davidy123

No it is not. In the mainstream, is either that Palestinians should have full access to their historical lands, or at its extreme that it should be a fully Palestinian state. Of course some people on the fringes take it further. From the now hard-right Israeli side, Likud literally used this expression in its initial charter[1], and N. dog whistled it in recent statements about two states.

1. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/original-party-platform...

I don't think it is contradicting the first part, but I was wondering about the second part since it is based on DIDs. I think it adds some important notes past that.

There is a good analysis here: https://neuromatch.social/@jonny/111885148573895886

This kind of approach could be a way to make these models reliable. Encode your business restrictions in the database, if they are rigorous enough, if the query passes then it's valid in your business world.

You have to jump through extra hoops, at least. I was able to install my own custom, unpublished extension easily with Kiwi.

On Android I use a two fisted approach; Chrome for things that require auth/payments, Kiwi for everything else. Kiwi is an open source fork of Chrome, and it allows extensions. Unfortunately it's not up to date to the latest (secure) Chrome, but I accept that because not having control over the browser is its own form of exploit.

It's fine to be future oriented, to share development, the problem is any religious destiny/racist element.

I'm not sure what you mean by "woke disease," but consumerism involves evaluation.

Oct 7 was horrible, but it didn't come out of nowhere. Sabra and Shatila, for example (Waltz with Bashir being a very good Israeli film on the topic), and the many thousands of people killed mutilated or displaced in their usual unhelpfully disproportionate response..

Yes, but it's all relative. A giant new development is different than a branch office. Though in all cases there is no doubt overlap with their military industrial complex. But I don't think we will normally see such religious extremism tied to projects, and that should be called out, loudly and clearly, as not ok.

It is directly associated with the deal they are making. Would you let that quote be used with a deal your company is making? Intel knows full well how this is being spun.

Apparently they have become strongly associated since that quote is part of the release for their new plant. It is sickening to me this kind of hard-right religious zealotry is part of decisions of tech companies. I am avoiding Intel as much as possible now, I hope others will consider this too.

"This investment, at a time when … wages war against utter wickedness, a war in which good must defeat evil, is an investment in the right and righteous values that spell progress for humanity"

That is not a partner for creating logical systems. Very clear their current decisions are political.

I don't think it should be ok to copy the literal works, the example of it emitting large chunks of articles from NYT is egregious, but it should be ok for it to learn and synthesize anything it can see. It should ideally, for producers and consumers of information, also be able to function as an index.

Some of the pushback is the desire to collect fees or social capital for works, which is understandable, but at the same time that inherently creates walled gardens of information and the ability to combine (synthesize), something which could be considered outdated compared to what these algorithms could offer.

One somewhat reasonable outcome could be that for profit offerings must develop ways to limit excerpts and acknowledge sources, the latter similarly to how Google search works. I think it would be a terrible outcome if knowledge and AI abilities were splintered off to different product groupings (eg NYT only available via Apple AI).

I guess that "a desktop that is minimalist, distraction-free, and aesthetically pleasing" means Windows 2000 with transparent backgrounds.

Firefox is still there. There is more than Chromium based browsers. Safari uses its own engine. Gnome, KDE have their own browsers with their own engines, there are text browsers, experimental browsers, etc. There could be a completely new browser next week that works with 99.9999% of web pages, thanks to web standards.

But even a Chromium based browser setting is better than some random app that could have been a web page.

"IE standards" makes no sense. Yes the big companies dominate web standards, but there are still multiple viable niche browsers that work by conforming to that spec, and an extensive spec validation framework anyone can use (web-platform-tests). It's unreasonable to say someone could come up with an IE compatible browser since there's no promise or reality of a stable design.

But you're just putting yourself out on an increasingly brittle limb to defend native apps, which imo work against user interests.

Internet Explorer did not follow web standards, Chrome does, pretty religiously. That's a huge difference. And Safari and Edge are gaining ground, Safari is not based on Chrome anymore and there are a number of open source browsers based on Chrome.

Debug everywhere or google controlled, those things seem diametrically opposed. Aside from the murky area of cookies, chrome isn't straying much from web standards.

There's really not much reason to not use a browser, the compatibility issues are pretty much a thing of the past on any browser, unless you're doing something esoteric. Installing a special app should be unusual.

"Cool" is not a great reason. Only having to develop something once that serves all users is great, though. Personally, I cannot stand apps, I only use them when absolutely required, using a PWA gets you all the security of the browser (relatively speaking, but it's a lot more secure than a from scratch black box, and look at goon moves like Facebook embedding a browser that retains third party site interactions) and as a developer and user I can use my own extensions and general browser features.

I think, one way or another, humans can address these problems. We've always been at relative risk. I know I'm a technological solutionist ("stupid" according to a sibling comment), but there's a way.

My worry is the way will involve abandoning people around the world, pushing back against immigration and sharing as the rich get richer and more isolated, eventually underground bunkers. It is going to take a lot of work and faith and sacrifice to address this crisis humanely, but the reward will be larger than "at least I'm not in the desert." Self-serving populism is imo the biggest problem.

ok, functionally kind of like Shadow DOM, but requires a compile step (which interacts with other compile steps and libraries in different ways I guess), and re-invents all the shadow DOM facilities like referencing local elements but with those x-dimensional provisos.

I was trying to find a definition for "css modules," which the author links but the link is self-referential. I followed a few links, and I came across this: ".jsx files support both global CSS and CSS Modules. To enable the latter, use the .module.css extension (or .module.scss/.module.sass if using Sass)."

which I would call x-dimensional rabbit holes.

I think I'll keep on with web components and the shadow DOM.

It should not be "deep magic." That is the problem. It should be pretty ordinary for anyone to use it. I hope you and others are making libraries to improve the situation.

hmm did you read the entire thread? comments like «The problem is that _AP itself_ is hard to implement correctly and nontrivially in a way that scales», «I was surprised at how difficult I found the spec(s) to read compared to theoretically more complex ones I've read in the past,» «something went direly wrong in the standards realm sometime around the OAuth2 RFC, which says verbatim that following the spec as it stands will produce implementations that don't interoperate. ActivityPub has the same nature and when we complained about it last year we got a bunch of dweebs telling us that the activitypub spec is fine because it has optional protocol annexes that "all the real implementations" follow»…

and basically all the comments. including yours.

I wasn't specifically endorsing Bluesky, but it would not be surprising if a professional, clean slate protocol based on the "learnings" of the past would be simpler to implement and just all round better. I think the use of DIDs opens up to many interesting options, none of which need to use a blockchain.

It's a shame about ActivityPub, I think Linked Data is a really important tech that hasn't been picked up enough, but from what I hear it's a really half hearted implementation at best.

Right on. Not only that, but from what I've read, the protocol is a mess. It lurches in a number of directions but doesn't successfully reach any of them. So it's really hard to develop for, you pretty much have to be an insider to make any progress. Which adds up to a terrible standard.

But above all, as you pointed out, why are people trying so hard to replicate an obviously easily exploitable and now more prone to individual failure/abuse model? Is unprotected identities and scraps of paper, oh and tags like 2007 twitter, really the best, most user honouring application of current tech?

https://cosocial.ca/@hrefna@hachyderm.io/111692934209903603

Snow and ice. Deep snow, deep ice. Layers of ice, then snow, then ice, created within a couple hours. I think even if it slides off, that could cause some damage.

Recovery is just one factor, there is often a lot of overhead in use of chemicals, labour, etc. The more they are designed for this process, the more sense it makes, that goes along with modularity.

The comment I am replying to called it "routine maintenance."

With this attitude (it can always be as bad as it is now), when will the change be? Never.

Isn't there something wrong to you if a "routine maintenance" takes a day?

The whole thing makes me think of home renovation, apparently the majority of landfill is cast-off material because re-use isn't a consideration.

I don't think "most people" arguments are great. People want freedom and flexibility, they don't want to have to sell their car and buy a new one if their conditions change.

I hope the first mainstream car in my market that takes a very modular approach wins out. In fact imo there should be regulated form factors, since the impact of these things at scale is huge, and I doubt battery recycling is that efficient.

As long as you don't mind constantly removing snow from the panels, hopefully not damaging them in the process.

Thanks, I might use this site. I want some motorized bottom-up shades, but they are crazily expensive. Motorized kits are available for DIY motorized blinds, but they aren't bottom-up. I have some ideas on how to use them for bottom-up blinds, but haven't got around to putting it all together, partially due to lack of info.