betwixthewires

> hasn’t been amended in any meaningful way since 1971

Already inserting subjectivity into the discussion to support it's premise. I'm not going to like this article.

> It’s always been hard to amend the Constitution. But, in the past half century, it’s become much harder

Yes, systems find stability, turbulence finds a local minima. Of course a lot more happened early on than later, if you expect a flat, linear, normal distribution of changes to something over time you don't know enough about what you're talking about to be talking about it.

Maybe the constitution has lasted 200 years precisely because it is hard to modify. A constitution should be harder to change than just passing any old piece of legislation. If it's just as easy as passing any law it's not a constitution, just another law.

If you think it's hard to amend the constitution, just wait until a constitutional convention convenes in DC in the next 5-10 years, we are almost there, something that hasn't happened since the Continental Congress, it's going to happen soon and it's going to be very interesting. I hope they ratify the equal apportionment amendment.

Professionals...

A state has an asset. They can assess the population of a certain animal, assess its growth rate, assess the impact it can have, both to human populations and to the ecosystem, and determine how many need to be culled each year to prevent negative impacts.

Now it has a choice. It can get people to pay to do it for them, or of can tax you and pay someone to do it. They can consider the animals assets or liabilities.

A government that would turn something very valuable from a source of revenue to an expense is an incompetent government full of bumbling idiots that have no business governing a territory of natural resources or a population of human beings.

Its like fish bait. You set these feeders out to get them to hang around an area so that when you're ready to hunt you have an easier time finding them. Hunters don't feed anything near the amount of food mass needed to increase the wild population, this idea of an ecological imbalance due to feeding is wildly inaccurate, its like saying fishermen increase fish stocks with fish bait.

There's Briar, its peer to peer and pretty great.

XMPP/Jabber with OMEMO encryption, it runs on federating servers.

Session is a fork of signal that doesn't require phone numbers, there's some cryptocurrency something or other in there I don't quite get, but I don't believe you need it to send messages.

There's Tox, another p2p sort of thing.

Then there's threema, wire, and a bunch of others im not all that familiar with.

Matrix is great, but it leaks a ton of data.

Why do these people always frame a reduction in housing prices as a bad thing and a turnaround to upward price pressure as a good thing? This housing market has been crazy for over a decade and progressively so, a cool down is much needed and IMO the only way to avoid future collapse. A place to live and throw a ball around with your kids should not be out of reach for average people on an open market, prices are distorted and if the forces causing the distortion don't get fixed there will be a crisis.

Why? Isn't the distinction somewhat arbitrary? A lattice or scaffold is indistinguishable from a crysralling structure only due to it's scale, but when a large, rigid ststructure is built it functions on a larger scale as a sort of material.

Well of course they have useful applications in mind. But it does demonstrate something interesting: computation occurs naturally, on the "bare metal" of the universe, and systems can be built that perform computation that do not require an abstraction or purpose built computing device.

Well thankfully I'm not, but even if I were I think that's a bit of a stretch. A materialist acknowledging an effect he cannot quantify or directly observe is not much of a materialist.

At it's core, the argument for caution can be articulated as "utility and availability of this technology must be limited to incumbent actors in the industry for our protection" and that's very fishy. It's particularly fishy considering this technology cannot even so much as break a fingernail or cut a blade of grass. Is it consequential? Obviously or neither one of our arguments would exist. Does it have the potential to hurt people? Only if those people let it. To me it's overblown moral panic that's suspiciously convenient for the big players in the industry and software in general.

If someone wants to crank it to what amounts to a high tech doodle of me doing naughty things to myself I don't see how that's any of my business. There are people in the world how put real legit porn of themselves on the internet, I'm sure they'd find this fearmongering about fake pictures and videos of themselves on the internet laughable. It is the closest to inconsequential you can get, posting yellow pages information on twitter is far more damaging.

Replace pencil and paper with a camera then if it makes you happy, although I don't think the quality of the images make a single bit of difference.

Why should only the few have access to such a technology? Because some people will use it for naughty things? And that's what we are talking about here, about whether a minority should have permissioned access to a new technology, and particularly one that cannot directly actually cause physical harm. I can glean motivations surrounding all this from that observation alone.

I think even the phrase "negative externalities" is overstating it. There's a big difference between "I push this button and now the woods behind my house are destroyed" and "I push this button and I have what looks like a photograph of some important person naked." Photo generating AIs are not a big deal IMO. We might be talking about these things more generally but I doubt we are talking about McNukes here.

The response to incentives created by EU legislation were predictable. Are governments not responsible for the outcomes of incentives they create?

The EU, home of laws like this and the reason for the cookies popup, where the citizens talk about how they have better privacy than the united states.

The amount of time it took you to type this response is longer than it takes to enable third party sources in settings. Most people do it at some point anyway, such as when downloading an app they want from it's website. There's no mangle about it, it literally pops up with "allow this app to install applications?" and takes you there directly.

If someone wants f-droid they'll do it. The problem is most people don't know what f-droid is. It has nothing to do with UX friction of installing it, there is virtually none.

But that's not "discouraged by the system UX" and what better way to get people to use f-droid than offering incentives to use it? Like your favorite app having better features when installed from there?

Lots of people use f-droid. It's as easy as installing f-droid from browser and then checking a box in settings.

So put it in f-droid.

That's why I don't go to these sites.

All this is not very intuitive to me, but my mind's eye is telling me it would appear as accelerating expansion until you reach the horizon, and reaching the event horizon would feel like being in your own observable universe by yourself.

Brave will not implement manifest v3, so yes it is a good choice for this.

I do, after reading the information and reasoning about it for myself. Other people deciding what information I have access to are trying to disempower me from doing that whether I like it or not, and something stinks about such an approach and I'd like nothing to do with it.

I'd love to see this. I'm a huge fan of the information availability the internet has brought and a firm believer that education is transforming into something we do of our own volition and in our own way, aided by freely available information online, and what you're working on sounds like potentially an excellent tool congruent with these ideas. Do you have something you could show yet?

No, and it's not just iPhone. The same class of problems is present on Android as well.

It's because they keep getting ideas, want to make things more complicated and need to justify budgets. IMO mobile keyboards (and in general mobile input and UI in general) were a solved problem 5 years ago and should've gone into maintenance mode.

And then there's people like me.

I don't do it for fun and I don't do it for profit. I don't breathe code, most of my time is spent present in the moment in my real life.

I do it to create things simply because I want them to exist. Even when it isn't fun. Most often because I will find them useful, sometimes just because others might.

Nice edit.

When you upload code to github you give other people the right to fork it... I knew that already. But you license it. You don't give anyone the right to fork it and not abide the license. So if I fork it, I'm still giving Microsoft rights I don't have, I'm giving them the right to violate the license. That makes it illegal for me to fork it.

Let's say I am on a git mailing list, following a project, and I upload that project to github one day. It's licensed GPL. Microsoft says I give them the right to violate the license, and in uploading it I implicitly attest that I have the right to do so. I've violated the license? It's illegal for me to upload the code, with the license, to github, because Microsoft demands rights I don't have to give? Then let's say someone else forks it. They've now also violated the law?

It's nonsensical. The license is the binding ToS here, period, it doesn't matter what Microsoft's lawyers argue. Everything else is secondary.

So you've got nothing? Because I'm seriously asking that.

Read the GPL.

So I can't fork code on github legally according to the ToS?

So this doesn't negate the license. Microsoft cannot just roll the code into windows for example, closed source and proprietary. They have to abide by the license, regardless what their ToS says.

Here's a fun way to see it, suppose someone writes code licensed GPL. I take it, fork it, modify a line in it or not, and also license it GPL because I have to by law. I put it on my github account and what, I now just gave Microsoft rights to the code I don't even have? So by putting it on github I'm violating a license? It doesn't add up. The license to the code is the license to the code, no matter what site it's on and noatter what any ToS says. Otherwise what's to stop me from putting a ToS on my personal website partaining to your use of my eyeballs that says "if your creation becomes viewable by my eyeballs in any way I can use it however I want, publishing your work in such a way that it can be viewed by my eyeballs is consent to this ToS"?