You can essentially use Sublime for free indefinitely. It shows you a prompt to buy a license for every few saves you make but that’s about it. Not invasive in my book. I also think people underestimate the amount of work that goes into building a good text editor and keeping it up to date over the years.
That’s a good point. I think if you really like the editor it might be something your employer could pay for. At least ST only offers a one-time fee for each major version. Of course that depends on where you work and their policies. So I see how it’s not so easy and my comment definitely missed that part.
> after the democratic party decided that their winning strategy would be to villainize tech and emerging west coast values.
Trump proposed the TikTok ban and even tried to enforce it via executive action during his first term. He also said he would put Zuckerberg in prison and attacked big tech companies for almost a decade at this point. The reason Silicon Valley is aligning themselves with Trump’s administration is for strategic reasons. If there are any ideological reasons I doubt these would stand the test of pendulum shifts.
Republican speaker Johnson also still wants to enforce the ban and only considers Trump’s interference as a delay to have TikTok sold to a US entity (which the bill explicitly allows as an alternative): https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/speaker-johnson-2-...
yes, the Trump faction also flirted with anti-tech politics in the 2016-2020 cycle - but there have been shifts since then. i don't disagree with you that a significant part of this alignment is due to strategic reasons - but it doesn't fully explain outsized donations to Trump prior to his election and shifts in donation patterns by regular tech workers. I do think that there has been a real political shift rightwards in SF/SV, especially among the tech elites but percolating downwards.
This line in particular sums up the cynical stance of these billionaires:
> We are non-partisan, one issue voters: If a candidate supports an optimistic technology-enabled future, we are for them. If they want to choke off important technologies, we are against them.
They simply don't care about society as a whole, they want their businesses to thrive, no matter what.
There has definitely been a rightward shift in SV management and ownership. Maybe a lesser shift in individual workers, but it's really hard to tell. And frankly, that hardly merits a footnote when compared to the sums that the wealthiest can spend on elections now.
The ban had bi-partisan support. So why should Biden stop it if he agrees with it? A major adversary (China) owns a main communication network in the US while the US and other Western countries are not allowed to operate such networks within China. You don’t have to agree with this of course but it’s not unprecedented for the US to restrict the reach of foreign governments. In the past radio waves were restricted in a similar sense.
> So why should Biden stop it if he agrees with it?
That is my point. The Democrats made themselves look very bad with this situation and Biden did nothing and supported the bill anyway and just signed it.
In fact he replaced Trump's original EO with a worse one which includes still supporting the TikTok ban and Biden signed that last year which made it so that if the Democrats won the election, then TikTok would have been still completely banned with no reversal whatsoever.
In effect, those who voted for Biden or Harris also were voting for a TikTok ban, which that is beyond hilarious as everyone saw that he didn't halt the ban.
The ban had bi-partisan support. Trump was initially for the ban and then changed his mind. On Aug. 6, 2020, Trump signed Executive Order 13942, which sought to ban TikTok in response to national security concerns. Courts struck it down.
He expressed his changed opinion in 2024. Was it because he met with Jeff Yass who holds 7% of ByteDance (which owns TikTok) and is a major Republican donor? Who knows.
But what is clear is that this is again morphing into a talking point against the Democrats even though all of this started with Trump initially.
The argument that an adversary should not have access to radio waves is definitely sound reasoning to me should the UK or the EU ever decide to ban Twitter/X.
> Trump is engaging in some light trolling here. He's going off script and just saying whatever comes across his mind.
>People shouldn’t take his threats literally - but you should take them seriously.
So, when Trump talks about possibly using force to annex Greenland or control the Panama canal we all should consider this trolling but you also want everyone to take it seriously. I understand you think you’ve made some nuanced point there, however this is a complete contradiction, if you aren’t aware. The lengths some people go to excuse, explain away and play down this man’s words is quite astounding.
> A slightly self-involved concern I have is that I like to prove that I’ve read it. This is more for me than for anyone else: I don’t like to recommend something if I’ve not read that thing myself, and sticking in a detail that shows I read past the first paragraph helps keep me honest about that.
I really like this approach. As a reader it also makes me more likely to click on a link when there’s some detail that goes beyond the headline.
> calling people names won't change the fact that his life-long diet caused his cancer and killed him.
Steve Jobs was not a life-long fruitarian. He dabbled in all sorts of different diets. According to Walter Isaacson’s biography he seems to have generally lived as a pescatarian. Interestingly enough that diet is considered one of the healthier ones.
Obviously Steve Jobs should not have delayed his surgery. I understand that people are angry that a man with his means was still able to get a transplant and all the medical care that is unavailable for the rest of us. I understand. However to assume that his disease (and death) was the result of a diet choice when there is no credible evidence for it seems rather absurd.
> Are you angry because Steve Jobs got a transplant?
I am not angry however that was a sentiment often linked to the fact that he delayed his surgery.
> Have you tried reading the research in the post before commenting?
Unless I missed a comment there was absolutely no serious research shared that credibly connects let alone confirms that his death was connected to this diet choice.
Saudi Arabia is the country that was alleged to have killed migrants en masse at its border with Yemen. Don’t be shocked that their interest in human rights and thus working conditions is inexistent: https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/08/21/saudi-arabia-mass-killin...
