RonanTheGrey

I'm curious -- what are you hoping that argument will accomplish?

Freedom of ANY kind allows bad things to happen. The most secure world is one in which we are all locked up, nobody ever interacts, and are only fed via tube from their government provided feeder in their government provided cube.

Since I'm fairly sure that isn't what you're advocating, please, explain what you're hoping to accomplish by stating that a free and open internet is a problem.

I keep asking people to explain why they downvote posts like yours and nobody wants to. I guess they know the reasons aren't good, they just can't help giving in to the desire for control.

Beautiful list though and well said. I've been trying to think of a succinct way to summarize some of those concepts and I think you've broken them up well.

I explicitly added the disclaimer to preempt your attempt to ignore my question, which you did anyway. Fantastic.

You know exactly what I was trying to say. ONE counter example to a statistic doesn't invalidate the statistic and you were trying to say that just because very very very rarely someone makes productive use of their phone (one out of millions), that therefore there's no problem with how people use phones. Even you have to see how that argument misses the mark.

At the risk of a reddit-style comment: "Yes please."

Honestly just reverse the drug bans, treat them life public health problems, and disband agencies like this. Nothing good has ever come out of giving government agencies this kind of power and this kind of mandate.

How the hell did you manage this. Honestly what's your secret. I need to make sure my kids turn out this way.

I want tech to augment their lives, not replace them (or destroy them).

You're taking one example and generalizing it. I'm sure someone did something productive with cocaine once too, but that's not generally its outcome. (just a random example that occurs to me, I do not agree with the "War on some drugs" btw it was just an example)

I was 100% convinced my kids won't get these devices until their very late teens, when I saw how my less than 1 year old reacted to the phones my wife and I use. Because his reaction is pure instinct, the dopamine response just to the colors and brightness was shocking.

We now have to work HARD to keep these devices away from him. Part of it, of course, is he observes how much attention we pay them but his eyes definitely light up differently when they are turned on. And that's without the manipulative, 1000-engineers-optimizing-for-your-addiction software built into them.

I honestly find it harder and harder to believe these things do anything positive for us. I 100% believe they can I just think we've turned them into something ugly, right now.

This is how these things always go isn't it? We invent this incredible technology that augments what we do, what we can be, what we can learn, and what we can believe...

and then we turn it into an almost-exclusively advertising tool designed to convert a human being into a money making machine.

It's one of the reasons I'm not enthusiastic about technology anymore. I see what we do with it. Every. Single. Time.

It makes me sad. All the lost potential.

You haven't answered the question and I was interested in the answer too.

What would one or both of these stores need to do, to qualify as 'anti-competitive' to you?

I have a rather large project that is in a stage where asking "where do we host it?" is appropriate.

I was >< this close to choosing Gitlab over Github due to this - I stopped all efforts to make the decision until I saw how this plays out.

Happy to push to Github now.

It's a data point of one, but there you go..

There's now a bulwark between developers and bad actors attempting to use Github and the legal framework against them. It is very probably that outside actual, valid legal justification, what the RIAA tried will never be tried again, thanks to the presence of that fund.

Put a price on that.

Yeah, came here to say that. Wit.ai looks interesting but I won't touch it with a 100ft pole as long as they require Facebook login. Unfortunate they have to promote the walled garden.

But also agree it was offtopic for the Github issue. Keep that focused on the naming and IP issue.

I guess a super obvious question is, why do they do this instead of having a robust antivirus ecosystem?

I mean I guess I already know the answer, "marketing". "Look, macOS doesn't require antivirus!"

Personally I don't want Apple verifying or revoking anything. I bought the computer, it's mine. You don't get to tell me what I can run, period. Inform me, sure, give me links to go learn why you don't want me to run something, sure. Don't prevent me from choosing to do with my machine what I want.