Yea when you start like that we don’t read past the first line. So sad the next post on this was actually written well and focused on the issues. The way you started makes me glade your out because I can really see you stand for freedom of thought.
I have thought about this more and it really angers me. You need to learn what the term thought police means. I in no way called for its removal, asked it to moderated by others, I think so many people blame things they don’t agree with using terms they don’t truly understand and I am done with it.
Pointing out you disagree with someone’s tactic, or you personally disengage because of how it’s written is in no way thought police. Thought police is when I tell you what your allowed to think and try to force you into my ideas. I have zero interest in policing your thoughts I do have interest in seeing content that welcomes conversation which should be the point of HN but again I reminded if you don’t think like is your thoughts are not welcome here.
I didn’t police anyone’s thoughts I highlighted the stupidity of offending 50 percent of the population in your opening lines. I don’t care which side your on, it’s a poor way to get people to listen. I welcome his tactic as and believe it totally distracts from a important conversation.
Some people really don't like Trump, myself included. Some people find opportunity to stick it to him - so what? I find it funny that a man who so values his notoriety is then defended for his notoriety by those same people who value that man. There are so many walking contradictions in folks who "admire" Trump.
I pointed out if you want to have a real conversation on value that you don’t start by offending 50 percent of the population. Somehow you took I support trump out of that …
I think it's interesting how they use Fox News in the title, not News Corp. Sadly the makes it clear this is a agenda article not really about the people. The statement is made that the funds raised should goto the Australia citizens and not the news producers who's content is being used by big tech without compensation. While the law maybe bad it's not made clear by the anti "Fox News" agenda of the author, sadly this is what most news has come to not reporting but reporter agenda pieces.
Quick update, it's also very clear why ABC was left out from Wikipedia "The Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) is Australia's national broadcaster, founded in 1929. It is principally funded by the direct grants from the Australian government and is administered by a board appointed by the government of the day"
This is a blog post by one writer. It's not reflective of what "most news" is about any more than any random blog post is, i.e., not representative at all.
Google for Australia google news tax, and click news to see actual news sites, and not one in the first several pages (actually, I can find exactly zero) have a title like the one you complain is "what most news has come to".
Are to cite any real news (as in a major news publication) source as an example of your claimed bias? I can't find any.
>I think it's interesting how they use Fox News in the title, not News Corp. Sadly the makes it clear this is a agenda article not really about the people. The statement is made that the funds raised should goto the Australia citizens and not the news producers who's content is being used by big tech without compensation. While the law maybe bad it's not made clear by the anti "Fox News" agenda of the author, sadly this is what most news has come to not reporting but reporter agenda pieces.
I think it is perfectly valid to call out Fox News in the title, because most readers would not know who News Corp is but do know Fox News, and for the intents of this article they are very similar.
Moreover the reason why this is called in particularly the Fox News tax is because News Corp are the main beneficiary by quite a margin, they have >50% market share in Australia [1].
Furthermore Murdoch has a strong history of influencing Australian politics in his favour and the ruling liberal party has a history of implementing policy directly to benefit him.
The National Broadband Network was widely popular in Australia, however it threatened Murdoch's payTV business. So he had meetings with liberal party leadership, who promised to hamstring (or roll-back) the NBN. They were essentially voted into power with headlines of "vote these suckers out" (Labour was in power) and similar in all Murdoch papers and no none of the "left-leaning" papers ever did something remotely close to that. As a non-Australian it was quite shocking to observe how blatantly partisan those headlines were.
News corp is not media it is a far-right billionaire propaganda organisation.
What are you going to do if your life partner wanted to stay home with the kids and found value in that? Sorry but you have just insulted any stay at home mom, which is shameful.
I don't see the insult. It seems to me they would support the decision to stay home, but their partner clearly prefers to work.
I'm in a situation right now in which only I am working and my wife's at home with the kid. This is for visa reasons (H-4). My wife's self-esteem has plummeted because of this situation. She indeed complains it is extremely boring to stay home all the time. I completely support her desire to get back to the workforce, and I really look forward to the added benefit of our combined income.
Please explain your logic? As a user of uber the experience is so much better then a cab. If a driver does not perform to very high standard they are cut out of the system with customer reviews.
For the drivers I talk to ( 6x trips a week) they love the flexility and money. The only reason your hearing anything is taxi shields are a scam. They are now a commodity that is "rented" while the companies sit there and trap the drivers with high rental fees.
Sure it's not perfect but I feel safer in a Uber car then a cab. They usually drive better, there is a lot of who's car I got in, where I was picked up, when the ride started, and where it ended. In a cab you have none of these.
i'm not sure how we disagree. my point was to GP - that making uber hire all of the drivers wouldn't benefit the drivers, the customers, or uber. it would benefit the cab unions though.
Before you start to complain, I am a fan of collaboration but Devops might just be the best joke ever! The truth is it means something different to every person. For years I have defined Devops as Engineers trying get Ops out of the way and pushing forward with out those pesky sys admins. Your think I am over blowing it? I have been in the Silicon Valley for the boom of Devops and I hear it all the time “We dont need ops, we can just have a developer do it”. The number of new startups who use AWS thus allowing them to forgo a system administrator never ceases to amaze me. My biggest problem with this is your cutting the legs out from yourself, but your assuring me job security so maybe I should keep my mouth shut.
I have been a a operations engineer for over ten years now, and honestly developers and ops engineers have different ways of functioning. To me a good software engineer has long term focus, can get deep into a project and crunch on the same code for extended durations. Give a good coder a project that will take weeks or even months and they will put there head down and solve your problem. As a generalization these people do not handle interrupt driven work well, they also often do not handle high pressure situations well.
Operations people on the other hand do the majority of their work under massive interruption and constant pressure. Tell a operations engineer the site is down and they will not focus on what the origin of the problem is, they will focus on getting the product back online and come back to fully understand why. This does not mean they do not troubleshoot but they are trying to identify the immediate cause not the who or root. One might argue this is short sited but when your stuck waiting for someone to figure out why the web severs where started your killing your customer experience. I would argue restart the web pool get the product back online and then start to look at root cause once you have identified the customer impact problem and completed the shortest path solution.
When you start off by having your engineers run operations you never allow new ops people to start from ground up and develop their skills, learning the pain points as the system grows thus ensuring when you grow to the point that you need a operations engineer the is a shortage of trained people available. One might argue that some of the developers that started the company by running operations will become your operations engineers and will cover this but to me thats like using a vice grips to remove a bolt.
