“The intent of the Topics API is to provide callers (including third-party ad-tech or advertising providers on the page that run script) with coarse-grained advertising topics that the page visitor might currently be interested in.”
In other words, google knows so much about the visitor to be screwed by regulation, hence they want to wrap the coarse-grained moat as helpful topics for advertisers. Meanwhile not exactly share that info with anyone to not lose their moat benefit either by removing third-party cookies effectively killing other data harvesters’ moats and become the one true eye of sauron(or politely called as monopoly).
But the topics API is available to anyone to use right? So in a way they're getting rid of their moat because they're closing down a datasource where they are market leading and opening up a new data source where everyone gets access for free.
Had another country had a primary role in inventing the internet, they would probably have it (or more likely, the US would be .gov.us and everyone else would be whatever they are today).
I don’t understand this argument. Are you saying the internet should be organised in a way that benefits the US, even if it is confusing for people in other countries? By your reasoning, it would make sense for .com to be US-exclusive because the US had a primary role in inventing the internet. Let’s pause to ask ourselves “what is an actually good system?” instead of “how can we justify US privilege?”.
Other countries could create their gTLD as they see fit: .gouv, .ukgov, etc.
They instead prefer using a SLD (like .gouv.fr) because they’re complete owner of their ccTLD. ccTLDs are not affiliated in anyway with ICANN. I’m guessing .gov is a special case nowadays, and probably considered like a ccTLD from the ICANN point of view, I’ll have to look into it
Edit: it seems like gov is considered as a Sponsored TLD[1] (sTLD). Not sure what it implies.
While its true there is still a relationship back to ICANN for ccTLDs, politically it would be a shitstorm of epic proportions if the US/ICANN interfered in the administration of ccTLDs - most countries (understandably!) see their ccTLD as an increasingly sovereign thing that is naturally owned by the State, not the registrars or domain name registration system.
While it might be technically possible for ICANN to make certain adjustments to the ccTLD system or the registration requirements, politically its much much harder and gets harder still with time. Imagine the response from most soverign states etc if their own ccTLD was meddled with in a manner they didn't appreciate.
ICANN has slowly tried to move more and more of the ccTLD stuff to international working groups ("Governmental Advisory Committee") to put clean air between the US and ccTLDs, but the link is still there:
This is very cute, not sure how I missed this. I never liked the aesthetics of the XML that shows up when you click an RSS feed. Will make some time to style my websites' feeds soon. :)
I had been waiting for this tech for the longest time. When it was finally implemented by all, RSS started falling out of favor. I went back to this now, and it took forever to try to come up with a stylesheet.
I would say don't waste your time. Just get something off the shelf and start tweaking that one instead.
I don't really know anything about Tailscale. But I really dislike passwords — I think they're very frustrating for users to use, and it feels like we should have found a technological solution to this problem by now. Passkeys seem to be a solution to this problem, but it's up to people to adopt them. I upvoted this post so that others might see a company implementing passkeys, and that this might encourage them to implement passkeys too. Once we have widespread enough support for passkeys, maybe we might finally ditch passwords.
(Or, maybe passkeys are bad, I don't know, but we need to have a conversation in order to find a better solution.)
> If it is so important for those people who love to complain about such stuff. Though I suspect most of the people complaining about her proportions didn't even play the games themselves.
You can make your point without claiming that people who have a different view just “love to complain”. It might be worth asking yourself why they're complaining instead of dismissing their views — you wouldn't want someone else to dismiss your view like that.
But it does seem like motivated reasoning. I never hear men complain about the unrealistic depiction of men in women shows. Neither with good nor with bad arguments.
To be fair, most women didn't complain about Lara Croft or Princess Peach either. It was just some (influential!) minority of feminists who complained about this, got amplified by sympathetic journalists (who mostly lean pretty far left), and the rest is history.
> I never hear men complain about the unrealistic depiction of men in women shows.
Err, really? I'm a man and I complain about this all the time, and so do some of my friends. In any case, even if you've never heard people talk about this, I'm sure there are objections to the depictions of men that _you_ could imagine. If you think these objections are underrepresented, talking to those around you about them would be a positive influence.
> It was just some (influential!) minority of feminists who complained about this, got amplified by sympathetic journalists (who mostly lean pretty far left), and the rest is history.
Already in this sentence you're discounting the fact that these complaints resonate with people. I'm not sure in which way you think these feminists are “influential”, but let's say journalists widely covered certain arguments. Do you mean this media coverage somehow brainwashed people? Surely not, because you would be denying the agency of readers. Clearly there is something in these arguments that legitimately appeals to people. Isn't it interesting and important to find out what parts of the arguments resonated with someone and why, even if you think the end result is wrong?
For example, I disagree with those who voted for Brexit to happen. But if I just dismissed them as brainwashed idiots, that would be very foolish of me. These people voted this way for a reason, and I need to understand which part of Brexit resonated with them, even if I think they came to the wrong conclusion, otherwise I can never understand them and I can never advocate for an alternative that will meet their needs as well.
> (who mostly lean pretty far left)
Again, why does this matter? There is no need to resort to football team factionalism, to make things about politics instead of policies. Do you think the arguments are good? Great, then these people have a point. Do you think these arguments are bad? Okay, that's fair, make your opinion heard so that you can add your voice. Tell us in more detail about why those policies are bad, not about why _the people making those points_ are bad. It would be rash of me to psychoanalyse why are you are making certain arguments without even knowing you, let alone to say that you are trying to influence people as part of some conspiracy. (Sorry if I'm portraying your view in an overdramatic way but it did sound like you were saying something like this a little bit.)
> motivated reasoning
Motivated by what? Do you really think a love of complaining is a more likely motivator than a desire to right a perceived injustice?
Could you say a bit more about how those running the councils benefit from these contracts? I don’t think I fully understood what you were saying about kickbacks.
Say you are an ERP vendor who really wants to get a contract with the (imaginary) Penzance Metropolitan Borough. What do you do? You identify the key decision makers and start wining and dining them. Since scrutiny at local level has largely disappeared (thanks to the demise of local press), nobody will notice.
Maybe you don't even need to do that, maybe you already knew them from school, so it was a given that they'd call you as soon as they got in a position to bring you in - and you'll be so grateful, you'll probably let you stay at your cottage in France for free, any time they want.
Etc etc etc.
This is stuff that in other countries would be called organised crime, mafia, defrauding the state, and so on. In Britain it's just how the ruling classes go about business.
“The intent of the Topics API is to provide callers (including third-party ad-tech or advertising providers on the page that run script) with coarse-grained advertising topics that the page visitor might currently be interested in.”
https://github.com/patcg-individual-drafts/topics#the-api-an...