51–60 of 67 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> why die on this hill Because when the orange one is gone, people will remember what a supremely supine bastard you were, and now you're no longer protected, will punish you hard.
Yeah, well, Google under Sundar hasn't exactly been full of bold stances.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's exactly what every executive order is: it's what the federal government uses. It's not binding for anyone else. It doesn't have the power of law. Google is under absolutely no obligation to do this. They do it explicitly to appease Trump.
> They do it explicitly to appease Trump Well, actually, no. The EO changes the official name of the geographical feature as recognized by the US government. All the large map providers ingest a data feed from the USG (and other governments for other localizations) which names various geographical and place entities. That data goes through a pipeline (basically a CI pipeline) to build the map artifact and tiles serve…
> The USGS will get there in god-knows-when.
> The article itself even acknowledges that the USGS GNIS database has already been updated to reflect the change.
Yes, both USGS and the Department of the Interior's executive leadership have been replaced by this Administration with Trump lackeys who fell over themselves to boast in a memo just how quickly they'd made the change.
> Mapquest has said they’re not going to update the name, which presumably means their pipeline is old and creaky.
No, it means no such thing.
What I want to call this administration is unfortunately against the site rules
> What I want to call If you express something, it should have a constructive purpose. Sheerly reactive curses rarely fit in that. Edit: Again, repeating what already written here: The disagreeing part better formulate an argument. This post is consistent with the message: because again, silent disagreement is very much not constructive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google isn't a branch of the government, they can call the lake whatever they want. It's a decision to comply that quickly and cravenly, presumably because Trump is vindictive, why die on this hill.
> why die on this hill Because when the orange one is gone, people will remember what a supremely supine bastard you were, and now you're no longer protected, will punish you hard.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> why die on this hill Because when the orange one is gone, people will remember what a supremely supine bastard you were, and now you're no longer protected, will punish you hard.
When it’s renamed back they will likely rename it just as quickly again. Their job is to provide a map with the correct names based on whatever governments name places… not to make passive aggressive political statements of omission.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You would be naive to expect anything else. Corporations only exist to make profit. They will never take an action that risks that. Some people, for some inexplicable reason, believe that companies like Google who often voice support for left wing politics do that for any other reason than that it's profitable. Google relies on (corrupt) collaboration with the US government so they will never disobey their orders to…
> Corporations only exist to make profit. They will never take an action that risks that. This is absolutely 100% an action (one among many over the years) that guarantees I (for one) will never give Google another thin dime of my money for any reason if there's any way I can avoid it. Permanently lost profit from at least this one user (who was at one time in the past a huge Google fanboi)...
You can make too much of this. Countries regularly have different names for foreign or shared places. The "English Channel" is "La Manche", Cologne is Köln. Like the English language, it's pretty much down to "that's what I call it". If people continue to call it "Lake Ontario" that's what it will be.
That is not the point. Are you trying to minimize the phenomenon and cause and root? The point is, the actions taken by the appointed, what they reveal, the reactions from other parts, what they reveal, what will come next. The disagreeing part better formulate an argument.