sebow

> The best version of GNOME was Gnome 2.

Very much in agreement.If my unix* history is correct, even the apple design copied(or let's say "was influenced") a lot from the gnome 2 UI.

That pretty much fits into the "data" for most companies, and especially high-growth ones are actually made by people well into their 40s if not 50s.

I recall reading this paper[0] which really bursted some of the myths/legends regarding age and entrepreneurship. The take is that a high-growth company happens more rarely to very young individuals compared to older ones. And this makes sense: to run a company you need to fail in order to gain the experience and insight into what means success. This is not to say "give up", but that one should expect ups and downs alongside the road (which let's be honest many of us 'youngsters' [<35] don't do this). [0] https://doi.org/10.1257/aeri.20180582

No surprise at all. A lot of unnecessary stress (yes, more than enough, even for a pandemic) and the top-down approach of the institutions really broke the trust of the public in many healthcare systems worldwide. I think the sentiment would be the same even if wages would be raised (and in many cases they have been).

Considering it was bothersome for both healthcare workers and the public, in my opinion the friction is more between the healthcare workers and management/government entities (& their policies) rather than "some patient bothered me" cases.

>I'm seeing loads of comments about how toxic Twitter is, but isn't that on you?

Most complains about twitter aren't really about it's "toxicity", which is about how the user who browses twitter perceives the content, like you said. The main issue with Twitter is differential treatment and straight out censorship in some cases. This is not something the "user can fix" by changing his perception or views.

Of course it's dystopian and some people seem to buy into the narrative that it's "for people's own good". Well 'yes' but not really, because the primary motivation is to counter any entity that might gain power over the government(even though they already pretty much control any company inside China, so it's kind of redundant), not because the Chinese government gives any f*cks about it's people as much as to pass such a law. If they legitimately cared about "people above algorithms" they wouldn't have a social credit system, wouldn't persecute uyghurs by using either home-made but mostly stolen technology from western powers (primarily US) through corporate espionage.

As for what the article is saying: "the option to disable recomm. systems"; Well my statements still apply: companies would supposedly have to abide by this law, whereas the government would still use them to control the population. A feed system in tiktok would be disabled but a feed system for the government showing "problematic citizens" (which is exactly the same) would still apply, you just won't know about it. Thus the hypocrisy, thus the blank words; But it helps portray them as some kind of pioneers in cyber-ethics, which is funny to say the least.

That's only part of it. Them focusing on the problems isn't something new really (and from a financial standpoint is "understandable", as much as we hate this because it doesn't exactly benefit society that much), but the bigger problem is the fact that very often in the last decade they seemed to either lie by omitting key facts/aspects or straight out misrepresenting a story: which is something that people have began noticing, though very recently. This is not even going into the phenomenon that some outlets began popularizing the opinion-pieces to the point that their activism about certain topics began smelling too much like propaganda. Only very recently (~2019 and so imo) they started slowing down on this, but not after noticing that their pockets began hurting a lot due to their often-disingenuous journalism. Alternative journalism has grown a lot but some flaws are still there, it's not polished. Though I always tell myself if I want the truth I have to dig for it to the source, and even if misinformation is a legitimate issue, one cannot negate the fact that it's more probable that there's some raw video/information about a story that presents truth as close as possible, and is available deep in a social network or the internet.

As a concert attender I probably recall the event that was the most likely cause which gave me tinnitus. It was an EDM concert where the front speakers sounded very 'rough' and also the stupid decision on my (& my friends) part to stay as close in the front as possible, for more than 1 hour. I think close impacts from airwaves (crashes, staying close to speakers, etc) are the most popular cause, as listening 'responsibly' on headphones did not gave me tinnitus before, nor did my usual edm concert attendance (excepting obviously the following couple of days). The eardrum can recover but once it's been 'cracked' remedies are very rare (if they exist at all, haven't researched).

I was skeptical of the news in the first place (not to sound like a "smartass" because I'm not, and we can only speculate about these things from outside).

Anyways, the move , whether Elon intended or not at any given time to join the board, turned out to be beneficial for both him (more so than for) & Twitter. I don't think it can affect him negatively in any way, he already has a de facto much higher base culturally speaking than the "Twitter" army.

Damn, i knew it was a mac-first product but i really hoped for a linux release. Guess it does makes sense to attack the market with more money, but still.

Thanks for the link, I remember hearing about Clarence Thomas' take on this subject but I never took the time to study it. My personal opinion (before reading the material above) is that the "core issue" stands on the S230 "loop-hole" (I don't want to use the term 'abuse' given the negative connotation ... so far it[S230] has been a net good since it made the internet grow so much since 2007, but things have started to change with the rise of monopolistic corporations) giving companies both privileges with less responsibility than should necessary. At least in principle a Bill of Rights should exist, especially considering that places like Twitter are considered fairly often under the law (think court cases) 'public spaces'. Therefore in my mind if the public street is a place where i can speak freely, so should one be able to on Twitter/any other such deemed public space.

Nationalizing in the traditional sense is not the solution, indeed, but rather hold the platform up to the letter of the constitution. This right now is not exactly possible given that "twitter is a private company", therefore arguably if one puts it in the hands of the government, you have the double-edged sword of potentially being abused by the government, and on the other hand the solution i forementioned on holding it accountable given that it would become public under the law. However, just like with any other gov. institution, being held accountable is more often than not up to the people through their civic initiative and probably not something that the government will do out of interest. So in this regard in US it could work given the nature of the constitution, whereas in other countries Twitter would just become a propaganda machine (isn't it one already?).

"We" as adults at least have the mostly-capable ability to discern good from bad, whereas a child until the age of 14-18 (depending on the topic at hand) does not have the sense of responsibility, especially about the crucial aspect which is his/her own health. Therefore you could expect an adult to be able to take care of him/her-self after the ~age of adulthood, whereas a children is very rarely expected to do so, because most of the times they're not even fully aware of it (consciously speaking, not talking about almost instinctive reactions).

When I first encountered this idea it quickly jumped to me that the universe does not appear to be "static", or at least our observation of it is constantly changing. This also plays into homogeneity, and the last assumption of being "infinite" is somewhat irrelevant, because if the first 2 aspects don't hold, being infinite still won't make the sky appear 'filled', at least past the point of our observation.

Of course there's still the theory of an imploding universe which could shrink back together all matter and thus maybe achieve this effect, but even then we still don't have a static characteristic, it only makes an argument for an 'infinitely occurring universe', maybe something akin of the theory proposed by Penrose.(which however still has a lot of unanswered questions, imo)

Layman question I have when I constantly see (what i perceive as) misguided fear towards nuclear energy: Is is "that" easy to use nuclear energy facilities to manufacture or empower nuclear weapons? My gut says no, but I feel some people think nuclear weapons are easily made from nuclear power plants just because they have a common word.

I don't find this surprising personally, the psyche is an underrated aspect of one's immunity. Thoughts govern the body more than mere commands or receiving sensory "data". If one feels unwell "in his head" then that means he is actually unwell or eventually the body will "adjust" to his perception: feeling unwell, or at least not optimal. Similarly the opposite is probably true: having a clear mind probably helps more than not.

Some big names there: both in companies and people. Let's see if they stick around

Nowadays mainly when talking projects that are related to mine or to future work.For example, a package that I want to use and I see it's buggy/not working properly.I'll point out the issue, offer some testing/feedback.If I really need it working I'll invest the time 'out of my pocket' to solve it and propose a solution to the dev(s).That way I know I also gave and received something.

To me, contributing to OSS for 'community' brownie points never had any meaning, mainly because it sometimes skews the perception of actual interest in a project with interest of a person to be recognized by contributing to that project.The latter is a legitimate goal, but most people are not coming forward with this aspect.I don't recommend entering OSS contributions if you're not comfortable with financial risk.It sounds cliche but it's true: OSS contributions and activity should not be influenced by money, but rather (and it still often is) mainly by actual interest: hobbyists, researchers, etc.However this is not a fairy tale and things still get moved by money: it's just a matter of priority and where do you see the value.

A little bit of history note here: the macOS design is in most part copied from gnome 2, which i'm pretty sure was not javascript anything.

>So what would macOS use to trigger when FaceID should be initiated?

The equivalent system on another OS? At least when talking Android that should be easy since accelerometer(/gyroscope w/o gravity) are already available from the OS side. When talking windows/linux that's arguably harder but not impossible. The only major caveat is required hardware for that. But this situation is somewhat similar to Microsoft Hello, except we're not talking entirely about cameras.

These are just wishful ideas though, and you are right: we know Apple will never open their face ID implementation ever, let alone give users outside their ecosystem the possibility of using Face ID for any of their services/products. To that end, I don't even know if there's a use case where someone could need Face ID on a non-Apple device.

> “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”

To this end, I find it somewhat funny how people still believe Microsoft has a redemption arc.

I'm pretty sure even back then people were aware of celestial bodies like planets & stars. However meteorites, comets, things that came close to Earth's atmosphere were probably regarded differently depending on culture, social class/status(which vastly indicated level of education),etc. Also more likely than not those events were used politically to much success. I find it hard to believe that the 'brightest' people of any ancient period weren't aware that some of these 'small' objects might hit and thus remain on earth.

TP-Link became a big no-go for me as soon as ax came out and I saw that they required account registration[0] for managing a personal, local router. Probably has to do with the fact that they're not western-owned and are 'legally required' to have such a system in order to be covered from 'borrowing' your data. I expect other vendors(Huawei,etc) to do the same, and it's insane that people don't revolt against such practices, especially considering we still have such vendors being installed by default in people's homes by the ISPs.And whilst a router is replaceable by the end user, something like an ONT is harder to find in most places, and the ISP doesn't usually give config details for an ONT.

[0] Edit: An online account for the mobile application, not the web interface of the router itself.

Always chuckle when we talk corporate or western state-sponsored propaganda yet "we" still have shit like this. Collusion between the private companies and governments is fascism, by definition. Which is what China does in their country, and which is what we sometimes allow, willingly or not, in our countries through the internet.

I personally am against censorship of any kind. And while that in principle means allowing propaganda garbage from all sides, it also means not censoring domestic "propaganda"(which could be anything depending on your reference) or material. People dislike this because having a personal filter is hard, but the alternative is arguably worse if you only allow a certain side.(which goes back to the first point of fascism by collusion)

I don't know if you ask these questions rhetorically. Not caring about the ethics of were you put your money and your actions it's "your"(i mean the entity doing that, obviously) problem, nobody else's[because not everyone cares about ethics & morals]. So yes, whether you stop doing business in Russia and that affects both russia and your business, everybody should think twice before doing any business with anybody. It's easy to hide under the umbrella of "just making money" without taking into account ethical and moral concerns. Because ethics and morals rarely come after-the-fact, whereas people who truly think about those things preoccupy themselves with those issues since day one.

By the way,this is not a "bug" of capitalism, it's a bug of people mindlessly not caring about the ramifications of their own choices and decisions, which is nowadays everything and every action being subjected to pay for/sell.

Also, I hate virtue signalling, but at the same time one could argue getting rich, making money throughout all means, it's also a "signalling" of some sorts, especially in US. Now whether or not making money is considered a virtue, that's a more complicated subject.

The video look worse than "professional fakes" long even before AI.Text is the hardest for people who don't follow those specific people(though it is still easy to spot the fake), and audio is very easy aswell.

Not boasting, just reality.I've seen some pretty astounding deepfakes, these are not part of those.

Key thing to remember: While China & Russia are "buddies", China has long-term interests in Europe in their fight 'against' US: they don't want to be seen as Russia-backers necessarily because Europe is a gold mine for them: They still want their Silk Road train route from China to Europe, which moves from Kazakhstan & other Asian countries.This is also besides the obvious chinese play for Taiwan, which people should stay focused on.

Agreed.Though I'd say that UK has uniquely(amongst EU at least) been proven as a good supporter and ally with EE through NATO for military purposes.Indeed, if only 50 visas have been given that's a pretty low number, but I'd be curious to know if rejections for visas are because of immigration policies[which I respect,from both a democratic prism and from my personal ideology] or security concerns.

Also a citizen of the mentioned country: while 'pride' might be a strong word for my feeling, I more importantly feel like it's our duty and responsibility to help those in need.After all that is one of our cultural values we strive for as a country and as a continent.Personally I'll feel pride after the threat is gone.

Where I differ is that I don't think countries like UK/other should be shamed for taking a different approach at all.It's never charity if it's forced.Yes, the first & second "waves" of people who flee during wartime are upper-middle class citizens, which we've seen here.They are financially secure most of the time, they are not as desperate.If they don't stay here they will go to Germany/other countries where they think it's best for them. The lower-middle & lower class can't do that,flee lastly and those are the people we need to support and help them unconditionally(and are the most grateful).At the same time some in WE & NA don't realize these are people legitimately fleeing conflict and are not migrating for,frankly, welfare benefits.They usually don't want to go in far distant lands because there's no economic motive.I don't want to sound like an ignorant but frankly UK is kind of a big stretch for fleeing as a wartime refugee person, though i'm not one to judge.Not to mention we've repeatedly seen refugee crises being abused for this reason, especially when getting a visa or being allowed through the border does not happen under normal conditions.(Here i would also like to say that Romania isn't in Schengen,still has border checks for both EU&non-EU, and there's nothing "discriminatory" if the border officer determines you're not fleeing conflict and rejects you, especially if there's no special case being stated by the gov. regarding certain criteria like nationality [exception which now exists for Ukrainians -- though more exceptionally this was decided at an EU level])

That's a disingenuous argument: yes 'defeated' countries like Germany mainly are US 'influenced'[I would not use the term satellite: It's not exactly a situation like Russia & Transnistria technically speaking] but the rest of the continent does not have this kind of relationship but a more 'grateful one'.The EU became a bureaucratic nightmare as soon as it started shifting from an economical union and added more attributions to it.NATO exists, even more importantly than that: sovereign nations exist(by the way this is not a legitimate argument for saying "This is how Putin is getting away with it". Europe has shown repeatedly that it can quickly mobilize against a real common enemy).Centralizing power is the mistake we keep repeating in Europe for thousands of years and it never works, because obviously power corrupts and some will be greedy and overstep.

An EU army is the worst idea i've heard and the biggest counter-argument of being pro-EU.You talk like we don't have armies: we do, and strengthening them is the priority instead of creating more super-national entities which will have no effect pragmatically speaking, and a lot of overhead in terms of wasted money.It will open loopholes where people who hold more power at an EU-level will abuse the army for doing their bidding.As a matter of fact, EU can demand nation-states to do economic & regulatory measures between countries as long as nation states continue with their membership,but it does not have any power over sovereign states in most matters, especially military & security-wise.

More often than not it's (sadly, i guess) necessary for an author to transform/include such fictional elements in order to attract attention about a topic, especially when it's a sensible one (surveillance, trust in authority,etc).

I'm not sure i prefer this instead of a raw analysis of culture & society without the fictional elements, but at the same time I personally think having such fictional elements often anchor a work better throughout time(though a downside to this might be that future artistic adaptations might "rewrite" some original thoughts).Even more interestingly: raw, almost technical analyses often get forgotten and dismissed by people even if they contain 'predictions' that turned out to be true, coming back to the first point that the masses understandably aren't interested in them.It's like we don't care about truth/future if it doesn't make us feel good.