apostacy

> ...doesn't really seem plausible to me when we have adults killing themselves with fish tank cleaner because they confuse it for anti-viral meds

What actually happened is that a woman murdered her husband with fish tank cleaner, and blamed Trump for it. And the media ran with it because that was a much more sensational story.

https://www.yahoo.com/now/woman-blamed-trump-giving-her-1336...

No, 30 people did not die in one night because Trump told them to drink bleach. Nobody did.

Nor was Kyle Rittenhouse a "mass shooter" that ambushed innocent civil rights demonstrators.

Big tech is wrong all the time.

> Malone's been bootstrapping this "cancelled scientist" grift in plain sight since his appearance on Weinstein's podcast.

But he actually was censored.

Just the fact that he is censored makes him worth amplifying. They have granted him minor martyrdom. I would not have bothered listening, but now I will, just to defy the censors.

And if he truly had nothing worth hearing, then he should have been ignored like a creationist. Nobody censors creationists.

You are blaming him for "provoking" his censorship.

If the church systematically had an artist censored and marginalized for making blasphemous art, I imagine that you would not blame the artist for provoking the Catholic league or whoever. Even if this artist/scientist/journalist did specifically make something that they knew would piss off those in power, that does not excuse or justify their treatment.

There have always been self appointed protectors of information, and it is our duty to stand up to them, because they are a bigger threat to our safety than anyone they would silence.

Please don't be a toady for the billionaires who want to prevent us from listening to podcasts that they don't like.

> The problem is not so much the trial as it is the events leading up to it and the fact that kids walk around with powerful weapons.

Do you also feel that way about the armed vigilantes on the other side of the incident? Was it ok that Gage Groskreutz was menacing people with his gun, and was never charged with a crime, and never even had his gun confiscated?

There were many armed civilians that night with guns, why are you only concerned about Rittenhouse? Is armed vigilantism if a militia says that it is "anti fascist"

Paying anything for your own music is too much.

I could have paid for this music on a compact disc 20 years ago, ripped it, and eventually had it migrate to this service, where I now have to pay for it month after month to continue to have access to it.

> I think you may be misguided in assuming that if the "www." portion was present to users that they would automatically understand the issue at hand.

It is a completely sensible assumption that the full domain name will be visible to users at all times. Google is the one who is making their browser do strange things like this that break the web.

This is infuriating. Google is once again severely hampering openness and accessibility in the name of security.

The web is more than just the big CDNs. It is not all about your business model. If I can not use your browser to open a socket to a routable host and render the data, then it is not a web browser anymore. But I don't think Chrome has been one for awhile.

Google's logical conclusion is to only allow you to connect to a whitelist of sites that they have control over. For that matter, domain names themselves are obsolete, we should just have AOL-style keywords like 'amazon' and 'facebook'. Only a poweruser weirdo would want to have their own website.

Users could also be tricked into adding their own self signed certificates, or having their own private DNS. It would not at all surprise me if that is banned soon as well.

I can't count the number of things that this would break, especial VPN accessible intranets.

Having users register with some outside service for getting a private network SSL certificate is a no go. That is like saying that a platform is open because submitting to their app store is free. If I have to rely on an outside authority then it is no longer federated, and it is no longer the web. Which is fundamentally what they want.

> It's kinda crazy that random websites can just send any HTTP request they want to your private network or local PC with no restrictions; that's a pretty huge attack surface to expose to the public internet.

I don't think there will be any restrictions on what advertising and tracking CDNs a webpage can make requests to, so long as they have their certificates in order and are not on a private network. I'm sure that when I go to log into my bank it will still happily connect to 12+ different analytics services.

I do think it would be nice to expose more control to the user for namespaces of what is allowed to be fetched from what context, but that might hamper advertising and content consumption.

> Plus now authoritarian governments get to serve out even more propaganda talking about videos that are liked and the opposition has no way to see that the opposite also happens.

Well, yes, that is their agenda. The web as it was was not nearly as friendly for those with money and power.

Now, authoritarian governments and scumbag celebrities will project power over us, just like in the real world.

There are secret whitelists so that influencers like Logan Paul can fully monetize commuting crimes on YouTube (like desecrating a corpse)[2].

Celebrities are permitted to engage in targeted harassment or fraud, and people that call them out are banned.[1]

And of course, governments can engage in all sorts of war crimes, and big tech will censor anyone that tries blowing the whistle[3].

Facebook is happy to censor anything for dictators, but perhaps they will soon go the extra mile and just report people directly to the secret police. They could have a nice dashboard that shows up for local death squads of anyone that questions the leader.

And frankly, this is the future most of us welcomed. We defended all of this because muh private platforms. We consented to letting these big tech platforms set the rules. We welcomed anyone with an incongruent opinion banned.

The internet used to be a domain where scumbag fatcats didn't control everything, and you had some chance of speaking truth to power.

It will only get worse. Find out Dupont is dumping toxic waste in your back yard? Just a word from their PR dept and all of your accounts will be banned. Think you can speak directly to the people? Your domain name will be seized, your Cloudflare account closed, and any app permitted on peoples devices will have to ban you if they don't want to be removed.

[1]: https://www.aroged.com/2021/10/09/whitelisted-streamers-foun... [2]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-42538495 [3]: https://www.engadget.com/facebook-turkey-emails-200407588.ht...

Awesome, I will check it out.

In my case, it was in 2017, and I remember clearly what happened. Homebrew alerted me about the most recent compatible formula, and what commit it was removed in a week earlier. I was then forced to unshallow the Homebrew repo, revert that commit, and then I could install it. I remember I had a good reason for not updating my OS, and I'm sure it was less than two years old.

It was incredibly frustrating, and took a lot more effort than it was worth. Homebrew already had the ability to find the last good version, it would not have been hard to automate it. There were no taps at the time, I had no choice but to do it manually.

Brew used to be much more useful to me. Using brew years ago, it was way less opinionated and more flexible, which was perfect for OSX.

Homebrew's response to criticism seems to be to continually narrow the field of users and the scope of their project, and tell users to use something else.

People are only frustrated because they found it to be so helpful.

But I suppose that it had to mature, or something like that.

If you have any kind complex toolchains, then a major update can be a real burden.

Just for me, using a customized desktop, iOS app development, and being a zfs user means that I had to set aside a lot of time for updates.

And beyond that, Apple has become really sloppy with new releases, and you're best off waiting at least six months for the major bugs to be ironed out.

I know that there are usually workarounds to these problems, but they tend to be obscure, and change frequently, and are not simple to look up.

Pacman, apt, portage, etc have much more stable interfaces. But the workarounds for my edge cases in Homebrew from a year ago don't work anymore. Even knowing what is an edgecase or not is a problem.

Most of these issues would be fine if the interface changed as slowly and consistently as Linux package managers.

But Homebrew didn't used to be that way when I started using it. And with some fairly small changes it could go a really long way to supporting more users. TBH if I had the time, I would roll up my sleeves and do it myself.

The whole reason that I used Homebrew to begin with in 2014 was to help mitigate these problems.

I think there has been a cultural shift away from being more useful for a larger base of users, to being optimal and "clean".

The least it could do is confirm before it makes irreversible and sometimes breaking changes to your system. I don't see any good reason to delete your distfiles after potentially installing an incompatible package. And compared to most Linux based package managers, Homebrew makes big changes to its interface frequently, which makes it a headache to keep up with. Just look at how much casks have changed in the last two years.

Anyway, when I felt I could no longer rely on Homebrew, that was the last straw for me dumping macOS.

I posted a detailed comment of why Homebrew is a problem for me[1] if you would like to see.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29080519

Homebrew stinks of over-optimization and deletionism.

In contrast to how it used to be, Homebrew now seems designed for people that only want popular bleeding edge packages, and nobody else. If I just wanted to install google-chrome, sublime, and skype, I would use the app store. I used to use Homebrew to install more obscure packages that were useful to me, like Arduino, Processing, and some specialized bluetooth tools.

It is especially frustrating because there are good reasons to not want bleeding edge. OSX ages pretty well, and new versions of macOS often remove important features. As long as you have security updates, I think it is reasonable if you run an older version of macOS. For some of us, Catalina and Big Sur were pretty painful, especially if they are a liability for how you make money. Losing total-terminal and total-spaces were a big blow to my workflow, and not at all simple to work around, as well as certain accessibility software.

Homebrew being so aggressive about updating itself compounds many other issues it has. For one thing, major changes are made frequently, and it is very aggressive about pruning packages and only supporting recent version of macOS.

So, I have lost count of the number of times Homebrew has broken itself.

Homebrew will go out of its way to search through its history and tell you a package has been removed, but gives you no easy way to install them. Homebrew could make it fairly easy to revert updates, since so much of it is in a git repo, but it doesn't.

I wanted to install an SNES emulator, and I was using an install of macOS from maybe two years earlier, and Homebrew installed a version that was incompatible with my OS. Since it was a cask, I don't think anything depended on it. I had to actually search through the Homebrew repo history and check out that specific formula, since nobody had a tap for it.

Unless you are near the center of the bell curve, you don't matter. And it is a shame, because I really think that it wouldn't impose a significant cost to support more of us, and substantially improve its UX.

Homebrew used to be a powerful repository of most macOS software. Some of its less used packages could be unreliable, sure, but that was the case regardless of where I got them. Now it is morphing into an App Store. This is part of why I gave up on macOS two years ago and went to Linux full time. I can't rely on Homebrew.

I used a Thinkpad for over a year without noticing the microsd slot on it. I think they are so inconspicuous that most people don't even notice them.

And what is the alternative? USBA <-> USBC <-> SDCard adapter <-> MicroSD to SD adapter

Is that convenience?

Even if they gave away usb sdcard adapters for free, it would still be trouble to go out and get one. Or carry one around with me everywhere. Just another thing to lose. Another thing dangling out of my computer putting stress on the ports.

If I'm completely honest, I think it is more emotional than practical. This craving for hyper-optimization.

And even Apple now seems to be admitting that it was not a great idea.

I can understand dongles for tablets, but this is supposed to be a laptop, a somewhat general purpose computer.

> Also I never need the MagSafe port or never used HDMI port in my life

I assure you you are in the minority on this. MagSafe by the way is amazing. It has saved my old Macbooks more times than I can count. I've already had to get my USBC power slot replaced from tripping on it.

Having access to the ports is itself a feature. Having the peace of mind of knowing that you can go to the office or classroom and be able to use the projector or a jumpdrive, without having to worry about bringing the right adapters is a huge plus for me and I think most people.

I think that many people only decided that they didn't need these features because Apple removed them.

It reminds me of this video from awhile ago by The Onion:

Apple Introduces Revolutionary New Laptop With No Keyboard[1]

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BnLbv6QYcA

What cost does an sdcard slot impose? What is the benefit of removing it?

It is the size of a thumbnail, and most people won't even notice it if they aren't looking for it.

I want to know who was cheering for it to be removed.

And the few times I have needed it, it was so nice to have. Even if I only use it once in the lifetime of the product, it will be worth it.

I haven't had to change a tire in years, but I think it is prudent to carry around a spare tire.

Simply having access to a feature is itself a feature.

> You actually mean spread an opinion. I doubt any one citizen would conduct a trial or research; some may actually look at data, but that is rare. These are opinions, most likely biased by a belief.

You could say that about most breaking news.

It is not reasonable to expect people to conduct a rigorous field research before sharing their observations, especially if people's lives are on the line.

I distinctly remember citizen journalists sharing videos and pictures of the chaos in China at the end of 2019, trying to warn us. I remember all the tech platforms and our media doing everything they could to suppress it.

YouTube does not deserve our trust.

We've seen repeatedly over the last two years truthful and helpful warnings classified as dangerous misinformation by big tech platforms.

First they censored people warning us about COVID itself, then they censored people saying we should wear masks, then they censored any talk of it coming from a lab.

Every time citizens try to spread the truth, they are censored. Sometimes the truth becomes so obvious that they can't censor anymore.

Facebook is directly responsible for censoring American expat groups in China that were trying to warn their families about COVID in late 2019.

Facebook has no problem shielding criminals and dictators for money[1]. They will eagerly censor innocent people speaking truth to power.

Corporate America will protect its interests from the people. They are invested in a new normal, and China, and they will censor us to protect their investments.

Even if something was wrong with the vaccines, or there was some effective new treatment, they would censor it regardless. So why should we ever big tech platforms the benefit of the doubt?

[1]: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2021/03/sheryl-sandberg...

I'm glad you enjoyed Contrapoints, but I'm going to have to deflate your recommendation somewhat.

She's a good performer, but most of the time she just beats around the bush and doesn't offer any solid conclusions about anything, which can leave you feeling unsatisfied.

She had some interesting insights into Incels because of her gender dysphoria, but those insights never led to any real sympathy for them, and she still essentially blamed them for all of their problems, and shrugged her shoulders about it by the end of the video.

Also, she's made some pretty fallacious claims, like when she said that denying being a fascist was evidence that you were a fascist. Or when you tried citing Christopher Hitchens argument in favor of protecting controversial speech to argue in favor of censorship. (I can reply with specific timestamps if you want to see).

I'm not convinced that she has deradicalized anyone, outside of a handful of teenagers that only ever posted edgy memes on 4chan that the never understood them the first place. None of the people who claim she deraticalized them can actually give concrete examples of what new information Contrapoints provided them that persuaded them to change their opinions about anything. I am certainly willing to listen when someone can. Instead, it is just vague platitudes about feelings and emotions, with zero substance or validation of facts.

She also did better when she included herself in her critiques. But over the last year or so, especially on Twitter, she has degenerated into a less ironic and more self-righteous direction, which is pretty cringe.

That's really cool. Is it possible to use it without a hardware TPM, for testing? I have used rust-u2f in the past for that purpose.

This all makes perfect sense from a market perspective.

Why tell the user what is wrong, when you can silently fail and make the user blame the website?

The goal of Google is to gaslight users away from using technologies that Google does not like.

And of course they prefer that you use an unencrypted connection over a self signed certificate. They want you be connected to a larger system in order to benefit from TLS.

If Google were to just cut to the chase, they would just forbid downloads from any domains that they didn't charge a fee to approve. Malware will of course get through sometimes, but Google will still get paid. They want to turn the web into an app store.

But the saddest thing of all, is that Mozilla will replicate whatever dark patterns Google implements, without any benefit to themselves or their users.

Ask yourself if you would be ok submitting your photo ID, proof of citizenship, and phone's unique ID in any of the settings that the mandate will cover.

Do you honestly think they will dismantle it one day? Especially if Apple is making it so easy for them.

For the record, no I don't think I should have to present my ID to get a Metrocard or ride a train. I do think that is oppressive. Because by that point they will have intruded into our lives way too much.

NY state has been encroaching for years. They have been fantasizing about a "no ride" list for Amtrak.

And many officials have invited the TSA and ICE to set up surprise mobile checkpoints for commuters at bus terminals.

All under the justification of protecting us from terrorism.

This is just the thin edge of a wedge to expand their control over us. And yes, most of them do want more power and money, and our civil liberties stand in the way of that.

[1]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/train-security-is-a-no-ride-lis... [2]: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/06/tsa-swarms-8000...

> 2. You have fears about the privacy implications. If so, what are those fears? Perhaps your vaccination status can lead people to make inferences about your health?

Could you explain why you are NOT afraid? Can you please explain what Apple and the City of New York have done to earn the kind of trust you want me to place in them?

Is your starry-eyed trust also extended to police departments as well?

They are building infrastructure to track people everywhere and punish us for non-compliance.

Do you believe that systematic racism exists, and if so, do you think that it is possible that it could creep into the new health surveillance and enforcement infrastructure that they are building? Are there any mechanisms to challenge the abuses that will happen?

I would be more ok with these policies if they pledged to dismantle (or mothball) contact tracing as soon as it is no longer needed, instead of just leaving it up and expanding it forever "just in case", as they certainly will do.

But nearly every instance of censorship is framed as non-political and purely to protect people from harm.

What is political censorship?

Amazon literally deleted Animal Farm off of people's Kindle readers because of copyright[1]. We are so immersed in our ideology that we don't see that copyright is ideological and political.

Would it have really been better if it was because the text of it was considered problematic?

[1]: https://www.mercurynews.com/2009/07/17/amazon-deletes-kindle...

> And no -- anti-virus is not voluntary censorship because it's not censorship at all. It's protection from harm, not a shield from comunicative ideas. If anti-virus were "voluntary censorship" then locking your home from burglars would be too. And that twists the word beyond any recognizable or useful meaning.

And what exactly is harm? Microsoft is making subjective judgements, which can not help but be political. Microsoft has decided that historical and obsolete keygens and ansi art are harmful. It would not surprise me if they deemed software to circumvent obsolete abandonware encryption harmful as well, since it violates the DMCA.

A better analogy would be if you let a third party security company examine the items in your home and remove what they deemed to be "harmful" to you.

> (While I'm talking about browsers and particularly mozilla, I'd just like to take a moment to congratulate them on finally getting their market share down below that of edge. They've been working hard at driving firefox into the ground for a long time now, and I'm sure they must be feeling very proud to have finally achieved this important milestone in their seemingly unending quest to achieve that holy grail of 0 users. So I'd just like to say: Nice work, Mozilla!)

Well said. And the more they fail, the more they double down.

But their decisions go beyond incompetence. They might as well be controlled opposition, actively undermining open web technologies.

They deprecated RSS support with very flimsy justifications, but they make supporting the latest DRM standards a top priority, because they are terrified of losing the blessing of Netflix.

> It's a cost-benefit analysis. I want Mozilla to do more. If they believe removing FTP support enables them to do more, I'll all for it.

This was the justification for removing RSS support.

And look at what Mozilla has chosen to develop instead.

This is security hypocrisy.

HTTP is a cleartext protocol. Why does your browser quietly navigate to any HTTP site you throw at it? Anonymous FTP isn't any less secure than HTTP.

Why does your browser scream at you for connecting to an encrypted but unverified site, such as a self signed certificate on a closed network, but have no warnings at all for an unverified and unencrypted HTTP connection?

How do you know the context that I am using a plaintext protocol in? How do you know I'm not connecting over a patch cable to the computer next to me? How do you know I'm not connecting over an SSH tunnel?

The user should easily be able to override these safety measures.

The only argument I have heard this is that the user could be tricked into disabling security mechanisms. But that is true of anything in computing. The user could be tricked into typing in rm -rf.

When there is inconstancy like this, it usually implies there is something else going on that we aren't seeing. I have a feeling that companies like Google and Apple have an agenda to move people away from having too much outside of their influence.