![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
![](https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/c47230a8-134c-4dc9-89e8-75c6ea875d36.png)
A minority that probably hates his guts.
How is this relevant to us? The subject here is about the platform’s influence on society, not of Zuckerberg.
A minority that probably hates his guts.
How is this relevant to us? The subject here is about the platform’s influence on society, not of Zuckerberg.
ISIS? Hamas? any number of such organizations would happily use some mass murdering weapons if given access to them. Putin has shown that he doesn’t care about what happens to russian citizens if he can win something out of their suffering so empowering terrorist organizations to harm people, even russians, is not a big price to pay to make his point
i don’t think the nukes are where the drills take place, that would be quite stupid
Yeah, a contributing factor for sure. Just like whatever company produced the pencils used by Einstein was a contributing factor to the theory of relativity. Not a sole factor. No, not a sole factor but a factor. Yes
you’re attributing a state of fact to a cause that has nothing to do with it. I’m not nitpicking, i’m pointing out a fallacy: the effect doesn’t prove the cause, it only works the other way around
what relevance would that have over the time span discussed here?
And no, whatever you read about agile, the development speed comes down to people not to procedure. That’s true even if we disregard the fact that very few companies claiming to use agile actually understand what agile is
The project management approach does not dictate the feature priority. The business dictates the priority. Project management is just a tool
I disagree, this has nothing to do with software development models, It’s all about purpose. If your website must start making money quickly, then you can be sure it will have a payment model regardless of how things are developed. Social media business (and others) translated user growth into investment models: you give us this much money at this “completely made up valuation” and we’ll use it to grow our user-base by this much.
This was possible because interest rates have been very low for the most of the 2010s. This meant that investors would be losing money if they held on to it so they just threw it at “the new tech” hoping something would stick. In the past few years, inflation has driven the interest rates very high and it means that money is not cheap anymore so all these businesses now have to transition to a money making model. That’s all.
haven’t all UI changes in most product made things worse lately? The “2010s generation” of software solutions has been growing up on investment rather than profit for a long time and we’ve experienced a weird decade in which getting users was more important than getting money from them. Now we’re seeing the other side in which squeezing profit form each user is more important than retention. All solutions are getting crappier because they not meant evolved for their intended purpose anymore.
the bible also contains accounts of god helping his people conquer land and uproot the residing population from it. I wouldn’t use it as a moral reference.
In fact, let’s be honest: there is no point in quoting any religious text, regardless of religion, when discussing morality. These texts are horribly dated and should be considered as historically interesting, but nothing more.
What data though? This article doesn’t contain data - that’s my issue. You’re right, it’s not asking fishermen if they think we should eat fish. It’s asking nutritionists if they like fish.
No. I’m saying that “77% of Top …etc” is a stupid way of conveying the importance of the information.
why does anyone care what experts think?!
That’s not what I said at all, is it? I’m simply pointing out that we’re reacting to a poorly written article which plays on our emotional side instead of discussing the actual facts. Yes, scientists doing research in an area believe that their research is going to confirm their hypothesis. That’s how research works. In this case, I’m surprised it’s not 100% to be honest.
The whole premise of the article is stupid. Not global warming, not the fact that we’re heading towards more than 2.5C global warming by 2100, not the people answering the questions. What’s stupid is the idea of “conducting an opinion poll” in that specific group.
I’m in no way a climate change denier and I too believe that the current path leads us there. However, isn’t it normal for 80% of climate scientist actively researching this to think this way? Would they not spend their efforts somewhere else if they would think this isn’t happening?
A survey among mathematicians showed that 80% consider that mathematics has the answer they’re looking for.
We need to discuss hard data and proper research, not surveys.
You’re being hypocritical when you claim that McLaren had an easy choice in refusing Trump’s access when you (as per your claim) know full well how the sport is organized.
you are taking a hypocritical position though. As per your claims, you’re well aware of FIA and Liberty Media’ corruption and money grabbing schemes, but somehow you draw the line at a perfectly innocent event in which McLaren has landed. This is hypocritical
well, if you want to go there, all americans are insurrectionists to the british. The whole world doesn’t have to take part in the specifics of your internal political scene. Sort your own shit up.
then why are you here?
oh, are you mad at that? Are you so mad that you forgot it happened when you claimed it would never happen?
You’re just being childish and unreasonable. You’re probably the type of person who would have claimed McLaren has no business getting involved with politics is they refused to let Biden in.
Again, what happens to him personally or to Facebook as a company is irrelevant when it comes to how our lives are affected. The regulation of social platforms is good for society regardless of the efect regulation has on the owners or the companies owning the platforms.
Your argument is built around the wrong desirable outcome.