Serial podcast creator and .NET Core maniac.
Can often be found talking about everything and nothing on one of the many podcasts that he produces (only one of them is about .NET Core, honest)
Location
Leeds, UK
Education
Computer Science with Games Development - BSc
Work
.NET Development Contractor; Podcast host, producer and editor
True. But the article is basically just throwing videos into the ring and shouting "DISCUSS!". Without any kind of concrete prompt, it's hard to have a focused conversation in the first place.
It would be better to focus the conversation to a one or two issues, or break out the discussion into separate articles, not just post three summary videos that encompass the entire moral and ethical minefield of handling privacy in an always-connected and corporation-dominated world.
And life doesn't have to be all serious all the time. You can still have a serious conversation about topics while having an occasional laugh.
Serial podcast creator and .NET Core maniac.
Can often be found talking about everything and nothing on one of the many podcasts that he produces (only one of them is about .NET Core, honest)
Location
Leeds, UK
Education
Computer Science with Games Development - BSc
Work
.NET Development Contractor; Podcast host, producer and editor
And life doesn't have to be all serious all the time. You can still have a serious conversation about topics while having an occasional laugh.
That is completely true. Except that a lot of the folks who are commenting about the dude in the background are media outlets, completely skirting the chance for an intelligent discussion about the points raised in the hearing.
(and not just the part of the hearing where a senator blames Google for an app which his granddaughter was playing on her iPhone)
Right, and that's fine, I'm just saying that without a specific thing to talk about in this article, you're basically opening everything up to interpretation.
To be clear: I'm not trying to sabotage the conversation or think it's a waste of time, but the scope is too large to start a meaningful conversation, as evidenced by the other comments on this thread.
If you want to improve your chances of constructive debate on the subject, make sure you guide participants into a specific topic. A much better prompt here would be to give your initial opinion on the video(s), to which people could refer.
Hey, relax man 😃. I think you misinterpreted it. I said that I already had a discussion on the serious aspect of it. This discussion, on the other hand, I wanted to be open. So from my side, your goofy comments are also welcome.
The problem with folks who do this is that they detract from the conversation taking place.
Seriously, I've seen more discussion about this guy than any of the points raised during the congressional hearing.
True. But the article is basically just throwing videos into the ring and shouting "DISCUSS!". Without any kind of concrete prompt, it's hard to have a focused conversation in the first place.
It would be better to focus the conversation to a one or two issues, or break out the discussion into separate articles, not just post three summary videos that encompass the entire moral and ethical minefield of handling privacy in an always-connected and corporation-dominated world.
And life doesn't have to be all serious all the time. You can still have a serious conversation about topics while having an occasional laugh.
I already started a conversation on this, a few weeks ago. This is a really serious issue though
Are we Developers helping Google to build an unstoppable monopoly?
Sarthak Sharma
That is completely true. Except that a lot of the folks who are commenting about the dude in the background are media outlets, completely skirting the chance for an intelligent discussion about the points raised in the hearing.
(and not just the part of the hearing where a senator blames Google for an app which his granddaughter was playing on her iPhone)
Right, and that's fine, I'm just saying that without a specific thing to talk about in this article, you're basically opening everything up to interpretation.
To be clear: I'm not trying to sabotage the conversation or think it's a waste of time, but the scope is too large to start a meaningful conversation, as evidenced by the other comments on this thread.
If you want to improve your chances of constructive debate on the subject, make sure you guide participants into a specific topic. A much better prompt here would be to give your initial opinion on the video(s), to which people could refer.
Hey, relax man 😃. I think you misinterpreted it. I said that I already had a discussion on the serious aspect of it. This discussion, on the other hand, I wanted to be open. So from my side, your goofy comments are also welcome.
True, hard to read emotions over a low-bandwidth link like text. 🙂