really depends on the context. if i’m showing off my cosplay, no. If I’m receiving an award and posing for the camera – yeah my looks aren’t relevant.
really depends on the context. if i’m showing off my cosplay, no. If I’m receiving an award and posing for the camera – yeah my looks aren’t relevant.
The most effective thing to do as consumers is to encourage other people not to use google products. The best way to do that is to foment outrage at Google.
Does anyone have a (link to a) good summary of the ruling and rationale?
I find the idea that “Google is the only real choice” kind of odd. There are other perfectly functional and user-friendly search engines. It’s not like other monopolies, say, Youtube, where there’s no realistic alternative. (I’m not denying that search is a monopoly too.)
Wesnoth’s soundtrack is such a classic
“The platform formerly known as Twitter”?
It wouldn’t be so bad if it weren’t the fact that he’s trying to lay claim to 1/26th of the English alphabet
The full title on close parsing doesn’t make sense in xorg context. But “X kills its <unix os> app” initially had my brain trying to figure out what people were running X on mac.
Please call it Twitter in the title unless there’s a good reason not to. I thought this was Xorg.
Which bible is censored?
Edit: legit, why downvote this question?
You are wrong to think that religion is only about fear. The bigger part for the individual IMO is that it provides comfort.
There are many practical uses, and more to be discovered, but I think most of them won’t be user-facing.
the high seas have a comment section?
Earplugs (in case a movie or concert etc. too loud)
Linux boot disk (I saved a friend’s laptop this way once)
keys, phone (gross), credit card, ID, pads
I think it’s more like: the maturest kids and the most immature adults.
As an adult, I have smart outrage over video games.
Ok then it’s a more easy to use GIMP.
Yeah I mean it’s just a more easy to use Photoshop basically.
I agree people need to understand better the privacy risks of social media.
When you put out photos of yourself on the internet you should expect anyone to find them and do whatever they want to them.
Expect, yeah I guess. Doesn’t mean we should tolerate it. I expect murder to happen on a daily basis. People editing images of me on their own devices and keeping that to themself, that’s their business. But if they edit photos of me and proliferate, I think it becomes my business. Fortunately, there are no photos of me on the internet.
Edit: I basically agree with you regarding text content. I’m not sure why I feel different about images of me. Maybe because it’s a fingerprint. I don’t mind so much people editing pictures I post that don’t include my face. Hmm.
This sounds like a cool idea because it is a novel approach, and it appeals to my general heuristic of the inevitability of technology and freedom. However, I don’t think it’s actually a good idea. People are entitled privacy, on this I hope we agree – and I believe this is because of something more fundamental: people are entitled dignity. If you think we’ll reach a point in this lifetime where it will be too commonplace to be a threat to someone’s dignity, I just don’t agree.
Not saying the solution is to ban the technology though.
All good. Yeah I think morality is not really something religion helps with.
YouTube has a network effect monopoly as well. Who would use a competing service?