dingusdew

When I try to navigate somewhere else, it hangs, looks like it's loading, but gets... stuck?

However, always works with new tab.

Also on Pixel 4a. It's not that old, jesus.

They MIGHT be lucky if it they find tapes in the same VCR tape format as the BBC's "Out of the Trees" from 1975. It was a sketch comedy show from Monthy Python's Graham Chapman and at-the-time-writer-for-Dr.-Who Douglas Adams, who would go on to Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy fame.

A copy was recently restored and put on Youtube after a tape in the VCR format was discovered. It was a home taping made by Graham Chapman himself, and the only existing copy of a recording. A multi-year effort was made to rebuild a player for the tape from scratch, with the final results put on Youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saxhV4gzm5c

So, it's potentially possible, the the real issue is that during the early years of the BBC they generally re-used the tapes they had and would record over previously used tapes, which is why so much of BBC history is lost from that period. Famously lots of early Dr. Who episodes are lost to time(lords).

This is basically the entire business model of RedHat, I believe. They don't sell their software as much as they sell support for it.

Even something as "simple" as working in a pizza place, say Domino's, is increasingly a frantic assembly line where orders can come at a breakneck pace through internet applications.

You'll still be working somewhere perpetually understaffed and who give you basically no training, but expect you to pay attention to multiple threads at once, all day long. You're a delivery driver, but you're also expected to do kitchen prep, take phone orders, take in-person orders, do dishes, cut and box pizzas, help on the prep line and generally be on-call for anything else needed to be done in the store.

When your workflow is literally constantly being interrupted by other parts of the workflow, because you're always expected to be paying attention to multiple parts of the workflow, you lose the ability to focus on just one thing for an extended period.

Anyway, that's my two cents, it's not just social media, phones and screens. It's also a way of life in America, to be expected to manage numerous expectations all at once and always be on your feet moving. If you can't do it, you're likely to lose your (shitty) job, so forcing yourself to be able to focus on numerous things at once without giving your whole focus to one thing is literally pounded into your head in your workplace.

Capitalists have capital.

The rest of us are born with only our labor to sell, whether that labor is blue collar or white collar.

The middle class is was and always has been a lie to separate the working class.

Also Conde Nast hasn't owned reddit for a while, they became an independent subsidiary of Conde Nast's parent company Advance Publications.

The main lemmy instance is under heavy load and its admins definitely have their own political slant, and if you're not comfortable with that (most aren't) it's best to find a different one or make your own instance.

On my end, they have removed the offending comment (finally) but it's pretty clear that they have different rules for corporations and people, since the account is not banned.

EDIT: https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article272657405.h...

"Tofflemire’s filing stated, “She has not acknowledged the existence of her own medical condition. Because counsel is bound to represent the respondent’s stated interest, a guardian ad litem would be able to provide representation of her best interests, which are not currently clear.

A guardian ad litem is defined by Washington courts as “an individual appointed by the court to represent the best interests of a child or incapacitated person involved in a case in Superior Court."

The filing added that when “the respondent has joined proceedings, she has spoken out of turn with rapid, disorganized speech.”

It noted, “She has primarily focused on how she dislikes papers coming to her home, and not the import of the process in which she finds herself. She has repeatedly threatened suicide in relationship to papers being served upon her home.”

(Emphasis mine)

1. Only hire immigrant laborers to do the work

2. Have exceptions carved out for those laborers so you don't have to pay minimum wage or overtime

Your business was never profitable to begin with. It only succeeded through exploitation of labor.

"In civil forfeiture, assets are seized by police based on a suspicion of wrongdoing, and without having to charge a person with specific wrongdoing, with the case being between police and the thing itself, sometimes referred to by the Latin term in rem, meaning "against the property"; the property itself is the defendant and no criminal charge against the owner is needed."

In America, when it comes to civil asset forfeiture, if they don't have enough evidence to charge you with a crime, they will charge your possessions with a crime. If you have cash in your vehicle, they can charge the cash with a crime, like being used for drug trafficking. Similarly, they can charge a locked phone with a crime of drug trafficking, without actually having to prove it. Mostly because taking the item means they will begin an "investigation" into whether or not it "committed" a crime.

"In contrast, criminal forfeiture is a legal action brought as "part of the criminal prosecution of a defendant", described by the Latin term in personam, meaning "against the person", and happens when government indicts or charges the property that is either used in connection with a crime, or derived from a crime, that is suspected of being committed by the defendant; the seized assets are temporarily held and become government property officially after an accused person has been convicted by a court of law; if the person is found to be not guilty, the seized property must be returned."

You're literally participating in it (whether you know it or not) by communicating with others, period.

This is an instance where the statement "if you think you think outside of the box, you're trapped in one" applies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CopperheadOS#License_change_an...

Google is not being unreasonable in understanding that they can't afford to store all data from everyone indefinitely. They are not being unreasonable that it is a potential security risk.

Where they are being unreasonable is that they have basically gotten everyone addicted to their "free" product, and then, a decade after promoting the idea that no one should run their own services, they should just use free offers in the cloud: they are now admitting the downsides to this arrangement.

That Google account that your dead friend had that you keep on your buddy list because it gives you memories? Gone. That Facebook account with your dead family members photos and timeline? Gone. The Twitter account with all the tweets from you child who died too soon? Gone.

The lesson should be that if you're hoping for someone else to be the steward of all your digital histories, you're in for a bad time.

If you're on someone else's servers, you're bound by their rules, because much like going to their building, you are on their private property.

The thing is, they spent over a decade making sure that people trusted that their data would always be there, and that storing it in someone else's private property indefinitely, somehow, wasn't a problem.

It was always a problem. If you want to keep your data indefinitely, you have to know how to store it yourself on your own storage mediums that you keep in your own home and on your own computers/servers.

So, Google is currently doing nothing wrong, based on the realities of security and cost of data storage. The wrong they did was convincing users for over a decade that this wouldn't happen, knowing full well that eventually it would.

Of course the US couldn't give one shit about that. Our privacy laws are fucking bullshit.

Apparently only the rich deserve things like this, according to US society.

You know, rich folks like Steve Jobs who definitely listen to their doctors and their support networks and definitely don't fall for quacky bullshit that means they die from a totally manageable type of cancer.

Anyone who has been in the hallucinogens scene long enough knows someone who either did too much over the years and is a basket case or just had one really bad trip and never recovered or were the same after.

It's certainly not as dangerous as other drugs, but I'm fairly tired of people acting like it is inert or can only produce positive experiences.

AI can have many sensors that allow it to "see/hear/feel" outside of itself.

AI is generally limited to its own system and requires a great deal of processing power, so it cannot easily "jump to a new body" as many people worry that a rogue AI will "find its way on to the internet." Fairly sure it would be useless for it to try to shack up on small low-power slow-CPU devices.

AI has a body, and physical limitations, because computers are not fucking ethereal. They have physical locations, even when they are "virtual machines," they still live on physical hardware.

When you take a drill to a hard drive, you are physically destroying data. Data is real.

I think the actual issue is that people understand that someone like Musk, one of the worlds richest people, can essentially keep appealing rulings until he gets a ruling he likes simply because he can afford to.

The justice system is broken when it allows endless chances for those with oodles of money like Musk, but the rest of us can't afford that and usually have to accept what we're given.

It's not helpful for people's feelings about that aspect of this issue to cloud how they discuss it. Musk's legal team isn't doing anything wrong within the legal framework, but people tire of it because it seems that with enough money, you can essentially get away with anything.

The US justice system has essentially always been pay-to-play/pay-to-win. It's part of why the government doesn't like getting embroiled in legal battles with billionaires because they know they can delay and appeal for decades because they can afford a team lawyers for that long. The governments allotted budget for a legal case is often much smaller than a billionaires.

It's how the system was built from the ground up and if we don't like it we should probably vote in some folks who will prioritize changing how it works instead of always being angry at rich people for doing what they're incentivized to do based on how the system works.

Beeper is made by the same guy who made Pebble watch and then sold the whole kit-n-caboodle (minus developer jobs) to Fitbit when business tanked.

I have have sent several emails asking Eric Migicovsky what guarantees he has that the privacy policy will continue to stay the same if Beeper becomes unprofitable and is sold to another company. He doesn't think an answer to this question is deserved, as he has not responded to any emails. In the meantime, he has continued to send me advertising emails reminding me I'm no longer on a waiting list, but apparently doesn't think questions from customers are worth answering.

What's the point in trusting your data to a company whose privacy policy can change if they sell it to the highest bidder and one of the co-founders has a history of just that? Especially one that has no intention of telling you that they're going to record the entire process of on-boarding you until you're entering the meeting.

I'm gonna stick with Pidgin and Matrix, especially since you can spin up your own Matrix server with the same bridges that Beeper uses, and then the only person you need to give your iCloud password is you, and not some stranger who refuses to answer valid privacy policy questions.

Cronyism is just another way to say "Late Stage Capitalism."