I find such thoughts exciting. In the future, children will be taught basic facts that, to us in the first half of the 21st century, are some of the most complicated questions of the universe.
I think knowledge about universe will be mostly the same but streamlined. In our modern day science we have a lot of concepts that exist only because of the path we took to get to where we are now.
Most of these interpretations will be cut out once a better ways to proper undestanding is found. I imagine electrons shells, wave function collapse, pseudo-vectors, relativistic mass, xyz ... will go away quickly to be replaced with more suitable concepts previously (and still) held back by necessity of humans to be able to do some math with pen and paper.
> how does bluesky solve the problem of building your castle in another man's kingdom?
Bluesky (the platform) doesn't, and they acknowledge that. It's centrally owned, and is prone to all of the risks that any other centralized platform offers.
> if I do something controversial or using regulatory arbitrage, I'm interested in how AT is useful for managing that risk.
AT is completely decentralized, like email.
If your account is @motohagiography.example.com, other AT instances will make a DNS query to example.com to see if that has an entry that the AT protocol recognizes. If so, it will make a connection to that instance, and gather your content for display.
However, if a particular instance sees their a volume of unwanted accounts from example.com, they could blacklist that domain from interacting with their instance, so, even with this setup, you are at the mercy of the "big players" respecting you — just like if you try to send email to users using Gmail and Google decides you're suspect.
And, if you violate the laws of where you're located, law enforcement will handle that the same as they would if you violating the laws over HTTP or over email.
Nope. Almost everybody has more than one device (laptop, phone, and maybe a tablet) with more than one IP (both home wifi and phone data). Everyone has multiple email addresses.
You could get by with requiring a unique phone number, but that still risks excluding users, and can get expensive if you intend on catering to an international audience. Even in that case, some people may have a landline and a cell phone, or they may use a friend/spouse/relative’s phone to circumvent your limits.
> You could get by with requiring a unique phone number
In the US, anyway, you can also get burner phones for about $10 at local stores. I do this routinely if someone is requiring a phone number to register for something that I really want to register for.
It's no more or less disconnected than any other store purchase. You can assume there are cameras in any store. You can indeed pay cash. The only records generated are the usual sales records, and if you're concerned about minimizing those, then you use the same mitigations that you'd use with any other purchase.
Personally, I'm not concerned with that level of anonymity, though. I just don't want to give my actual phone number to random companies.
Fun! I played this without sound, and got all of them correct.
I think part of the problem is that I knew that some videos were fake, so I was looking to see if their lips matched other movements. If somebody is talking fast, but their body language/movements are far slower than their talking, then it’s a pretty obvious tell.
If I had just seen one of these videos out in the wild, I can’t say if I’d immediately notice they’re fake, since that wouldn’t be the first thing on my mind. I think it’s probably impossible to get an accurate test given this limitation, but this test would be good for more casual people to try (i.e., people outside of HN).
Given what you wrote, it's hard to tell one way or another what they think about you personally. Was the code stored on your personal device, or a company-issued one? If it's company-issued, it's probably nothing to worry about, since, if they were to terminate you, they could immediately restrict your access to the codebase.
I view it vastly more likely that this isn't anything personal, it's just a new corporate decision to limit who has access to the code. If someone's job is a bit more complicated, but they can still do their work, while the company is far more protected, that is a good trade-off for lots of folks.
Also, your company "looking to reduce expenses" doesn't mean anything. Every company is. You will hear that, in some form or another, in almost any organization. If they have to increase spend for cybersecurity, they will.
I see your points, and I genuinely hope you're correct—if this is merely a new policy aimed at limiting access to the code, then I can understand the broader motivations behind it. That said, given my concerns about cost and efficiency, the question becomes whether it's worth the effort to try and get leadership to reconsider. From a practical perspective, the restriction makes my job notably more difficult. The Inefficiencies introduced directly translate into lost time, hindering my ability to troubleshoot, test and debug efficiently. Over time, this could affect my productivity, or at least the appearance of it, which in turn could be detrimental when my output is closely scrutinized. The indirect, long-term impact on the product is another rabbit hole entirely.
TL;DR
If due to policy changes and my concerns are valid, do I pursue raising my concerns to leadership?
Is it your first job ? If it is, don't worry, it's way worse everywhere else. Sometimes you have committees eating many man-hours, every day, to green light releases with non-technical people having the last word, asking no question, and always, always approving.
When I do a release as a dev, I don't do it myself: someone in another country presses the buttons I ask them to press, type the linux commands I ask them to type, and accept my answer when I say it looks good. Because I am, and all my colleagues are, considered a security risk, and it's better we dictate everything to someone who has no idea what we're releasing, for security reason. We call that segregation in duty, instead of "complete waste of time".
> I run YouTube revanced not even for the Adblock but just to remove shorts. [...] I might feel differently about this one day and turn off the algorithm completely on YouTube, but I have not done so yet.
Turn off your YouTube history/algorithm. It’s free, and it immediately prevents the Shorts tab from working, and kills your homepage. This means you have to actively subscribe to YouTube channels you enjoy, or search for topics you want to know about in that moment. I cannot recommend it enough.
I did not know that killed shorts. Good to know! The only thing is I don't find the home tab too addicting and I feel like it can be nice for when I'm getting into a completely new topic.
For example, I'm just getting into music production so I have no idea who to subscribe to and just searching music production gives me way too much content. I had this show up on my home page which I thought was really helpful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT66Qwms-Mw&t=1572s
Maybe I should selectively turn it on and off, because yeah usually it's way too aggressive unless it's a new topic. I really wish social media sites gave more control over the algorithm. Like I just want to talk to an LLM and tell it what type of algorithm I want. More tame algorithm goes against their business model though so maybe I'll have to build it myself :)
They seem against any nay-sayers, so I’ll respect that and bite my tongue.
The silver lining is that, their idea (which they later reveal that they “forgot to mention” will also include full banking support and the issuance of cards) is very complicated and will require years of non-stop planning and paperwork before a single customer can be onboarded.
This isn’t handing your friend the keys to a jet and letting them fly a plane, this is your friend wanting to enroll in pilot school. It’s good to try, and, if you realize it’s not for you, there’s nobody harmed as a result.
The core facts are: Brazil demanded information regarding Brazilian users, and believed it was in their right to do so. X believed that the requests did not comply with Brazilian laws, and refused. Neither side yielded, so X closed up shop in Brazil, and, as a result, Brazil is blocking access to X.
There is actually more to this here, it was not just information about Brazilian users, the request was actually to shadowban (block without notifying the users) specific accounts. Some of those accounts happen to be political opposition (actual politicians too) to this judge and his party in general. I believe twitter or musk himself leaked all court documents when this request came in.
Twitter/X closed shop because, after stating that they would not comply with these requests, the judge threatened to jail every Twitter/X employee in brazil in retaliation. So to avoid putting these employees/people in danger they chose to immediately close all offices.
Something similar happened in Argentina with twitter as well I believe, and in that case they relocated most of the employees and their families via political asylum in Brazil at the time, if i'm not mistaken.
You could also spin it the other way, the only countries that have banned twitter so far are very authoritarian or dictatorships. Why does "Brazil being run by Silva" want to be part of the club?
There are many small things you can do right now — avoid buying food or drink that is in plastic, avoid storing leftovers in plastic, avoid plastic cutlery and plates. Never heat up food in the aforementioned plastic.
But the 80% number may be hard to reach, depending on what your current intake is. And since there’s no real way to measure what your intake is, and how low you get, it’ll be much harder.
Moving to a farm won’t necessarily help. You still need to buy things to run a farm, many of which are packaged in plastic. You still need clothes. There will always be some element of risk involved.
The problem is that avoiding microplastics in food is really hard. Lots of food that is not packaged in plastic is full of microplastics. These are leaking into food during processing or from the environment. Car tires are full of plastic and continuously shedding it. For example, lots of plant roots have been shown to uptake microplastics from soil.
IMHO, EPA and EU environmental agencies should mandate testing microplastic levels in food. Otherwise, we are blind. Alternatively, some independent organization should come up with a microplastic level test and award badges.
.com is for .com. You can interpret it any way you'd like and it doesn't make a difference to anyone who isn't currently interested in the history of DNS.
My preferred reading is .com for commonlymisinterpretedbypeoplewhodonotreadrfcsbutitdoesnotmatterintheslightest, which is a Welsh word meaning "oddly shaped sheep".
I'm not sure how that leads to the conclusion that other short, convenient TLDs like `.dev` should just be given to companies like Google to use very sparingly, if at all.
EDIT: Looks like I misunderstood what Google having .dev meant in the above discussion; domains using it are available to purchase through their registrar (or more precisely resellers since I guess they don't sell directly anymore)
reply