- 0 Posts
- 35 Comments
And you’re claiming that people can’t expect to use it for free, because they need to pay those costs, which is nonsense. If they have enough to pay a CEO $300k in cash each year in addition to stock options, they are making plenty to cover their operating costs. Thus there’s no reason users, who are already brining value to the platform, should pay more in addition to the value they bring. Asking for people to contribute for free and then pay to access what they’ve built is a crazy business strategy that’s bound to fail.
It’s not free. Moderators spend their time keeping things sensible and users spend their time creating content, by posting, commenting and voting. Millions of people contribute tiny amounts, giving the community great value. They’re the reason the site has any value at all. In comparison, the operating costs, and whatever work the company execs perform, are small compared to the not-at-all free work people in aggregate put into the community.
People are giving some advice but it doesn’t seem appropriate for an absolute newbie. Here’s what I’d say. Absolutely do not run telnet. Because it’s so insecure and everyone knows that, it’s usually not on by default, and you would have had to start it yourself somehow. It’s unlikely that you did that, but you can check to see.
If you’re new, you very likely don’t need an SSH server running. Unless you’re logging into that computer remotely, you don’t need it. It’s probably not running, but it’s conceivable that it could run by default. Check to see and disable it if you don’t need remote login.
If you do need remote login, use SSH and use a very good password. Ideally, you’d need to leave newbie territory and use public-private keys instead of a password. It’s also not a bad idea to use a nonstandard port, instead of 22. That doesn’t beef security much, but many scanners are going to look for 22 and nothing else.
SMS is truly open and isn’t overseen by any central authority. Although obviously your carrier needs to support it, you aren’t forced to choose from among a few SMS providers. As I understand, RCS is a partially proprietary protocol under the guise of an open standard. As I understand, your carrier doesn’t handle RCS. Instead it’s routed through an RCS provider, and that provider is currently an extension of Google.
To me it seems like RCS is just Google’s attempt to take over text messaging, and even though SMS has some serious flaws, I feel like a corporate controlled system is even worse.
Am I wrong about RCS? Is it really an open standard? When I search for details, it’s mostly about how SMS is bad with pictures and thus RCS is great, but nothing about how RCS makes its way from one phone to another.
Compared to gas? Nope. They are not hilariously expensive. Gas furnaces cost more to purchase, install and maintain than electric, and they have a shorter life span. For some people, especially those with minimal heating needs, electric furnaces are most cost effective than gas ones. Again, more basic info you are unaware of.
Compared to heat pumps? Maybe. Ground source heat pumps have huge installation costs and although they are far more efficient it may not make up the cost for everyone. Air source heat pumps aren’t much more expensive than traditional options, but they’re much more efficient. If you’re in an area where an air source heat pump is an option, almost certainly it’s more cost effective.
None of this is what you’re saying though, that heat pumps are unproven, unready technology, which is bunk. They’re not an option for everyone, no option is, and they may not be the right option for you. However, they are an option for most people. If anyone is looking to replace a furnace they should absolutely consider an air source heat pump, and potentially should consider a ground source one.
For those reading wondering if this guy knows what he’s talking about, he says that electric furnaces are “hilariously inefficient”. They were in fact the most efficient option before heat pumps - more efficient than the most efficient gas furnaces. Electricity is expensive, so depending on the situation, it may cost more than inefficiently burning super cheap gas, but calling electric heating “hilariously inefficient” demonstrates a severe lack of knowledge of the area. So, with that in mind, consider whether anything else claimed here is worth retaining.
That comment in the article made me wonder how long this person has been using computers, and whether he has seen anything other than Windows 10 and 11. If you’ve only seen 10, then 11 seems like a bland, slightly shittier OS, but if you have a broader experience you probably find 11 to be a bloated, slow, ad ridden piece of crap.
When distribution was solely through radio waves owned by networks it made sense to license to a network. Now you can sell directly to consumers. Why do producers go through mediaries and bundle shows? I don’t get it. If they want to make money from Band of Brothers, they could put it on their Web site at a reasonable price and charge consumers directly.
I have used professional versions of 10 through work, and they are better, but they still have a bunch of junk. I hear that Windows 11 is worse in this regard. It also still doesn’t fix the problem of encouraging MS to do these things. I’m not looking to build a PC, so I’d be buying something that comes preloaded with a consumer version, then need to buy a pro version, and now I’ve bought this crap twice, greatly rewarding MS for their poor practices.
I’ve used Windows since 3.1. I thought XP was such a great advancement. I feel like 7 is overall better than XP, but not an all out improvement. 10 is worse than 7, but they’re forcing 7 out. I hate 11. I want to by a new PC, and 11 is the biggest thing holding me back. Could I buy it and install something else? Sure, but I don’t want to pay for this terrible program.
First, it’s not a very good analogy. Second, you can put a different radio in your car; you can’t remove Teams without removing all of Office. Third, people would be pretty mad at Honda if their cars shipped with a piece of shit radio instead of something at least nice.
Edit: I take back the part about uninstalling Teams. You can do that. I was thinking of Skype for Business.
Yes, I’ve just said that languages evolve. I’m saying that “technology companies” has not yet and will not ever evolve to mean “companies that develop, produce, license or sell technology or technology services, and also Twitter”. When Twitter starts getting involved in tech, it will be a tech company.
This statement indicates that what is technology is decided by popular opinion, not by any inherent meaning in words. Certainly the meaning of words change with time and they have no inherent meaning, so in a very real sense, definitions are decided by popular vote. However, if Twitter is a tech company, then so is every newspaper, magazine, bank, credit card company, any business with a data base for inventory management. It’s a useless definition. Let’s go with the actual mainstream definition of a tech company, a company that develops, produces, licenses or sells technology or technology services, and Twitter doesn’t do any of that. It sells ad space and subscriptions, the business model of a media company.
Twitter isn’t a tech company any more than Visa or the New York Times are. Twitter uses technology. They do not develop, produce, or sell technology products or services. It is a media company that sells advertising space and subscriptions, just like a newspaper, something no one would call a tech company.
By your definition, banks and credit card companies are technology companies. Visa has three times as many users and countless more database transactions than Twitter. The finance sector develops and uses algorithms - Fico scores being a notable one. Tons of people use technology. Twitter isn’t even notable for it’s usage of technology. Tons of companies, including Visa, have more impressive and expansive use of the same things twitter uses. A company is a tech company if it develops and sells technology, not if it uses it.
It’s a media company. Why are so many people here calling in a technology company - because they have a Web site? They do not develop, produce or sell any technology product. They operate a Web site and sell ad space, just like every newspaper, magazine and TV network. Are we calling the New York Times a technology company?
Google is genuinely bad now. I switched to Ecosia which is just Bing with a simpler front end and they use their profits to plant trees. I don’t think Ecosia is particularly special though. Duck Duck Go, Bing whatever, they’re all better than Google.
Whenever I set up a new computer then search for something, I’m always surprised at first seeing the awful layout and quality of the search results before I realize that I haven’t changed the default search from Google. It’s awful now. Seriously, how are people using it?
My new favorite way to search is perplexity.ai. It’s an AI search tool that summarizes the loads of crap out there so you don’t need to read through the junk that people write. It provides sources, unlike using ChatGPT, which is incredibly valuable. All AIs make shit up, so having links to double check it is a must. Unlike Bing Chat, or whatever Microsoft calls it this week, you can ask follow up questions to home in on what you want.