spritefs

I mean, I never said what Sweeney was doing is considered doxxing, or whether his behavior could lead to reasonable fear for safety. I'd rather let the lawyers untangle this annoying mess

really didn't expect my initial comment to lead to a shitstorm...

It isn't legal in California

> Every person who, with intent to place another person in reasonable fear for his or her safety, or the safety of the other person’s immediate family, by means of an electronic communication device, and without consent of the other person, and for the purpose of imminently causing that other person unwanted physical contact, injury, or harassment, by a third party, electronically distributes, publishes, e-mails, hyperlinks, or makes available for downloading, personal identifying information, including, but not limited to, a digital image of another person, or an electronic message of a harassing nature about another person, which would be likely to incite or produce that unlawful action, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in a county jail, by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...

What does this have to do with my above comment?

This isn't about "right wingers" or any of these braindead arguments about "moderation being in the public interest", my point was that saying what Roth and others did was "normal company operation" is an outright lie and anyone who's actually paying attention knows this

> Hopefully people realize that trusting $COMPANY will never deliver you anything good. We either regulate the things we care about, or let stuff like this happen. Either way, the world keeps spinning.

Or an alternative: people can use social media that doesn't suck whenever something like this happens, and the market forces will punish the stupidity on twitter or any other platform that forgets what's owed to its userbase

I have no idea why your first instinct is to regulate when twitter doesn't have a monopoly and there are several very similar alternatives that are growing in popularity

> Trump was banned for inciting an insurrection which is illegal.

So we should ban everyone who's suspected of doing something illegal then? They don't even have to be charged with any crimes, we just have to be convinced that they did something illegal in order to have grounds for banning them

> And people can just move to a different town, that doesn't stop us from having laws in place to guarantee rights in the current town.

Towns are municipalities, twitter is a private company. The more I look at this metaphor, the less it makes sense

> a president not condemning and (very likely encouraging)

So not condemning something (that is to say, choosing not to speak) and "very likely encouraging" (as opposed to actually encouraging) is somehow worse than calling for outright genocide?

Your comment isn't really clear here. Are denying that the two comments I posted aren't contributing to violence that was actively going on at the time of their posting?

And with regard to this:

> Have you considered that many people here actually work in companies and know how they work, meaning they don't need a media source to know that the Twitter files are bogus? In fact, most people here have brains and can think for themselves, and we actually don't rely on a media outlet for all our takes.

thanks for the copypasta :)

> but these companies very explicitly build to scale to be a sort of "town hall" and in doing so start having very large social influence the likes of which no one in history has ever had.

I think a bazaar or carnival is a better metaphor, since a town hall is a brick and mortar thing that lasts into posterity, whereas a social network is more temporary

> When they get to this scale there has to be extra responsibility here for the good of society as a whole.

Or people could just not use the service and move onto a different one? There's nothing permanent about the current social networks that are popular right now

> Public figures were largely exempt from the rules except when their tweet was egregious.

So are you saying that the two tweets I posted above aren't egregious?

> Not sure why you think this is some conspiracy when it was blatantly obvious.

I can't find that allegation anywhere in my comment. What was there was the obvious inconsistency between not banning e.g. the Ayatollah for the above comment, but banning the former president

Can you find any tweets from the former president that were even comparable to the two tweets I posted?

Yeah I agree that Elon is full of shit, but there's a little lie in here that needs to be addressed:

> normal company operation in good faith

But it wasn't "normal company operation" because they completely disregarded preexisting company policy for dealing with political figures. Here are political figures that they didn't ban (who were inciting violence)

> 20. In June 2018, Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei tweeted, “#Israel is a malignant cancerous tumor in the West Asian region that has to be removed and eradicated: it is possible and it will happen.”

> 21. In October 2020, the former Malaysian Prime Minister said it was “a right” for Muslims to “kill millions of French people.”

But they banned the former president. What they were doing wasn't "normal company operation", it was a bunch of power tripping people in upper management (like Roth) who "took it upon themselves" to disregard preexisting company policies for some odd reason

You can dislike Trump/Elon/et al, but the "normal company operation" bit is an outright distortion of what actually happened

source: https://nitter.net/bariweiss/status/1602370518585221120#m

yeah I also tried them once out of curiosity. I don't think I have an attention disorder, so it might've affected me differently than others, but adderall made me like super focused on everything

I'd imagine if I did it more often, I'd be a more productive programmer. At the same time, idk what the health risks are for that and I'm already a bit of a hypochondriac as it is... so I probably wouldn't risk liver damage or whatever is associated with long term use

> Well, it's an anaesthetic

I thought it was a stimulant

Imho this whole ADHD/adderall thing is just the pharma industry peddling medication and shilling super hard. I wouldn't be surprised if pharma dollars somehow influenced this BBC article getting published

If some people like paying an additional tax to the pharmaceutical industry, good for them. For me personally, I'd rather jump off a cliff then support it

Before someone gets shitty with me for "denying their experience", no I'm not denying it. I'm saying it isn't universal, and the pharma way isn't the only way

This attitude is dismissive and reductive

At the same time, a couple years ago I read a bunch of social sciences crap and realized at the end of it that none of the ideas were actually falsifiable. It was just a bunch of ideas and nothing more. At least with computer science, you can actually apply the crap you read in books to real world stuff

So with respect to social sciences and how much time and money they've wasted so far, I'm completely on board with being both dismissive and reductive

I'll add (after reading some responses here), I'm not saying that someone should always be honest, I was just saying it's possible to be frank with someone without being a douche

For example, instead of telling someone "this isn't good", tell them "use this technique instead" or "it's better to do it this way because X"

I get that there are some people who'll take offense to everything. Those types have to be managed differently and are a headache to deal with. But if you aren't a dick and have a paper trail, there's nothing to worry about

I wasn't making a universal claim about all communication, I was just saying it's possible to be honest without being a dick

> I don’t think you’re entitled to an example after being so reductive about the topic.

Am I the one who's being reductive here, or are you the one who's taking an ambiguous comment, interpreting it in a black and white way, and then posting this hypocritically reductive response here?

That guy just sounds crazy and not at peace with himself.

Also in my original comment, I wasn't trying to make a universal claim about communication in general. If I was dealing with the above person, I'd likely just not respond and avoid them for the rest of the workshop (because bad vibes). But if I absolutely HAD to respond to that kind of person, I would sure as fuck lie to their face just to get them to fuck off

> We're breaking up with JavaScript front ends

> Site doesn't load properly with javascript disabled

They should put their money where their mouth is

Let me get this straight: google is removing support for blocking webRequest API, but keeping support for non-blocking webRequest API? How is this supposed to benefit privacy if the non-blocking API is still supported?

> One person’s “bullying and harassment” is another person’s “intimate honesty”. There are no easy answers.

No. You can be honest with someone about something without being an asshole. What exactly do you mean here by "intimate honesty"? You should give a concrete example

The car location thing is an actual issue that needs to be legislated away. Companies like bmw do this with irremovable sim cards and location data

Why the fuck does my car need an internet connection when nav isn't being used? Why are the sim cards irremovable? Why is an internet connection necessary for heated seats?

Principle of least privilege. These automakers can fuck off out of the data brokering industry with their ""automobile as a service"" business model

> Shady software

As in Github and Micro$hit along with them

> suddenly i am unable to log in to my github and the page just says "account suspended."

This happened to me the other day, out of nowhere. I have no idea why. At least OP managed to get a response out of their support, I've yet to get any sort of response after a couple weeks. All the other times I got an account banned from somewhere, I've always known why. In this case, I have literally no idea of what I did to get that kind of treatment

Maybe Github is purging accounts en masse or something? I have no clue

What I can say is this: Github/MS is highly unresponsive. The Copilot thing was highly disrespectful to users and shows how little regard MS has for the open source community

I self host gitea now and don't have any plans of using Github again for anything outside of school/work, where I don't have a choice (at least at the moment)

The service that Github offers has so many alternatives, there's literally no reason to stick around and play Micro$hit's head games (other than complacency)

> Work life balance. When I was growing up in Tech in the ‘90’s - there was no such thing as work life balance. We loved what we did and wanted to succeed so we worked like crazy to achieve great things.

Because remember, it's only "actual work" when this guy is doing it

> Young people want it all - they want to get promoted quickly, achieve economic independence, feel fulfilled at Work, be home early, not miss the Yoga class at 11:00am etc. Having trouble scheduling meetings because “it's the new Yoga instructor lesson I cannot miss” or “I’m taking a personal day” drove me crazy.

Based off of my own personal experiences, the yoga instructor thing is a gross misrepresentation. Not only this, but a highly dismissive, caricatured way of talking about people you work with

> I have always been a pretty passionate guy, especially at Waze. After the acquisition, I was invited to speak on many different Google panels and events and very quickly, I began racking up my HR complaints. I used a four letter word, my analogy was not PC, my language was not PG… I actually stopped speaking at events where the majority appreciated what I was saying but the minority that was offended by something (words and not content) made it a pain.

I wonder if it ever crossed this guy's mind that maybe he is the problem. At least he's broadcasting his own entitlement under his own name for everyone to see

Just curious, what brought you to sub-Saharan Africa? Are you from there or was it missionary work? How is it less individualistic than the west?

Sorry if this comment is a little nosy, just curious about the different culture

> it's just a story about his feelings.

Oh I'm sure. But feelings and money aren't mutually exclusive. Why do you think he posts donation links under the heading "THIS IS WHERE YOU GET TO SAVE MY LIFE"?

> I particularly enjoyed the comments where blokes (so many blokes!) got angry at me for even HAVING emotions about this situation, when the law seemed, to them, to make such emotions invalid.

You write a several thousand word screed (mostly about money), talk about payouts to Mojang staff and Notch's house, post a donation link under the heading "THIS IS WHERE YOU GET TO SAVE MY LIFE", and then come here with pointed comments about people disregarding your "emotions" in this situation because there isn't unanimous agreement on your own "rightness" in this situation

I don't really need to comment on any of this, because anyone with eyes can see it for what it is

> No, and I feel like he made it extremely clear that this story is not really about money and his feelings are not driven by a lack of royalties.

If it wasn't about money, than what was it about? "Fairness"? So money?

Maybe because they sent the money before fully coming to an agreement and getting a signed contract

> There are cultures in the world where the babysitter would expect to share in your windfall and everyone would think it a perfectly reasonable thing.

Which cultures do you have in mind?