macspoofing

To be fair - OP isn't wrong. There has been a lot of "pearl-clutching" about nothing-burger issues since 2016. This era has throwbacks to the 80s moral-majority/church-lady culture, with a sprinkling of "The Satanic Panic" and "McCarthyism".

>but, honestly, the idea of a large social network not reliant on advertising is interesting

Who says this platform wouldn't be reliant on advertising? You need to provide free access to build your social graph, and then you need advertising to monetize it. Paid subscription is more of a supplement at best (think YouTube/YouTube Premium).

Basically. Lots of people hate Musk. Lots of Twitter blue-checks hate Musk. This is an attempt to capitalize on this hate and come up with yet another platform that would be identical to all the other platforms.

Who likes Twitter culture?

This manifesto is generic enough that it aligns with all existing social-network platforms. So this Twitter alternative is bringing nothing new to the table.

Worse, there isn't even an attempt to provide or support an open protocol/open endpoint as a way to entice developers.

Don't get me wrong, I'm under no illusion that had this open endpoint been provided, that it wouldn't be shut-down in a couple years once this "Post" service gains market share .. but still, this performative action would have been welcome.

Honestly, I don’t know what Evernote Corp. did during the last 10+ years of Evernote development. The feature set feels about the same.

Solar does not replace fossil fuels.

Come on, it's an obvious IKEA parody ... but so what, it (should) fall under free-speech protections.

>If a government has a history of interfering in your internal affairs to cynically advance their interests, maintains harmful policies against you for not aligning with their interests, and has an aggressive diplomatic posture, then it is logical to adopt a hostile stance towards that country until that pattern of behaviour changes.

The countries in questions have a been quite antagonistic towards the US and this antagonism has been reciprocated. That is perfectly understandable.

Your argument is that this antagonism is justified because "the US started it" or maybe "the US deserves it" ... I'm not so sure about that.

>What's implied by your argument is that the US is good.

I disagree because I didn't make any value statement on the US. I did argue that the countries you listed have been historically antagonistic towards the US, so that fact that this is reciprocated is quite understandable.

Why not put any accountability on Cuba/Venezuela/Russia/Iran for present relations ... because after all it takes 2 to tango. For example, Iran has made being a belligerent towards USA a core part of their internal and external policy for decades - what if .. you know .. they stop? Same for Cuba, Venezuela and Russia.

>However, an obvious counterpoint is that Atlassian built a multi-billion-dollar business around up-front pricing, and even seem to still offer that up-front pricing today.

Not quite .. their "Enterprise" package only has a "Contact us" option (no pricing details).

>What about if storage improves?

But it isn't. There is no storage solution that is able to bridge the intermittency gap to make wind/solar workable for a modern economy.

>Building a modern zero carbon economy based on renewable energies is not only possible but also close to cost competitive to the nuclear-intensive alternative [1]:

Oh yeah? Point me at an example.

This is not a question of ROI. Wind/Solar could be free and still could not power a modern economy. There are no economies of any significant size (say, larger than a mid-size city) that are powered by wind/solar. There are no economies that have plans in the near-to-mid term to be powered by wind/solar. Why was Germany, up until recently, investing billions to ship Russian gas for decades if wind/solar is just around the corner?

So what are we talking about here?

OK. Don't focus on the semantics. There are times when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow - what do you do then?

>You can achieve that steady grid by over-building wind+solar,

No. You can't. There are times when you get neither wind nor solar. Overprovisioning isn't going to do anything for you there.

>By the time nuclear projects started now complete, solar and wind will be mopping the floor with them ROI wise.

Yes, it will take decades to restart large scale nuclear projects. So we lost more than 50 years.

With Solar/Wind it's not a question of cost or ROI. Solar/wind, as an intermittent and diffuse energy source, CANNOT power a modern economy. It needs base-load.

>What lie exactly? Scotland is producing enough to power Scotland twice itself on Wind alone.

No they aren't. This is at best misleading, at worst, a blatant lie.

What is happening is that on days with strong winds, they are overproducing wind energy but ONLY at certain times of the day. When they overproduce this energy, they cannot store it for later (because there is no battery technology today, or in the near-to-mid future that is able to store that amount of energy), and they cannot give it away, so they lose it.

This kind of headline is very very common. This is how the public is continually lied to and thinks that wind/solar is just around the corner. It isn't. It's never going to be.

>Nuclear is extremely dangerous with toxic waste needing special storage facilities. Destruction if the plant is to melt-down. (chernobyl)? You need an external power source to power a nuclear plant. Nuclear also requires uninterruptible power.

If you don't like nuclear ... fine, but there is nothing else. So now what?

>Thorium reactors are a dream away, nice but not feasible as of the moment.

Agreed. Also Fusion is a pipe-dream at this point in time. So now what?

There is no chance of removing existing CO2 from Air to make any sort of difference.

There is no chance of meaningfully reducing CO2 emissions, because outside of Nuclear (and hydro/geothermal but only if you have the geography for it) there is no alternative to replacing fossil fuels. At some point the public will realize the lie of solar/wind as a replacement. We lost 50 years of greatly reduced emissions had nuclear power continued to be rolled out at the same rate as it did in the 60s/70s.

There is possibility of geoengineering (e.g. emitting some sort of sun-light reflecting gas into the atmosphere to cool the climate) but that suffers from a potential "law of unintended consequences".

It seems like we're going to have to deal with it.

That doesn't change anything. You need a huge amount of energy to remove CO2 from the atmosphere because CO2 is a tiny constituent part of Air (~400ppm) - that means one has to move a million molecules of air across a collector (whatever that is) to remove 400 molecules of CO2. You can't do that without huge amounts of energy and a huge surface area for your collector ... on any human timescale.

>Imagine the Cambrian explosion that will take places when playing becomes as simple as clicking a link?

We've had Canvas/WebGPL since 2011. Emscripten came out 10 years ago. WebAssembly 5 years ago. I've seen countless of these kinds of demos over the last decade. Literally no difference between this one and what was demoed years ago.

So for years a plugin-free browser was good enough for 'modern fidelity' gaming - but it never happened.

There is no 'Cambrian explosion' coming. Casual mobile killed casual browser gaming.

>If this shit becomes mainstream say goodbye to ever owning your data ever again

1. We're in that world now. You think you 'own' those mobile games you bought? You think games couldn't be pulled from your digital Steam library?

2. In the era of Flash and before mobile, browser gaming used to be a much much bigger thing.

Cool cool cool ... though these kinds of browser proof-of-concepts have been around for a decade (more than a decade if you include Flash+alchemy running Quake).

Is the browser coming back as a gaming platform yet?

>whereas my post is about how it will force much-needed improvements to education and free students from the drudgery of pointless essays that ask them to regurgitate content (as opposed to essays that teach writing skills or critical thinking, which remain valuable)

OK ... what's wrong with essays that demonstrate knowledge of a particular topic (as you call it "regurgitate content')? And why wouldn't those teach writing skills?

Yes, developing critical thinking skills is important, and sometimes you want to focus projects, assignment, homework towards that end. But don't discount the value of being able to synthesize and summarize existing knowledge in a particular area of knowledge. In fact, that's almost always a pre-requisite to making cogent arguments that exercise 'critical thinking' skills.

>In fact, it seems to be this kind of essay where language models are doing particularly well, with assignments such as “Write five good and bad things about biotech”. As an educator, I think this assignment is close to useless if the goal is to learn about biotech.

WHY?? Why is it 'close to useless' for a student to investigate current issues in biotech?

And by the way, with academics (and especially in public education), it is almost always the case that a student gets out of it what they put in. That is, if the student is aiming for the absolute minimum and takes every shortcut, neither AI, nor the assignment structure will a make a difference. Going back to this 'close to useless' question, a keen student can really sink their teeth into it and make this topic their own - because this question obviously is open-ended, and leaves room for the student to provide an independent and critical evaluation of the issues that concern the field .... OR ... they can spend 15 mins googling around or using AI, to throw a bunch of stuff together, call it a day, and go back to playing Call of Duty.

>After the initial phase of early adopters that offer generally high quality products, a flood of fake or low-quality listing tries to squeeze money out of the platform.

That AND at some point the platform stops subsidizing the service with investment cash - so inevitably the prices rise.

>How to deal with it? Personally I've started going back to hotels to be safe.

I think it will reach some steady state, where there is a niche for traditional hotels and "P2P" rental marketplaces.

Can California's electrical grid even handle more electric cars?

>The only way you can get it to do that is to bait it with the function names of functions that have already been copy and pasted thousands of times onto GitHub without proper licenses.

How do you know that this is the only way for copilot to reproduce copyrighted code?

>But I assume he implicitly talked about Google (which doesn't provide that option).

Google provides backup codes. You can print them on any kind of paper you want.

Regardless, OP argued that printed backup codes don't work because everything is lost every few weeks.

OK ... who are you arguing with?

OP stated "Maybe the solution should be to have some basic free state-paid email provider for those people."

I replied that there are a lot of good free email providers already.

You're not arguing with me, you're arguing with the author of the twitter thread.

"Any solution requiring long-term retention of a physical 2FA key or high-entropy secret will not work."