wyqydsyq's comments

Pretty standard Microsoft strategy really. Once they decide they dominate a market they figure there's no reason to invest another cent into improving their product offering. See also: Internet Explorer

I really do not understand the appeal of Svelte, it seems to be making all the same horrendous mistakes as Vue (bad templating/DSL that shoehorns control flow and bindings into DOM representation, esoteric lifecycle hooks etc) and the only advantage it clearly has over other frameworks that I can see is simple components can generally be written more concisely.

Are there actually any tangible benefits to using it over other frameworks, or is this all just a heap of people getting excited because it's "new and shiny" (compared to React, Angular etc)?

> using electron app for something available as a web service

lol wut

Skype was always garbage software, even long before Microsoft bought it

What I would find really interesting is if someone used this exploit to hack into the accounts of Sakari staff and sabotaged their service, deleting all their infrastructure from their cloud hosting provider etc. I'm sure Sakari would take this security hole more seriously if their own C-suite fell victim to it.

They intentionally created a system which resulted in a user being unintentionally shadow-banned. Creating a shadow-banning system isn't malicious. Creating a shadow-banning system that accidentally shadow-bans legitimate users is pretty obviously more a case of stupidity than malice. Just because they created the system intentionally, doesn't mean unintended behaviours in the system are intentional malice

Do they? I've never even heard it mentioned before other than in reference to controversies around them being dodgy. Maybe it's just not popular in my locale, but I've never heard of anyone using it or recommending it. By contrast I've used Google Maps reviews, and know of other people using it a lot

> I wouldn't be surprised if the business had been able to pay money to Google to be able to check reviews before they went live and mark them as spam.

I would be really surprised, as such a scheme existing without being exposed by now seems highly unlikely, and it would completely undermine the value of Google Maps reviews once everyone knows businesses can freely curate their reviews. Why would you bother looking up reviews for a business if you already knew any legitimate negative ones would be censored out? You wouldn't. Nobody would. Reviews on Google Maps would be discontinued by now if it were ever the case.

> but you don't accidentally shadow-ban someone

Have you considered when the shadow-ban is triggered by an automated moderation system based on heuristics or ML which Google is known to use prolifically across their product range?

> Google has no strong incentive to keep reviews honest

Have you actually thought about this at all? Why on earth would ANYONE bother reading reviews that they know to be categorically fraudulent? Without keeping the reviews honest, at least to a degree that the general public considers them honest and legitimate, Google Maps Reviews becomes worthless and a dead product. Fake reviews are a very real threat to their product's value and Google arguably has very good strong incentives to keep reviews honest so people keep using them.

Yeah I just don't see this being a thing either. If Google allowed businesses to pay to moderate (i.e. censor) their own reviews at their own will then that destroys any legitimacy in the reviews of a business, eliminating any value of Google Maps reviews to the end-customer and killing the product.

How is being recorded by your employer while on their premises giving away your freedom? It would be a different thing if they were tracking you out of work, but when you enter a premises owned by a business you kind of implicitly agree to be surveilled by them, as it is their right and freedom to protect their assets.

The thing is, those tangible benefits are all subjective and immeasurable. There is no way to measurably differentiate between someone feeling good because they're microdosing, or feeling good because they had a nice day, which is why data collected in this study would largely be just noise.

I think that since a strong placebo (e.g. a tripper feeling good as a result of thinking they're going to have some LSD) alone can produce far more profound effects on mood than actually microdosing, all this study really did is reaffirm the placebo effect's efficacy. Any changes that would have been a result of microdosing would be lost in the noise of the placebo effect on top of whatever else was going on in each participant's life at the time.

Because the only things it does tangibly effect are your mood and mental perspective, things that are entirely subjective and do not have concrete metrics that can be used for measurement, especially when comparing that between different subjects.

The only really noticeable effect of microdosing is at the end of the day you might notice you feel it was a really good day and you're happy. The thing is though this isn't distinguishable from someone simply having a good day and feeling happy. The data collected in this study would have essentially been irrelevant noise, based more on the aggregate of day-to-day experiences of the subjects rather than whether or not they received a placebo.

Microdosing inherently is indistinguishable from a placebo effect as far as empirical measurements go. If the participants who received a microdose were able to somehow measure their experience with a different result to those in the control group, then they weren't microdosing, they were actually tripping.

The thing I find hilarious is that microdosing is literally taking a dose so small that you don't actively feel or notice the effects, and this study decided to research to what degree the subjects feel the effects of a dose intended to be unnoticeable. The conclusions this "study" reached could also be arrived at by just reading what microdosing is.

Incredible, who could have ever guessed that taking something in such a small dose that it's effects are imperceptible to the subject would reveal that the effects at such a dose are... imperceptible to the subject?

Can we do a study on whether water is wet or ice is cold next?

Like USA, Australia's politics are dominated by two major parties most people feel compelled to vote for, and even if you do vote for some independent third party, our preferential voting system ends in your votes going towards one of the two major parties when the independent you actually voted for gets "knocked out" anyway. The two major parties nominate whoever they like to lead them, generally their candidates are whoever will obediently follow the party line and be a good patsy.

So similarly to the USA, every election cycle is a meaningless facade where we pretend we still live in a democracy and that we have any control at all over who our "elected" leaders are. I'm sure the majority of Americans don't want Biden as their leader, but they're stuck with him because ultimately the two major parties gave the voters two bad choices. Oh you wanted a national leader who wasn't an out-of-touch old white man beholden to the desires of his lobbyist benefactors? Well bad luck, because your only two choices are out-of-touch old white men beholden to the desires of their lobbyist benefactors.

You can do it with Node as well, this works: #!/usr/bin/env node

But similarly to with Python, it still requires you have the runtime installed along with any packages your thing depends on

Except you can bake apps into a single stand-alone binary executable for both Node.JS[1] and Python[2]

[1] https://www.npmjs.com/package/pkg [2] https://github.com/marcelotduarte/cx_Freeze

I always thought Apple's slogan was hilarious because I basically interpreted it with emphasis on the "just". It just works. Like, only barely passes the bar for what could be considered working, only just.