> What worries me is that the US itself will go in the same direction. The surveillance is already there, but it is not acted on for the most part in everyday life. But there may be a clock on how long that will last.
The stage is already set. Just make sure your suitcase is packed. The craziness won't come from the government, it'll come from this culture's own inherently fascist tendencies
> Should I not have the freedom to organize a protest of my local theater for hosting a controversial figure that I think is worthy of cancellation? Isn't that a very basic and fundamental example of free speech?
Perhaps it isn't about freedom of speech but centralization of power. Protest all you want, but if you advocate for the centralization of power in government or corporate hands then you shouldn't complain when you can't protest anymore without getting the same treatment Chinese protestors are receiving
> I think this is hard wired to us. We want to be told what reality is by people or groups with clout, people who are cool and have prestige, and we're hard-wired to just believe it.
I don't buy this. It isn't something that comes from a small group of people "with status" but is a collective tradition. The idea that a small group of people "with status" can just willy nilly describe what's "real" and what isn't is a fundamentally undemocratic way of seeing society
The idea that some people have a right to manufacture "reality" out of thin air comes from the same set of lies that propped up the Catholic church. Compare this the idea that each person has a unique relationship with God and doesn't need a priestly class to "mediate" the relationship
If the "social harmony" can't handle the light of day, then it is the one that will need to adjust
Parent is likely referring to Apple's position in the market[1], where their profit - not revenue - alone ( 141b in 2021 ) dwarfs many nations' GDP[2] in the world.
I'm sick to death of seeing these corporations pretending to care about human rights, then doing stuff like this
Or pretending to care about the environment, then forcing people to buy new devices (with packaging) instead of repairing the ones they already own
Or pretending to care about privacy, then scanning local files for "undesirable content" (it doesn't matter what the content is, once the infra is there, it's there to stay)
If there's one thing I've learned, it's that whenever a corporation says something that sounds good, it's probably a lie.
The only thing that will ever force Apple's hand with regard to this human rights issue is legislation, they've lost the right to trust long ago
> I assume this is about Foxconn. Does that mean you'll be boycotting other companies that also work with them, like Amazon, Dell, Google, HP, Intel, Microsoft, Vizio, Acer, Lenovo, Nintendo, and Sony?
It would be easier to just ban them with legislation, similar to what's been done with Huawei
Hah, "unnecessarily abstract" is my middle name :)
I don't really like stack/heap terminology. "Heap" especially is a nightmare because (a) it also means some specific, irrelevant kind of data structure and (b) there's so many ways of implementing allocation it feels wrong to call it "the" anything.
Function variables are deleted after return, allocated stuff isn't - no need to know about stack pointers, etc. It's good enough for me!
But it's really interesting to hear from other programmers who learned things in the historical order. I suppose I come from a new generation where abstractions are first, and I wrote this article for them, really.
But the stack refers to the number of calling functions, stacked upon one another too? This is why its always stack, disregard the structure.. cause its a mirror of the program running, and the usual c program uses functions.
Well, the term is overloaded. C has recursion so an implementation needs something like a call stack, but you don't have to store it in a stack datastructure.
why is it called constant time if it isn't constant with respect to array length? Just seems confusing because the algorithm is linear without a short circuit
It's constant time in that it always takes the same amount of time regardless of the extent to which the two strings are equal. It is a different concept than constant time in complexity analysis.
What's even more confusing is that it is also constant time in the complexity analysis sense given that the mac is usually a fixed-size string after choosing a hashing algorithm.
I don't want to disagree with this kind of article because it's talking about a real issue, but it pretty much takes a couple concrete numbers and tries asserting that they are just "facts of life". For example:
> The percentage decline is also similar for the young and old; however, given how much time young people spend with friends, the absolute decline among Americans age 15 to 19 is staggering.
This "given how much time young people spend with friends" just sounds off to me, like it's supposed to be some sort of constant value, and that human nature, social dynamics, etc are fixed to historical quantities.
On the one hand, should young people spend more time with friends? Probably. But on the other hand, this sort of "facts of life" type of assertion comes off as manipulative
The stage is already set. Just make sure your suitcase is packed. The craziness won't come from the government, it'll come from this culture's own inherently fascist tendencies