Because the operate in two different parts of the system. One is about our social systems and the other is about our legal systems.
Governments, contracts, civil and criminal litigation should work on a presumption of innocence (even if the bar is lower in civil court, it still exists), and require evidence (often an abundance of it, or so much it removes all shadows of doubt) to enact binding legal outcomes and punishments.
Groups, events and organizations should work on a basis of empathy and freedom of association. People generally don't want to associate with predators, abusers, and fascists (though the reactions of many commentators in hacker communities often make me question that assumption). And so many social systems are designed to filter those people out. And in more emotional settings like friend and support groups, believing victims is a way to exercise our empathy and provide mental and emotional support and healing for them. Which is the purpose of these groups.
>People generally don't want to associate with predators, abusers, and fascists.
Talk about putting the cart before the horse... This is why it is important that people aren't labelled as those things without actual evidence. If you do, then you turn those labels into weapons to be wielded by anyone nasty enough to try. That reduces sympathy for genuine victims.
Online communities are not "support groups". "Believe victims" makes sense, but is completely circular logic: if you call them a victim then you already believe them. "Believe complainants" is what is actually meant, and that also makes no sense: we should not unquestioningly believe all complainants about any alleged wrongdoing.
You basically need people willing to donate lots of their time to read new on a specific subreddit constantly (there is a reason (in a consequentialist sense) mods tend to enforce their opinion on every post, it's cause they spend hours reading every single one already, and the kind of person willing to do that probably has some (obsessive) opinions).
There are some subreddits where you can be a mod and you get pinged and you make decision, and so you can spend your time doing other things and still help, but they are very small. And there are some tools that let you take the "and I get pinged and I make a decision" up to the larger subreddit scale, and tools which make reading new easier to do... these are the tools reddit is going to get rid of / make pay only.
So yea, it's going to be even harder to find some poor schmuck with no life willing to donate a bunch of their free time to create high quality subreddits that comply with the admin's rules (which is actually what a lot of "do whatever you want" mods end up spending most of their time dealing with). And the people they do find are going to have even stronger personal influences on subreddits than the current ones do.
Have you considered that they may have done this in "self defense" to the abuse this aggregator was causing them?
Besides, by your argument, connecting to websites at all is privilege. HN wants the privilege of reading their content (otherwise why not just block their site) without taking any responsibility for it.
I suspect they were aware of it. They didn't rely on it to block bad actors like bots or spammers or ddos-ers, they relied on it to block actors who were at some level implied to follow the social contract of how the internet works (e.g. a website focused at developers).
The actual lesson learned here I think is that certain communities don't have respect for the social contract when it benefits them. Though I suppose you are right, a team of linux users should never have expected a site ran by a venture capitalist firm to respect the social contract.
Depends how it's backed, how static it is, and so on.
The lisp runtime may fit in 20 MB, but not every language's runtime is so compressible. It may be smaller if one used something like C#/.NET where it's reasonable to assume, on windows, that everyone has specific common versions of the runtime laying around.
And then there are things like libraries. How dependent on the state of the OS do you want to be? Do you bring your own copy of SDL, or do you rely on it being installed? Even choice of graphics library can make a big difference, did you use something like DirectX which the OS will have all ready for you (assuming it supports it of course), or do you use something like OpenGL/Vulkan and invariably have to bring your own copies of various things like shader compilers and texture compression libraries.
In this case it's because it packages it's own copy of the JRE (which makes up more than 2/3rds of the contents). Which makes plain the greatest failure of Java, it was never a universal execution environment. Which is why every program ships their own copy of it and users no longer complain about "Update Java" notifications, or dealing with incompatible Java environments.
Custom Java runtimes can be generated using jlink [1] which take a fraction of the space needed for a “full” JRE. I have some applications packaged like this and the Windows installer exe, generated using NSIS, is under 15 MB.
Sure, but then you have to add back all the Java libraries they then used ontop of it. I assume the developer also used a tool like this to cut it down, the issue of bundling the custom Java runtime was never the size, it's that java was never supposed to need to do it this way (not that that is the end user developers fault of course).
Not even a little bit? The comparisons here are quite stark.
Russia's shadow government can just murder important people with no repercussions, they can jail whoever they want, and they commit plenty of warcrimes that are never recorded in such detail as the American ones.
China has internment camps for millions on it's soil as part of a campaign of cultural genocide, and it's government can also just disappear people if it wants to.
America is in no way perfect, or even objectively good or anything like that. But it is relatively better, just a little bit.
I think the interesting question is how they will "compare". If they compare favorably to that key learning, as "this kind of thing, but a better iteration on it" it won't much matter the quantity. As the article points out, it's not about this conflict, it's about the next one.
I think you missed the actual answer. There is a near future sci-fi book called Rainbows End written by a computer science professor 15 years ago (and that predicted a lot of stuff, like... cryptocurrency) that has an answer for this.
What will be the real "VR metaverse" for most consumers is the one that maps to reality. The AR metaverse. Being able to visit people in real life in real locations, virtually: augmented reality. Where the virtual reality part of that is a small extra side bit for the dedicated people.
I agree with this. I'm just saying in my opinion, with our current tech, VR and the Metaverse isn't something to be ignored. AR can definitely be bigger but it's important to remember that thousands of knowledge workers have begun their career never interacting with another person in a workplace.
While there used to always be soft pressure to structure your life in the real world, with work and school online, folks who otherwise would be pressured to interact offline might now find interaction online to be just as fulfilling. Or at least equally fulfilling for things like work while saving quality, offline time for friends.
But none of that looks like an excuse for VR to exist. That generation of remote first, they would be less interested in an hmd-based simulation of a meeting room, not more interested. They want a good camera, to be a better face on a screen, not better screens on their faces.
Of course and they are doing this, there's huge demand for nicer cameras, ring lights, backlights, etc for upcoming streamers and influencers. But this isn't a zero-sum game. It's not like we have to Zoom every hour of our work lives. Startups like Gather Town are predicated on finding a permanent, but not total, place in the future of remote work. If my company pays for a subscription to Minecraft For Work (TM) so that we can have remote tech talks or remote social events on it, then there's value, even if it's only used a couple hours per week by per team at a large company.
This is the exact same proposition that Second Life had, 15 years ago. Cross-continental teams can 'meet' in a shared virtual space and it'll be just like you're there! And after all the hype ... it just wasn't something that people did.
I know there are headsets now, maybe it will go differently. Maybe not.
