I'd argue this is because social media is ironically enough, manipulated less than traditional mass media.
Despite brigading from any side, anyone can get anything trending on social media, including videos of the aftermath of israeli air strikes, meanwhile nothing but filtered news headlines make it out of editors.
A fun exercise is comparing how big news websites frame headlines when Palestinians die (passive voice) and Ukrainian / israelis are killed.
It's not any less manipulated - there are just more parties doing psychological operations and not just established players. In the case of TikTok, China gets to pick and choose which operations are free to run, and likely picks the ones that are more destabilizing to the US.
There are multiple historical examples of public opinion being shaped by propaganda.
If one newspaper can convince the United States to support the Spanish-American War because one of her own warships blew up due to poor maintenance, It's not a stretch to believe a sufficiently well-funded state operation with relatively unfettered control over an entire media application could run a similar opinion shaping operation.
Public opinion is the cornerstone of the US system, but the public can be misinformed at scale.
> There are multiple historical examples of public opinion being shaped by propaganda.
Correct. But (until relatively recently) the proposed solution to deception and propaganda was dismantling them with facts and reason. "Free and open discussion in the public square is critical to a well-functioning society." is one of the foundational principles of our country.
This notion that adults should be protected by deception and propaganda by censorship, rather than frank and open conversation is a distressing resurgence of authoritarianism.
As always, when looking at the machines of control that politicians are assembling, ask what can be done with it by someone who is dedicated not to the protection of their citizens, but rather the suppression or destruction of a section of the citizenry they disfavor. If someone who hates can legally do more harm with the machinery than someone who cares can do good, either ensure that it is built differently, or that it is not built at all.
That's like comparing a Golgi apparatus to Hubble.
If you've never looked into it, you'd do well to learn a bit about what it takes to become an AS and get an ASN. There was a post on the red site a while back about someone doing it on the cheap as a dare for their stupid hobby project.
Yep, people not seeing the usecase have not tried to build a serverless product on AWS and found themselves stuck between cheap, performant but denormalized ddb or whatever the fuck aurora serverless v2 is supposed to be.
I do not want to denormalize my data model, i do not have a high performance usecase, I simply want infrastructure that scales with usage (down to 0) and a flexible normalized model I can build more on top of easily.
DDB is great and all until you're asked to add 3 filters and orderby feature and suddenly you're adding elastic search to your project
and typeof NaN == "number" is also part of the standard, it is valid to pass NaN to functions that accept numbers, and it's expected to propagate or change back to normal numbers (e.g. NaN^0=1)
the website is 90% problems of very stupid implicit type conversion, and 10% valid floating number behavior that exists in other languages too (0.1+0.2, NaN a number)
I agree using plain JS anywhere is not a good idea, but Typescript (or js with ts annotations) is often ignored when it does a very good job of catching most of these issues, while offering a very flexible type system in a more mainstream paradigm
knowing how many people can't take disagreement well, I don't think this was a poor decision, practically you can't just trust everyone to have a good head on their shoulders, when you just want a job to survive or get your foot in the door, you can't be picky with who you work for.
I think the underlying assumption here, is that it is better for your job prospects to agree with something you know is wrong, in order to avoid confrontation.
I don't think this should be the default recommended advice. It could just as well cost you the job, if you are interviewed by two people, with the other also knowing what his or her colleague said was wrong, and being disappointed you didn't find a way of politely disagreeing.
In job interviews, I would count it as a positive if I could see that the candidate could handle disagreement. That is in my view more important than getting a rather generic technical question "correct".
for webdev work, the standard library might not be that fast, but it's fast enough, and if you need even more speed the fasthttp third party Implementation offers good speed: https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/
I think service-changing requests should be passed to a higher level in the chain, to the architects or whatever, changing service contracts can end up changing the domain. I'd assume the architects would have a high level view where they can instruct teams whether to prioritize the requested change, delay it or just veto it completely
you can solve underfetching and overfetching in a normal restful API, you can have optional entity relationship fetching on query/params, and also user defined queries.
This might be hard/tiresome when you're hand writing SQL queries but this is where query builders and ORMs really shine.
IMO I wouldn't reach for graphQL unless I have a lot of entities and a lot of nested relationships (or an actual graph), it can get either very tiresome to add or overly complex or tightly couples your DB layer when you have deeper nested relationships
Despite brigading from any side, anyone can get anything trending on social media, including videos of the aftermath of israeli air strikes, meanwhile nothing but filtered news headlines make it out of editors.
A fun exercise is comparing how big news websites frame headlines when Palestinians die (passive voice) and Ukrainian / israelis are killed.