bepotts

They do and I will give them props for that. But no company should have as much control over open source that Microsoft does.

I think people are "okay" with Microsoft because so many hackers have a problem with the data agglomeration and monetization strategy of Google and Facebook, but this Microsoft "embrace" will come to a head within the next couple years and I just can't wait for it.

The way people think Microsoft's embrace of open source, GitHub, and now NPM is genuine is completely ridiculous. Microsoft had to change because much of where the action was is on *nix systems. Microsoft will start to use these companies to make developers embrace Microsoft services. It's only a matter of time.

Gotta respect how Microsoft couldn't build anything the open source community wanted to work with/on so instead they used their Windows and Office monopoly to buy everyone's favorite playgrounds.

Americans don't believe the onus is on the whole to make sure the individual lives a happy life. We just don't have the collectivist culture the Europeans have. I think this is a great thing, and is why America is where most of the innovation, cultural, and political power is.

I personally have lower taxes, high quality healthcare, and live in an awesome location, and I got all of that through an education and training. That is available to almost every American if they just put in the work.

That, to me, is not just a great thing but the morally right thing. Apply yourself and make a better future for you and your family.

To the people responding to me with the most predictable lines: poverty exists in Europe; so does homelessness; as does food insecurity. Please don't tell me that Europe is some great place where poverty doesn't exist and everyone is living great lives.

It is also possible to be sympathetic toward the most needy while not supporting collectivism. You know what the poor need most? A marketable skill. A good job. Support programs that give people the skills they need in order to compete in a globalized market. It's funny how collectivists never push that though, and instead push for more collectivism.

I agree, but the problem is that people who hate "tracking" use the same terminology. You see them all over Hacker News.

To say "privacy advocates" are disingenuous is a huge understatement.

All that stuff is private and is never disclosed to anyone without a court order; or at least that is supposed to be how it works.

Yellowpages told the public. That is the point.

I can't remember who said it, but someone once compared the outrage over how tech companies use data to Yellowpages. There used to be this free book that had everyone's name, address, and phone number and the only way to opt out was to pay. This is much more egregious act than Google and Facebook; the only difference is the scale.

At least Google and Facebook only take what you give them.

Sure. I'd agree that futurists need room to think and invent the future; but VR, Blockchain, and Cryptocurrencies are not the Model T.

If the past two years have shown me anything, it's that people are becoming skeptical of the technologist mantra that "technology will make people's lives better." Not always; and with Apple introducing Screen Time and people trying to figure out how to "break" from their cell phone and social media usage, I think anybody who believes that the mass market wants to live in some VR simulation is tone deaf.

Maybe AR will never be like Minority Report, but I think if AR could get to a point where no goggles are needed, or if the equipment is light enough to not be a burden to the user (unlike VR headsets), then I think AR will be much bigger than VR. The average user just don't want that crap on their face and they don't want to live in a simulation like so many in the Bay Area would like to believe.

When people talk about the Bay Area/Silicon Valley monoculture/hivemind, I immediately think of VR enthusiasts. I'd also throw cryptocurrencies and blockchain enthusiasts into this category as well. Both of those technologies solved "problems" that the general population wouldn't agree to being problems in the first place.

Because I want GitHub to be agnostic and not pushing me towards anything?

This was always one of the core worries about GitHub and Microsoft. Microsoft will not leave GitHub alone. It's too important to developers, and no matter how much they say "we won't touch GitHub", nobody (rightfully) will believe them.