461–470 of 562 posts
Is there any alternative where my invitees don't have to "download" any software? It should work out-of-the-box in most browsers, including on mobile.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I the only one who finds Zoom more difficult to use than Google Meet? I am not a regular user of Zoom, and do not want to install the app on my computer, but Zoom apparently requires the meeting organizer to go into their settings and enable a "Join from your browser" link for participants [0]. This is quite user unfriendly, and if I have to watch some seminar on Zoom I can't be asking the organizer to enable this…
I think you are right that Google Meet in general is easier to use. However, I think that's at least in part because Zoom is so full of options. I mostly realize this when playing games via Zoom with friends. "your laptop that has no video on is making it so that we cannot see you iPad's video!" - "just turn on 'hide non-video participants'". "you need to get closer together or move the iPad further away because the…
I’m glad Zoom is forcing Google Meet to innovate, though.
I wonder if we'll hear the "they're a private company, they can do what they want, it is only censorship if the government does it" routine. I remember about a decade ago when certain parties were so concerned with voices being silenced and "erasure." The same people are now cheering when Facebook, Twitter, and the like shut down certain kinds of speech, with great discretion as to how the "rules" are implemented. Th…
How do you know they are the same people?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't make your arguments this way on HN. It poisons the community and evokes worse from others. Worst of all, if you're right, i.e. if you're in possession of some truth that others don't know, you end up discrediting the truth by mixing it in with personal attacks, calling names, or other aggressiveness. That phenomenon gets stronger the less-known the truth is, because people will more readily look for reas…
Your policy isn't working. It's letting open-and-shut misinformation like this, the outright denial of the existence of a well-known field of research going back decades, go unchallenged. That's Creationism-level intellectual malpractice. You may succeed in making HN more polite — or, more likely, rude in a more subtle way, like Winston Churchill — but if you do it by reducing it to an echo chamber of vulgar misconce…
I wouldn't ask anyone else but is that some sort of base 3 exponential backoff mechanism?
I wonder if we'll hear the "they're a private company, they can do what they want, it is only censorship if the government does it" routine. I remember about a decade ago when certain parties were so concerned with voices being silenced and "erasure." The same people are now cheering when Facebook, Twitter, and the like shut down certain kinds of speech, with great discretion as to how the "rules" are implemented. Th…
Article has been updated with a statement from Zoom: > Update: A Zoom spokesperson confirmed to Axios that the account had been closed "to comply with local law" and said it had now been re-activated. > “Just like any global company, we must comply with applicable laws in the jurisdictions where we operate. When a meeting is held across different countries, the participants within those countries are required to comp…
It's time for western companies to stop pretending it's possible to be economically successful in China whilst remaining true to their purported western values.
The issue is of course that none of the big corporates give a rat's ass about any these "western values".
Why doesn’t the US just pass a countervailing law against censorship? When China tells a company to censor its employees or users, the company could just point to the US law saying it can’t. Then China has no leverage over it because the company’s hands are tied.
I also don't think US laws applies in China, so if a company wants to do business in China, it has to follow Chinese regulations. Just like a company doing business in the US having the follow US regulations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please don't make your arguments this way on HN. It poisons the community and evokes worse from others. Worst of all, if you're right, i.e. if you're in possession of some truth that others don't know, you end up discrediting the truth by mixing it in with personal attacks, calling names, or other aggressiveness. That phenomenon gets stronger the less-known the truth is, because people will more readily look for reas…
Your policy isn't working. It's letting open-and-shut misinformation like this, the outright denial of the existence of a well-known field of research going back decades, go unchallenged. That's Creationism-level intellectual malpractice. You may succeed in making HN more polite — or, more likely, rude in a more subtle way, like Winston Churchill — but if you do it by reducing it to an echo chamber of vulgar misconce…
You've been at this longer than I have, so I don't feel like I have much to offer by way of insight, but let me try one thing. Any large, open internet forum has a serious upper bound, a cap on how good it can ever get. Misinformation and ignorance float in like open sewage. There's nothing we can do about that. It's frustrating. Actually it's crazy-making, because the more we all do to improve the community and make it better, the more it invites an influx of sewage, because sewage-spewers always want to spew in the highest-quality environment they can find, and there are zero barriers to entry here. (Lest I hurt anyone else's feelings, I should add that I'm not calling the other commenter a sewage-spewer, even if he may be wrong about the tradeoff between security and usability. Rather, this phenomenon is best described in the general case.)
Given that there's zero we can do to prevent this, the only agency we have is around how to react to it. There, I think we've learned something. Misinformation is not best combated by attacking the misinformed. One of my teachers once told me: "I did a Ph.D. in psychology, and here is what I learned from my Ph.D.: that punishment is not good for learning." Rather, misinformation is best combated by relating with the misinformed person while correcting the misinformation. How do you relate with a misinformed person? That's up for grabs. I don't think we've learned any formulas for that; the only thing I feel pretty sure of is that it can't be faked. Clearly, though, "you're full of shit" is not the way to get there.
Attacking the misinformed person puts their nervous system into flight-or-fight mode, which on the internet reduces to fight-mode. Worse, it fires a polarizing laser into the community, because while some readers will agree, others will be on the opposite side of the question, and still others will be neutral on the question itself but will freak out in response to the attack. Attack invites counterattack, and what gets lost in this process is the open state in which people are available for new information. Fight mode is like a muscle spasm, while receptivity requires relaxation.
The model underlying how we moderate HN doesn't have to do with politeness. I agree that enforcing politeness does not improve epistemic functioning; it just creates a fear of breaking the rules, and fear is a shut-down state. Meanwhile in other people it provokes a 'wtf? fuck politeness' reaction—and quite rightly.
The policy here isn't about politeness—nor 'civility', which is a word we stopped using a year or two ago for similar reasons. If I had to pick a word as of right now, I might pick 'openness'. We're interested in what practices of behavior are the ones that can encourage each other to stay in an open state—that is, a state in which we're able to hear each other and exchange interesting information.
The bottom line is that any large internet forum is going to be an 'echo chamber of vulgar misconceptions'—any attempt to prevent that is doomed—but we have the opportunity to be a somewhat interesting echo chamber of vulgar misconceptions, that is, a community which is able to respond interestingly, and the way to have that is to practice openness and the things which encourage openness in others.
https://techcrunch.com/2020/03/31/zoom-at-your-own-risk/ - this article contains facts and easily explain why using Zoom isn't secure, send it to your friends/coworkers/non-tech people/etc.
I wonder if we'll hear the "they're a private company, they can do what they want, it is only censorship if the government does it" routine. I remember about a decade ago when certain parties were so concerned with voices being silenced and "erasure." The same people are now cheering when Facebook, Twitter, and the like shut down certain kinds of speech, with great discretion as to how the "rules" are implemented. Th…
This xkcd comic didn't age well: https://xkcd.com/1357/ . Liberals used to cheerfully link to this whenever a conservative was deplatformed. I don't think they'll trot out this xkcd anymore when their favored people are being censored.
But then again, Americans are always conflating the principe of free speech with your first amendment.
Exluding private companies from free speech discussions has no real use when they have monopolies or oligopolies, and your websites keep getting shit down because people are complaining to your ISP about content, or when payment services such as Visa and Mastercard refuse to do business with you.