> The caveat, though? I very much doubt Google has the capacity to execute this properly.
I don't think it's a capacity issue, it's that their whole entire business is advertising and acquiring the user data to feed it. I don't see any reason they would want to execute on this in a way that is meaningfully beneficial for users.
I suppose, my own caveats for some of the responses suggesting people like being advertised to.
No one is going to adopt some new “sql, but it solves a dumb problem you’ve already solved!” variant to solve a dumb problem they’ve already solved, no matter how many beginners seem to be writing accounting software with no knowledge of all the ways that problem has been solved.
I read some of it as interesting "quick fails" - Apple's BNPL, for instance - I see why they would have tried, and it's interesting that they pivoted relatively quickly out of it.
Some of the text is silly sour grapes, but it always will be with editorial content about tech products.
> someone who is motivated to help with open-source software.
I don’t mean to pile on, but like… are you actually helping if you don’t understand the code you’re fixing, don’t understand the problem you’re addressing, and don’t understand the potential solution you’re submitting for that unknown problem? Or are you just making a lot of distracting noise so you can pat yourself on the back?
I think people need to be a bit more self-critical about what they’re actually up to, and who is actually benefiting from it. Generally, from comments like yours, the answers seem to be “self-aggrandizement” and “no one”, but people really don’t want to think they might be the bad guys.
If you were truly committed to substantive conversation here you would've read the article before posting.
Less than 10% of data centers used closed loop systems and even closed loop requires regular evaporation of the water which builds up into toxic sludge after a few cycles—the biggest concern being the PFAS and the anti-freeze and anti-corrosives they add to the water
> not wield them as retributive tools against our opponents
No, we should apply them equally to Mark Fucking Zuckerberg (which is decidedly not retributive, however much you want to make an emotional appeal) until such time as they are repealed as laws. It’s not really that complicated.
I genuinely care about my friend. He's really into bee-keeping. I don't care at all about bees. But he cares about it, so I ask questions because I care about him. I have now learned enough about his bee-keeping to be legitimately interested in whether, say, his bees survived the winter or to be upset with him that an invading swarm killed them.
The simple answer to your question, I think, is that you probably can't "make yourself" care about a specific thing at the drop of the hat. But if you care deeply about other things, especially tangential things, it's relatively easy to learn to care about new things you learn about.
Without doubting anything about your intent, I feel like I am the guy who shows interest in other people, but other people show very little interest in me. Frequently, I am listening to someone talk about someone they care about, and I attentively listen, and try to ask friendly, encouraging questions. At some point, my mind begins to think: "Can I just replace myself with a cardboard cut-out and will they keep talking about themselves?" Sadly, I think the answer is yes. I don't know what to do about it.
Giving someone, as in this thread, a genuine compliment that you mean sincerely isn't "flowery small talk" and it's sort of depressing that you think that it is.
No one in this thread is talking about your example except for you, and it would perhaps do you well to reflect on why you read things that way.
I don't think it's a capacity issue, it's that their whole entire business is advertising and acquiring the user data to feed it. I don't see any reason they would want to execute on this in a way that is meaningfully beneficial for users.
I suppose, my own caveats for some of the responses suggesting people like being advertised to.
reply