FillardMillmore

I've noticed the Twitter embeds becoming more common in mainstream news sources in the last few years. I think I subconsciously attributed it to the fact that the US President uses Twitter as a major tool of communication, and many journalists followed suit (this attribution of causality could be entirely wrong as I'm not a Twitter user myself, just an occasional visitor to the site).

Despite this, if the embedded tweets do not contain primary evidence or quality secondary evidence, it would become more difficult for it to gain real traction in other news outlets, no?

Can you expand on what you mean here? For the extent of the claim, it seems quite unsubstantiated.

It looks like more of Big Tech is against the 'right to repair' than just Apple.

I'd like to know what 'policy violations' were committed by Jordan Pier. But of course, Youtube has no obligation to let him know or to let his viewers know.

Philosophers have regularly been persecuted by the ruling class, whether it's Socrates or Jesus. Most have an acute ability to convey a message that is often counter to popular narratives of the time.

The ability for people to organize and communicate ideas, whether through printing press or social media, can be very powerful indeed.

You're about 100 years too late.

Yes, I realize you're being sarcastic (at least I think you are), illustrating the point.

A government which bans things because they aren't deemed "healthy" (by said government) is not the right course of action (in my humble opinion). When it comes to something like alcohol, it's only "unhealthy" when its consumption is not moderated. Not to mention, what nutritionists recommend (and subsequently, what governments adopt) as health guidelines for food consumption is widely subject to change. The food pyramid that some of us were taught in the '90s is greatly recognized as being largely incorrect and is no longer taught.

Of course, the question becomes, where do we draw the line? Is it better for society for something like cocaine to be outright banned by the government or is it better for society that the government legally allows its distribution but regulates it similar to the way that it does tobacco and alcohol (effectively cutting out the market share and profits of the black market and cartels)? I don't have the answer to this question.

Would you be more in favor of the government shutting down privacy-averse social media companies or simply regulating them? In either case, why?

Certainly the US government could make a logical case for that, couldn't they? If China controls the algorithms of TikTok, they can manipulate what messages or content gets amplified or suppressed, right? And that would present a risk for meddling or tampering in domestic politics by a foreign government, right?

I have no idea what legal mechanisms the US govt has to pursue something like this, nor am I a user of TikTok, so I may be speaking from a point of ignorance here.

I don't think Google Docs was a thing until I was in high school. Still, don't think my schools adopted it quickly. I do have many fond memories of flash games too (and of course, viruses I inadvertently introduced to my parents' computers).

Back when I was learning computers in elementary school, we were taugh to use Yahoo! as our search engine and most of our 'computer' assignments for the day involved drawing butterflies in Microsoft Paint or seeing how many words we could type per minute.

Unfortunately I don't remember. :(

Back then, I wasn't so much interested in the computer itself as I was in what I could do with it - as a four year old, that meant hunting and killing pixelated T-Rexes.

You're definitely right, what each of us individually perceive as "the golden age" is probably driven largely by age and nostalgia.

I think I phrased my initial comment incorrectly - I definitely didn't mean it was the golden age of personal computing, but rather the golden age of the internet.

Certainly, some things have improved. There's been more standardization and a proliferation of knowledge about the 'right' way to design a website (from both a tech and marketing perspective). Back then, there was an excitement and a feeling of freedom I got when browsing the web. Part of it I suppose could just be that I was young and not yet so cynical, but it felt like the wild west to me back then.

Every site looked different, many were ugly and gaudy as hell with bright colors, flashing animations like the Vegas strip, and regularly broken links, but despite this, there was something charming and endearing about it that just isn't present today.

Browsing the internet today is a very contained and sanitized experience. Everything is wrapped in plastic and padded with nerf, and though you may go to different sites, there's a feeling of sameness to it all. Every time I click on something, I'm making someone money. The data I generate while browsing is sold off to the higest bidder. You can assume, like a digital panopticon, the man in the watchtower (NSA, other government alphabet agencies) could be watching you at any given time.

Maybe not all of this is true or framed accurately - browsing the web has definitely become easier and more streamlined and for the average user, that's a good thing. But something's been lost for me - the wild west of the internet has become a guided tour.

Wow, what a flashback! This was the OS I actually grew up with. I remember being 3 or 4 years old and playing Carnivores 2 on my Dad's Windows 98 PC. Even the slowness and unresponsiveness is there, just like I remember! Yeah...this was the golden age. So much hope and so much optimism for what could be in regards to technology and what it would allow for the general population. I still think we're not there, but we can get there still, perhaps.

I can't speak for why the OP feels this way, but I think one of the main gripes I've seen from "power users" of the latest MBPs are the touchbar and Apple's continued insistence on it and the larger trackpad that some find obtrusive (these features are generally embraced by end-users). Then of course there's the lack of USB ports that some take issue with and the fairly disappointing built-in webcam on the latest models. These are not problems for everyone and most have workarounds, but some "power users" are turned off by this. The abandonment of the butterfly keyboard is definitely a step in the right direction.

When did switching workspaces become four-finger? Meaning you can't use the three-finger option? Catalina? I have a MacBook Pro on Mojave and the trackpad accepts three-finger for the gesture of switching workspaces and the Magic Mouse has an option for two-finger.

Might just be that most general users don't have a need for that?

What are we to do about all the useful tools, pages and games that were either written in or utilized Flash? I realize some of this stuff will be rewritten in HTML5, but what about the things that are not?

How will we preserve all those classic flash games that we wasted our time playing in the early 2000s?

Unfortunately, doesn't look like there's a Mac version in the works. It's awesome that people are still working on this kind of stuff though. I somewhat wish there were equivalent screenshots of the games as seen with the original resolution for comparative purposes.

For what it's worth Al-Jazeera is owned by Qatar and this has been known to color their reporting. One site I use to check myself on the bias of news outlets is below - the example in this case being Al-Jazeera.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/al-jazeera/

I was wondering why my search queries were returning no results.

Good info, thanks for the links.

Unless something's changed recently, Brave mobile doesn't support extensions either.

I am an enthusiastic Brave user - but seeing stories like these make me wonder if I'd be better off configuring Firefox to be more secure/private and using that.

As a privacy and transparency advocate, it disappoints me to see Brave fail to pass the test, especially considering that privacy and transparency are supposed to be the browser's MO.

I've only ever owned iMacs when it comes to Apple. Recently, after a little research, I decided to spring for a used 2015 MacBook Pro 15''. Though there are conflicting opinions among Apple fans, many fondly remember this model as one of the last great models. With a quad-core i7 CPU, 1TB SSD drive and 16 GB of RAM, it still runs like a dream. The Retina screen makes everything look colorful and glossy. The keyboard predates the butterfly, so it is a joy to type on. Not to mention this model comes with an HDMI port, 2 USB-A ports, and an SD card reader.

I can probably run this thing for another 3-4 years until support ends - and even after that, I could keep on using it. No regrets so far.

Do you have any more information on how one could be deanonymized using Tor? I am aware of the browser fingerprinting and Tor themselves has a decent article about it but are there other methods that malicious parties could use?

https://blog.torproject.org/browser-fingerprinting-introduct...

As a rather young person in the field, I'd love to hear your thoughts on any question you feel the motivation to answer. Your learned wisdom is appreciated by all of us young bucks!

I second this request. Would love to hear any insight you have with all your life experiences in the field.

I've noticed it before but never thought too deeply about it. Where did this 'stereotypical hacker' image stem from anyway? Computer 'nerds' are often cast with pressed button-up shirts, pocket protectors, and thick glasses. But if they are a 'bad nerd', they suddenly don a mysterious hoodie that covers their face as they work in a cave-like room like some kind of new-age techno-troglodyte?

Out of curiosity, what computer science fundamentals do you think are necessary for ML that are missing in the article?

Am I crazy, or does the fifth to last photo have a Windows XP screensaver? Windows XP was released in 2001 and the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991 - what gives? Am I mistaken?

I thought Wikipedia was built on user contributions and user provided citations? Do you have any sources that would indicate that the Wikimedia Foundation is far left?

If it truly was far left, why doesn't Wikipedia host pages of Pol Pot and Stalin filled with praise? Or, in lieu of praise, at least apologism?

Whether reporting on Trump objectively makes him look 'bad' obviously depends on the content being reported on. The objective reporting (meaning, nothing but the facts, no insinuations or implications past what we can garner from the facts) on something like Trump tweeting about Joe Scarborough's possible culpability in the death of his intern might make him look bad while reporting of Trump's efforts to pull troops from abroad back home might make him look good.

The problem though, as I think some of the posters above have touched on, is how can Twitter effectively account for media biases in a way that will not make them look biased? I suppose that's just begging the question of: should they care if they appear biased?

One thought I've had is that perhaps, for every tweet that Twitter decides to put a 'fact-check' on, they could link to three different sources of information - one with a well-established left-bias, one with a well-established right-bias, and one without any well-established bias. Just an idea, I'm sure that'll probably present problems as well.