well?

Seems really demoralizing putting in the work to add something to an open source project and having it waste away unreviewed and unappreciated.

Because those guys are on our team and those guys are on the other team.

Turns out being a place for journalism and continuously losing money over time is not a sustainable model.

It can be called throwing everything away to turn a profit but not many people are interested in supporting journalism when it actually costs them money - consumers aren't interested in paying, journalists aren't interested in donating their time to work for free, and investors aren't interested in donating their money to give away the journalism for free.

Seems like letting authorities choose to treat people differently when everyone is violating a law is pretty dangerous.

It's been observed that the body of modern law is so vast that nobody could possibly stay on the right side of the law all the time. Unenforced laws together with your principle would give the authorities the ability to legally attack anyone they don't like such as political enemies or even entire racial groups they hate and then defend their actions by pointing out that those bad people did, in fact, violate the law regardless of what other people are doing.

I dunno, maybe what you're saying applies to some people, but I can say about myself that the live service games I've been following for years definitely suck up my gaming time that I might otherwise be using to try new games.

I'm scratching my head, who is the normal candidate? The one that was pretending like the Civil War wasn't about slavery? The one that picked a fight with Mickey Mouse to try and score political points but then got his ass kicked?

If you're in the USA it seems clearly better to have Russian since they can do much less to affect your life and vice versa.