This isn't accurate either. Java does not enforce 1 file = 1 public class but rather 1 file = 1 public top-level class.
For example this is totally legit:
// ClassA.java
public class ClassA {
public static class ClassA_Inner_Public_Static {
}
public class ClassA_Inner_Public {
}
}
// ClassB.java
public class ClassB {
ClassA classa = new ClassA();
ClassA_Inner_Public classA_Inner_Public = new ClassA().new ClassA_Inner_Public();
ClassA_Inner_Public_Static classA_Inner_Public_Static = new ClassA_Inner_Public_Static();
}
It's comments like this that make reading comments so much suck.
You took one tiny misworded part of his entire post and highlighted it to make an issue out of it. When you knew dang well what his overall argument was and what he really meant with that tiny badly worded part.
Sorry, but I do think it's relevent to the overall argument.
Netflix and its ilk are actually some of the best cases for advertising: they have a high customer LTV and were once not well-known at all. They spend hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising every year.
I feel like that undermines the entire argument. Just because most advertising is irrelevant to a3n doesn't mean advertising is irrelevant.
I likewise buy very few consumer goods, but I do appreciate advertising both as a consumer and an entrepreneur.
My point was that he wasn't actually saying he doesn't want for anything. Of course he does, and yes for him that includes Netflix.
My point was that his argument was that he generally knows what he wants and doesn't want to be incessantly marketed to -- yet, because of bad wording, you made it sound like he was erroneously claiming he wants nothing.
Almost by definition, we all want something. But that does not require constant marketing.
Don't make the mistake of conflating liberal with progressive, republican with conservative, nor the idea that someone who values small govt is necessarily a conservative. Those are all substantially different things, even though current majorities make them SEEM equivalent.
As a thought experiment, consider that most of our nation's founders were liberal but they favored small govt. Also, there is a number of people today who believe in classical liberalism but don't identify as progressive nor conservative; they are usually called libertarian.
Libertarians would generally eschew both Eisenhower, big govt programs, AND progressivism.
That's really an oversimplification. In the early history of the USA, there were two camps, the federalists and the anti-federalists. The federalists explicitly wanted a strong central government. The anti-federalists, which you might describe as the "small government" side, wanted a freedom from monopolies written into the constitution, with the understanding that the government would revoke corporate charters if any company got too powerful.
Even so, the federalists didn't really want an environment where strong corporations check the power of government, they wanted an explicit oligarchy where the most wealthy men around were Senators.
Neither of these camps really sound like modern libertarians to me.
This is why I hate how we Americans have bastardized the word "liberal."
Liberal used to mean something concrete. Liberalism was about liberty, including economic liberty and free markets. The most liberal party in the US today is the Libertarian party.
Yet in most American's eyes, anything the Democrats do is de facto liberal -- which is not the case. I would describe someone like Elizabeth Warren not as liberal but as a moderate democratic socialist.
And progressive... I don't think anyone really knows what that means in a modern context.
ummm... you might want to try re-reading your reply and reflect on the OP's observation... your overly sensitive read of their post and vicious reply of your own suggests to me that you are not happy... and thus, presuming you don't have kids, supports OP's point.
I'm all for eating fresh fruit, vegetables, roots, etc, but I don't see how this article supports only a plants based diet? Really I think what it's saying is avoid mass produced food, no?
For example, the locally sourced fresh beef I buy from my local farmer?
I don't get the concerns around processed food. If I buy a bunch of apples and make apply jam (adding "chemicals") it's apparently bad now? Or if I process cucumbers into pickles?
Correct. So instead of saying veganism, we should instead be saying real/fresh food... at least, based on this article. Not saying you can't be vegan, just that this article isn't saying that.
For example this is totally legit: