AWildC182

But... But... That would go against what their platform says!

How many competent programmers (including being reasonable to work with) do you know who would willingly work for their campaign?

Depends on the rationale. I hope they'd block people who are violating free software licenses

The 170,000 doesn't have a precise unit, it could be losses in market cap, cash reserves, advertiser revenue, operating costs, literally anything.

I'm merely putting the number in perspective. 6 digits isn't really something that's particularly concerning on any Facebook spreadsheet.

At their market cap it would take in excess of 10 years to zero out. 170,000, if that's the actual number, is absolutely nothing to them

That opinion is going to vary drastically from person to person.

I mostly play the same three or four games and have for about a decade. Stuff like KSP and ARMA where save state and modding are extremely important.

I'm in that age bracket, I remember the open internet. I wouldn't get super ageist about it, but I think the point still stands. Google just wants to believe the internet is for megacorps and everyone who isn't on a mega platform doesn't belong connected to it.

This is a (mostly) solved problem in linux. Your package manager has a central repo, but also can have 3rd party repos added. You'd add the matrix repo and it would automatically update it with everything else. It means everything still gets updated and verified against the keyring.

You're both right in a way, inane comments complaining about downvotes aren't substantive, but I also see a lot of thoughtful and frankly poignant comments bite the dust because they're just slightly outside the decidedly narrow Overton window of HN discourse.

At the end of the day, on a smallish platform like this, the downvotes do also hurt. Some days it seems more users feel like downvoting everything than upvoting anything and unlike reddit, very few downvotes immediately result in censure.

And further, nobody outside of the extreme of the extremists actually wants to eliminate the potential for achieving a "wealthy" status. People will always be able to achieve high levels of success. The argument is that we need to pick a point where amassing so much wealth can start to be deemed anti social and start to taper things off there. There is basically nothing you can buy with ten or eleven digits that you can't buy with nine, except entire corporations and countries and absolutely no individual needs that power or the prospect of that power to be fulfilled in life.

This platform is far from an impartial place. People need to remember the reason this site exists...

That's a good point. I suspect maybe we're overthinking things a bit. Most movements that enter the spotlight have spent a good amount of time growing behind the scenes beforehand. We can push for class reform without framing it as reframing race issues and wait for its time in the spotlight later.

Really you just have to frame it as such. There is a distinction here, race issues tend to deal with the interface between citizens and the government (police among other things) where class issues tend to deal with the interface between corporations and the government.

This is a gross oversimplification, but I think the takeaway is it's ok to have spaces for both discussions.

I'd also add that both discussions are happening concurrently. The race issue is big right now, but economic justice is still a central topic. Occupy was a good example even if not a well organized one.

I don't think I've ever seen a model A in the wild but I've seen plenty of B's still working. I have a 20yo model C that I upgraded with a new monitor and handle and it still works like it was unboxed yesterday.