So everyone back to Digg?

https://theoatmeal.com/pl/stat...

Valve Steam Decks. Linux games galore. This year will be the Year of the Linux Desktop!!

It's the other way around. Youtube as well as other social media only take your subscriptions as a suggestion and will promote all kinds of videos. So yes, you are being told what to think on social media. And you have been since the beginning if you ever used it.

And for the longest time, social media has promoted content that turns out to be very toxic. Because lots of people watch it and keep watching it. Humans are fairly easy to manipulate into watching something. You can't look away from a car crash. So dramatic, "world is going to end because of conspiracy X" stuff works very well on social media.

Fortnite runs on Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Xbox, Sony Playstation and Nintendo Switch. And if you really want to play it on mobile, you can get a cheap Android phone. Why you would want to play this particular game on a phone, I don't know.

Why would you become so outraged, only because you want to play it on the iPhone? And aren't there workarounds like Stadia?

This feels fake to me.

* They are seen amongst leftists as an important ally for internationalism, and leftists would shudder and fear the idea of a company like Google that was NOT an active ally for internationalism.*

Citation needed. Suddenly, because it fits your narrative, mega corporations are "leftist"?

Please don't generalize on what you believe people you don't like think. That's disgusting. Say what you believe and ask.

Facebook's and Google's business model is advertising. If you look for something, they will show you relevant ads. And they can show you ads, because you use their platform. Gathering large amounts of data about people is an added benefit, through with they can target their audience a bit better. It is debatable by how much. They are monopolies anyways. Almost all online advertising dollars pass through them.

Facebook can still analyze every single click you do on their site, no matter what Apple does. Even if Apple was to restrict all access to data. That Zuckerberg would make a big deal out of this at all is a bit weird. And thus also disconcerting to me. What am I missing here?

Microsoft is a bit distinct here, as they are also gathering large amounts of data about you. Microsoft Windows (as a service) has essentially become free, if you ever bought a license years ago. Just like Facebook is free to use.

Nobody ever heard of "viral marketing"? Why shouldn't it work for stocks? Who are the fools here really, when the Ponzi scheme blows up and the stock price drops below 10 Dollars? This is not big vs small. Wall Street always wins. One hedge fund isn't Wall Street and can go bust for a number of reasons.

This is not to say this isn't fun and maybe it serves to teach a lot of people about the financial markets. But don't be fooled into thinking there is a "good" vs "bad" side here and that there aren't large players involved and earning money atm.

Option trading was invented to serve as a protection against volatile markets. Not for betting. Thus I do enjoy it, when a casino fund loses money short selling something.

This will never take off, if everyone does their own. Berners-Lee should have done his research and just joined an existing project instead of starting his own. Hubzilla, for example.

Don't tell me those naive idiots thought they could just ignore the TOS of their hosting services forever.

Parlor's apparent goal was to get shut down and feed the false narrative that conservatives in the US get censored, which is part of a larger narrative that in the US, WASPs are an embattled and victimized group. Think "war on christmas" as in "war on WASPs. This is a very dangerous narrative, because making people believe they are being threatened makes them lash out and justify abhorrent behavior in many ways. Like voting for someone that makes it clear he wants to remove democracy and become a dictator. Or even helping him physically removing the legitimate government.

> They may not be bred to design processors but humans are not all raised and educated identically. It just happens that the average white male has a better education then the average black female.

I answered to a comment saying "Evolutionary development is a well established fact." What does education have to do with evolution?

> Evolutionary development is a well established fact.

Call me, when someone starts breeding humans to design processors. Until then, why don't you keep your racism to yourself, huh?

> "A 2010 study identified more than 30 genetic factors that make Tibetans' bodies well-suited for high altitudes, including EPAS1, referred to as the "super-athlete gene" that regulates the body's production of hemoglobin,[8] allowing for greater efficiency in the use of oxygen.[9][10]"

Intel engineers evolved over generations to design better provessors like Tibetans?? WTF?!? What is this shit?

> Some traits that express themselves differently (based on biological role that has evolved over the course of millions of years) between genders and sub-species groups will lend themselves to be better or worse than other traits at some professions. There is nothing wrong with that. We are all different and unique. This used to be viewed as the beauty in humanity, the incredible diversity.

Saying one race is better suited for one task than the other is biologically incorrect and, because it has no foundation in science and tries to explain away sociological differences with pseudo-science also commonly known as racism. I am shocked that such a blatantly racist comment would garner points on Slashdot. Different skin colors do not lead to different races. And humans aren't millions of years old.

Furthermore, when it comes to genders, we still have very little understanding what characteristics manifest themselves through cultural influences, e.g. stereotyping, and which through genetics. What we do know is that babies are treated different by their parents subconsciously. For example girls are picked up more often than boys, when they cry. You don't need all parents to subconsciously make a difference between girls and boys to see a statistical difference.

On top of that, we still have a limited understanding of intelligence and what is necessary to "design a microchip", as a lot of wildly different skills is needed in the modern, professional world.

IOW: Even the sexist shit in this comment is entirely based on pseudo science. The biological and sociological equivalent of "Microsoft is better than Linux". I can see the whole board of directors nodding impressed at this statement just like I can imagine the cheeto stained incel fingers that wrote this bullshit and then gave it karma.

> Just like some horses are fantastic racers,

At this point, I have to ask, if this comment is serious or satire. This comparison of humans to horse races.

> some cultures have focused on, and selected individuals based on criteria that others haven't. No big deal.

Some cultures are more racist or more paternalistic than others. It can be a big deal to those that aren't in the privileged class.

> The free market will guide each person to their natural path.

Tell that to slaves. ROFL.

> Why should we look at chip designers differently? They are predominantly male because... well men have thinking styles and traits that are probably better suited to that kind of work.

There is zero evidence in science for that. We don't even know what "thinking styles and traits" are suited for that kind of work. But hey. Rich people are white and male, because genes, nothing wrong with that. If you are born to poor Indians, it's your own fault. Free market!! The bullshit gets more and more dense the further this drivel continues.

> Honestly this bullshit is exhausting.

The amount of projection in this comment has exceeded save levels. Abort.

We are seeing a massive shift to the cloud. Many cloud applications are accessed through the browser, which becomes the "real" operating system. And the browser doesn't care if you are running it on Linux, Mac or Windows. The only reason Linux is successful "on the desktop" is because it isn't used for the desktop. A Chromebook is just a browser. Success for the Chromebook doesn't mean people suddenly start developing their applications for a Linux desktop or that people are using Gnome or KDE, LibreOffice and Gimp.

It just means they use Office 365, Salesforce and GMail and their organizationhas realized that they don't need desktop functions for all of their workforce and it makes sense to move some of them to Chromebooks or something similar.

The desktop is dying. That's all.