the younger millennials don't remember a Microsoft that, at one point, considered Linux to be a disease.
they were actively trying to kill the open source movement. they weren't merely ignoring it or being polite. they were going all in for making it die.
makes it a little hard to trust the new Microsoft. you're always suspecting they'll go back to their old ways.
@thor if they’re interested, since this was more of a foss/online event, you can find a lot of it online. And eventually, you are going to if you ever have an interest in the whole open source thing. Just as this post is going to maybe spill this to some that did not know of it.
And the new Google, Meta, Amazon, Twitter, Reddit, etc.
When companies reach a certain size, they become unstable by nature.
@amerika we thought the battle would be about desktop computers
then we thought it would be about Internet access
we had no idea it would be about our daily lives
@amerika "computer dating" used to be considered a bit weird - now Tinder is mainstream - it's a different world
Back when you had to dial up with a modem to exchange 215px pictures, yes, it was probably a bit weird.
Mobile computing is... different. Nothing has to work well.
@amerika i mean, they used to have dating services where people shot a video of themselves with a camcorder, sent in a VHS tape, and then they'd edit together a bunch of those and send out a cassette. can you imagine the cumbersomeness? so there have been weirder things, lol.
@amerika as i understand it, the original concept for YouTube was actually similar to that. they wanted to make a video dating site, but the idea was changed up.
Back then, it was for desperate people. Real people met IRL.
Now, no one goes out in IRL except with people they know, and casual meetings are rare.
So online is viewed as "safer" somehow, although it's all an illusion.
It was sort of assumed in science fiction, but seemed improbable. After all, without a keyboard, computing seems impossible.
The answer was always to dumb it down and turn it into television.
The Microsoft and AT&T antitrust actions probably crippled American anti-competitive law for good because the results were so botched.
All they did was give companies a finer roadmap for how they could violate the spirit of the rules without breaking the rules themselves.
@amerika American anti-trust law is basically dead now. at one point, i suspect they would've happily broken up Facebook and Amazon, but no chance of that happening now.
Or Google, the big target. The problem is always how do you fix things? Break Google into smaller companies, like with AT&T, or change their business practices by order, like with Microsoft?
European antitrust investigators are going after them.
To be fair, in many ways they have a lot more legal basis to do so...
@amerika Europe can't break it up, so it has taken the regulation route. same with Facebook. they don't like it, but Europe's too financially lucrative to ignore or pull out of.
@amerika what Europe lacks in military power it makes up for in trade/regulation power. you can't ignore what the EU does.
@amerika as with any large central government (see US federal government), some of the decisions they take are a bit brain dead.
but on the other hand, it helps with certain things, such as making the law more predictable across the continent, facilitating trade, forcing backwards members into adopting more modern laws, etc.
@amerika there is generally more popular support for the EU in countries that face issues with their economies and development. lots of aid money awaits poor countries that manage to adapt to the requirements for joining the EU.
I liked the EU best as a trading bloc, less so as a giant bureaucracy that seems to seek to obliterate national differences. But that is an outsider's view from far away.
@amerika i like to compare how Europeans sometimes feel about the "bureaucrats in Brussels" to how Americans sometimes feel about Washington D.C.
@amerika they're a bit removed from the situation on the ground, they're not from our parts, and seem a bit out of touch at times, which i think is similar to what i've heard Americans say about the federal government.
@amerika but at the moment, with the situation in Russia, it helps a bit that the EU is more than just a trading bloc.
also, with America being less and less keen to foot the bill for NATO, a pan-European defence alliance is increasingly being discussed.
@amerika it's an incredible change, really, considering that, for most of Europe's history, all these countries were mostly at war with each other.
@amerika now relations are so peaceful that i can travel to 26 different countries without a visa or a passport, because the borders are open, through the Schengen Agreement.
@amerika because of the freedom of travel it offers, even to countries outside of Schengen, the Schengen passport is considered a pretty good one to have.
@amerika the UK's decision to leave the EU wouldn't have happened if they had held off the Brexit referendum for just a few years. a lot of the people who voted for Brexit were old and are dead now.
there's this aspect to the EU that doesn't receive a lot of attention, but that young people care about, which is cultural exchange programs. the EU does a lot of stuff to facilitate that.
NATO makes sense as the order that would do this, but it was always designed in a defensive capacity to resist Soviet espionage and possible military invasion.
Ukraine is more a case of proxy war against a rising enemy.
For example, Washington DC is a couple days' drive from here.
Different culture, different rules.
But mostly: those who make the rules usually loot the coffers, and we sure seem to have millions of lines of rules...
@amerika the tax money that goes toward funding the EU (even in Norway, since we are an EEA member) hasn't been a huge topic. way more money is spent on the welfare, health and education sectors, so the EU funds are dwarfed by those.
True here too. Three-quarters of our budget goes to anti-poverty and anti-discrimination programs.
I like the idea of a trading bloc between US, UK, and possibly central European nations.
The EU has anti-competitive aspects to it, too, so it would probably need to be on a country-by-country basis.
EU regulations do some good things too. For example, it's nice to have standard USB-C connectors on phones, tablets, etc.
@amerika this is one benefit of having politicians that aren't geriatric. the EU seems to understand technology a bit better.
@amerika it's a bit paradoxical that America is ahead in the tech game on the business end, but Europe is ahead on the politics end.
Or more specifically, the administrative state.
I think it is the same feeling and a similar grievance.
I agree. This is why America ditched its original government, the Articles of Confederation.
At some point, you need a central authority.
However, in my view, it should have jurisdiction over only big issues, and everything else should be local.
So the pendulum is swinging back...
@amerika one of the reasons Norway never fully joined the EU is probably that we struggled to get our sovereignty back relatively recently in our history. the modern nation state of Norway only came into existence in 1905.
@amerika we had been working for a century to nudge ourselves in the direction of independence, rebuilding our parliament and government institutions, basically setting ourselves up for ever increasing autonomy. then we asked to be separated, and a full war almost erupted with Sweden, but the Swedes decided that a war with a country that it shares such a large border with would be untenable on the long term, so it finally gave in.
I approve of this process. I am rather fond of Sweden as well.
Nationalism says that each tribe needs its own nation.
American states are both sort of different and sort of the same, in part because the place is large and varied.
@amerika oh, and a major reason Norway was unhappy with the union? maritime matters. big coastline. large trading fleet. our interests in this respect didn't align with Sweden's. they didn't want to set up trade missions in countries we were trading with.
Similar to the American complaint against Britain that led to our war of independence... interesting.
They both do and do not like it. Companies fear antitrust less than regular lawsuits which cost a lot of money to fight.
My guess is that no one really wants to pull the trigger because then they have to decide how to reorganize these companies.
@amerika the fact that anti-trust law even exists is almost a bit out of character for a country like the United States, land of free enterprise.
America loves free enterprise but hates bullies; we also had lots of experience with frontier towns where one big landowner or company took over.
The original idea, as the name suggests, was to prevent a few people from owning all the companies that control a specific industry.
In cyberspace, I would think it would translate to network effects exclusively.
A berserker's gateway to the Mastodon social network. Run by a Norwegian, with servers in Finland.