the geopolitical takes on this website are something else man. I would say don't bother, but letting this type of rhetoric go would also be unfortunate
Yeah, there are a lot of similar bad takes everywhere, not just on this website. This particular one seems to be reasonably common in finance type spaces. I think it presuposes a "correct" outcome to the war and then just tries to take shortcuts to that outcome despite that outcome not being desireable for the parties that get a vote. Its especially frustrating when it ignores the instability of the outcome, which is true in this case. After all both sides have already demonstrated a willingness to fight to try to change the outcome.
Is it? A lot of software is really just a pile of context-specific database front-ends. There is virtually nothing difficult in the implementation itself. Most businesses in this space survive because they know how to dress up their pile of CRUD for their customers. And it gets worse: a less reliable, buggier product may still be the better fit for a customer if it works well enough for what they use it the most.
It wouldn't be a stretch but only it the rest of the investigation didn't happen and we knew absolutely nothing else about Cambridge Analytica or Facebook. As that is not the reality we live in, you could read more about the case or not let you biases show so clearly.
Oh quit clutching your pearls, he was perfectly civil.
You're the one trying to downplay things we know weren't at all covered in full by these emails (and we've known that for quite a long time). And know about them since you're downplaying them in other comments in this thread (things like exploring the quizz apps and how Facebook knew CA had exploited the API since 2015, how CA initially said the data was for academic purposes, etc).
The latter part of your comment ("how far should we go, the invention of the printing press?") shows me you're not only crying about being corrected but being disingenuous to push a narrative based on lies. Since you're doubling down and running cover for Facebook/CA/Trump's campaign all over the thread it suggests there's more than plain stupidity and dishonesty as motives.
>Oh quit clutching your pearls, he was perfectly civil.
I'm not criticizing him for not being "civil", I'm criticizing him for criticizing me for a failing that he himself is committing.
>You're the one trying to downplay things we know weren't at all covered in full by these emails (and we've known that for quite a long time). And know about them since you're downplaying them in other comments in this thread (things like exploring the quizz apps and how Facebook knew CA had exploited the API since 2015, how CA initially said the data was for academic purposes, etc).
>The latter part of your comment ("how far should we go, the invention of the printing press?") shows me you're not only crying about being corrected but being disingenuous to push a narrative based on lies. Since you're doubling down and running cover for Facebook/CA/Trump's campaign all over the thread it suggests there's more than plain stupidity and dishonesty as motives.
You can't seem to distinguish between me questioning the importance/implication of this email with me "downplaying" facebook or cambridge analytica's ill deeds, and unlike the parent commenter, are not being civil. I think most people got the first part, otherwise they would replied with "yeah, but facebook and cambridge analytica is still evil/destroys democracy because of all the other things we know".
> I optimistically expect to witness the advent of a global 'panacea' in my lifetime thanks to AI's efforts
this is a religious belief, maybe you should stop to really examine that (because it might be unintentionally so), but just know that it is obvious to anyone reading these words (anyone who is not mesmerized by technology)
reply