The likes of Spez were just not that intelligent enough to figure out how to make Reddit pay before the VCs called in the investments. Not that it's an easy problem to solve, but if you're going to take on money like Reddit did you sure as hell needed a better plan then leaving it up to later to figure out. Amazon had a plan clearly, Reddit did not.
Also, what Reddit is now doing mimics a little of what Facebook did too, the enshitification of your feeds (just look at the app). They're just hoping Reddit is as addictive as Facebook is and you'll stick around regardless. I wonder if they recent;y hired some new advisers that told them to make these recent changes too?
Here's the play, charge a reasonable amount for API calls and people will either pay with money or with data, some will even do both.
Instead you and I are having this conversation on kbin.
After the way shithead acted and talked, well I waste less time on the internet, and yeah, it's a little harder to find results on google, but that is just making me realize how much I relied on Reddit.
I need to find another search engine too, I rely too much on too few providers.
A better option might be to require third party developers to use a Reddit based advertising API with the benefit of free API usage and revenue sharing. Everyone's happy. Third party developers would get paid for ads, they can show more ads and use other ad providers along side Reddit if they want to, the API gets paid for by advertising revenue for all of the third party apps, Reddit gets to track it's users by requiring API Ad calls to send a user id, etc., etc..
Meta has already expressed interest in the fediverse. It's going to be up to everyone who likes it to defederate from every corporate instance.
There are no good corporate actors
I don’t know it off the top of my head, but I’ve seen it mentioned elsewhere that over on Mastodon, a large number of instances have banded together to collectively block all Meta owned instances, and publish a list of them and so on.
I think convenient-to-add, publicly viewable blocklists will be a thing on here sooner rather than later.
Mistifying / Mistification works if you like Anglo-German puns. Emmerdification for an Anglo-French equivalent.
If you're against anything to do with faeces at all, I'm not sure there's as short and easy a neologism that as fully captures the meaning and, importantly, disdain without being a mouthful.
You need an en- of some sort because it's clear that something is changing and then the action is the attempt to squeeze as much profit out of an enterprise with the expectation that nothing much will, er, change. This inevitably ruins or destroys the nature of the enterprise from the users' point of view.
Then the CEO immediately has cognitive dissonance between their own ego and self-belief of infallibility versus the fact the enterprise isn't working or has changed far more than their expectations. Their ego, and desire for profit, inevitably wins.
Much like badly managed corporate take-overs, all the smart people leave as soon as they can assuming they haven't already been fired and replaced by an inferior of some sort.
Thus, the whole thing turns to... well. Is there a better word?
Hm, yeah I guess no one has been speculating about this part of the de/federate Threads reality. Everyone's worried about Meta and EEE, but what we should have really been discussing is the history of Meta moderation and community guidelines which have often cited "free speech" when people use white supremacist dog whistling but cite "calls to violence" when people of color actively complain about white supremacy.
There's a reason why we have seen news articles about large LEO Facebook groups trading and making joke comments on racist memes...
We were worried about the technology, but we should have been worried about cultural infiltration.
Exactly. What happens when a far-right troll like libsoftiktok sics thousands of rabid followers on a fediverse account? I get the feeling our small, volunteer group of moderators just don't have the resources to cover that kind of brigading.
Also, I don't think moderation can even stop brigading or the downvotes to hell avalanche. It could only stop thread and comment creation on just your one community/magazine on your instance.
Nothing could stop a bad faith actor from finding my comments on a different instance and harassing or brigading me there if that instance federated with Threads, even if my instance defederate from Threads.
Well, at least downvotes isn't going to be much of a problem, as threads users will only be capable of upcoming stuff they see here. They don't have a downvote button. :)
They will be able to send swarms of trolls to harass. If Threads does even federate, I suspect even admins who didn't sign the fedipact will defederate quite fast.
The way the Fediverse is designed you need to actively seek out content. It's not going to be all that easy being a troll from threads attacking content on the Fediverse.
What I could imagine is that bigots might seek out LGTBQIA+ hashtags (along with hashtags related to other culture war dimensions), and find content from the Fediverse that way,
Then again, if that proves to be a problem, sites like Blahaj will probably be pretty darn quick to defederate. And this type of content, even when posted by kbin or Lemmy.world users or whatever, will probably often take place in communities hosted by instances like blahaj. So the thread trolls would find themselves isolated from the discussion pretty fast.
On the other hand, there's a bunch of queer people who use threads. If all servers immediately defederate from it, these people will never get to have a glimpse into the fediverse. They could benefit a lot from joining a different platform, but if we focus only on the bigots we'll end up never reaching them.
The same logic of course applies to other communities affected by the anti woke culture war bullshit, I'm just too lazy to come up with a more original example. :)
That's different though - it's going here and actively creating a user and settling. Interactions with Mastodon users are mostly limited to special interest groups and microblogs I feel, even though we're all in the same network.
So we have the problem of protecting the vulnerable on our instances, while inviting the vulnerable from their instances.
I wonder if we could create Ambassador instances, where you have an account that basically posts to two instances: one that federates to Threads, and one that federates to the rest of the Fediverse.
Facebook's moderation only covers the bare minimum. Simple mention of Hitler can get you banned (even if you're criticizing him), calling all LGBTQ people pedophiles and the likes are de-facto allowed there. Threads' moderation is pretty much the same from what I've heard.
Oh, we haven't been speculating about moderation because that's a known quantity. A major driver of defederarion discussion on the microblogging side of the fedi has been about the moderation issues that people would have to deal with if federated with Threads. And especially about bad actors on Threads getting posts from users on defederated instances via intermediary sites, and then spotlighting vulnerable people to trolls on other instances.
It's why many niche Mastodon instances are talking about defederating from any other site not blocking Threads. It's a significant mental safety risk for vulnerable people in the alt-right's sights.
I'm not an "early adopter" of the Fediverse per se, but I came over on the reddit migration on June 11. I feel like I've been an information sponge trying to wrap my head around the organization of the Fediverse and seeing the benefits. I think I'm pretty up to speed, at least enough to discuss it with people offline and explain it in a way that does it some justice.
But I don't think I've seen a lot of discussion about the drawbacks of the Fediverse. I've seen a few threads about major privacy concerns related to the Fediverse, but most of the comments responding just kind of hand wave the issue.
Seeing a possible larger issue here regarding the moderation issues, I can't see anything other than a total containment of Threads away from other instances. Like, great - use ActivityPub, but don't talk to me (kbin.social) or my child (literally everything else that wants to interact together in the Fediverse with kbin) again. Lol
The thing is, because minority-targeting trolls aren't taken seriously by any corporate social media platform, there's no big downside compared to them. It's just that them showing up here is effectively taking the safer space these communities they've built away from them, returning things to basically how they were just before they fled those other spaces.
They were made safe not due to the tools, but due to obscurity, and they're about to lose that obscurity.
This is... I don't want to call it a "good thing", because people who have suffered many assholes suffering them all over again is in no way, shape, or form good, but it's highlighting an issue that's been clear to these communities, but not to developers on the Fediverse: The moderation tools here are hot, sweaty garbage.
Hopefully we can see serious movement on making useful tools now.
I don't know if you have history on reddit, but the "safety because of obscurity" and having that taken away by increased visibility is absolutely what I lived through as a member of a subreddit called TwoXChromosomes. TwoX was a really welcoming space for women-identifying people to get a breath of fresh air from the constant "equal rights means equal lefts" kind of casual misogyny on the rest of reddit. And then corporate created the "default sub" designation and put TwoX on the list.
I remember the moderators at the time making it very clear to the community that they voiced their dissent but it was happening anyway (wow, what does that sound like?) and now a lot of the posts there get inundated with "not all men" apologists and all the OPs have reddit cares alerts filed on them.
I've seen a few threads about major privacy concerns related to the Fediverse, but most of the comments responding just kind of hand wave the issue.
I think maybe I'm one of the handwavers, but I don't mean to be one.
I figure, and have always figured, that anything I post online can likely be (and will be) read/harvested by someone if they want. Either directly, or by scripted scraping, or by a site admin, or whatever. I have no expectation than any private messages on any platform are truly private, nor that my deleted comments on Reddit aren't sitting on a hdd someplace, and probably also backed up in the wayback machine. It's possible not all that is true all of the time, and zero-knowledge encryption exists, so I know there are likely exceptions, but I don't think it's an uncommon viewpoint, and I don't think it's one that's hard for a non-techie to grasp. Anything that goes online should be assumed to be slurped up by someone, either by design, by design flaw, by legal demand, or etc.
Knowing that - I don't have a real issue with the current state of privacy in the fediverse. I know my likes and boosts are public. I know my profile and all its comments can be scraped. It's part of the deal. I even know that Meta can and is scraping it whether we federate with them or not - but that doesn't mean we should make it easier for them, nor that we should welcome all the other impacts of inviting an 800lb gorilla into your living room.
I think there should be broader awareness of the privacy concerns and that it should be emphasized front and center at account creation time. Informed consent is always a plus. Voluntary efforts to work on the privacy issues by the relevant devs would be great, too.
Anyhow after all this rambling - unless someone has come to the platform with expectations of privacy far beyond what were ever promised (or what most other platforms realistically provide), I don't see that there's a lot to grumble about privacy-wise, even as I'll also say there is room for improvement.
Not disagreeing with your perspective at all, but there at least have been hidden enclaves on platforms like reddit that are not achievable on platforms like Twitter, in which consenting adults could find each other for consenting activities.
You can't do that stuff on Twitter or IG because everything is too out in the open. You can do it on some other websites but they don't have the userbase and broader appeal and legitimacy like reddit had.
Just not sure that there's a way to achieve it in the Fediverse because we're not just talking about the fact that there's a small but hopefully trustworthy group of admins who could wade through everyone's posts and DMs, or surely Google is indexing your comment and post submissions... We're talking about a solicitation of a sensitive nature goes out so much further than you can imagine.
Please know this is not about finding new channels to conduct illegal activity!
@MiscreantMouse from my post and upvote history you can verify that I'm pretty in defensive of Meta federation because I think cutting them off immediately is against the spirit of open protocols. Their poor moderation would be an extremely legitimate reason to defederate. I'm against the defederation pact to fully cut them off before they even enter the fediverse but cutting them off as a pragmatic response to their actual character once they arrive us completely justified.
The thing is, Facebook already exists. We have no reason to believe that they would moderate any differently with Threads. I haven’t been on facebook in 10 years and I don’t want to be there again.
That's a click-baity headline that doesn't really match the content of the article. Microsoft isn't going to be replacing desktop Windows installations with cloud installations, and nowhere in the article does it suggest it is. Many, many businesses require Windows installed on the desktop (and no, many of those can't switch to Linux, because the software they use is usually Windows-only). The article doesn't dig into who is currently using Windows 365 to stream the OS, but I would assume it's companies that are running computer kiosks, point-of-sale systems, or systems that would otherwise be extremely locked-down (like bank teller systems). Businesses that need system flexibility and resource-intensive applications aren't going to be using a cloud-based OS. Pretty-much any business that does engineering or creative work falls into that bucket.
My interpretation of the article is that they want to extend cloud-based Windows to other users that have extremely lightweight requirements. The biggest market I see is the education market, where you generally want to provide students with very locked down functionality. The article mentions competition with Chromebooks, which is also huge in the education space. I could see this as a competitor to an iPad/tablet too, for those who mostly do browsing, email, or lightweight web-based MS Office tasks and want to have a keyboard and mouse.
TL;DR: People are wildly misinterpreting this article, and there isn't going to be any kind of mass exodus to Linux because of Microsoft investing in Windows 365. Microsoft isn't going to stop selling installable copies of Windows.
I think it's basically the same idea as Citrix. They're targeting the same market, anyway, as far as I understand. I assume they each have their own pros and cons.
I'm not an economist but that seems like a pro for Microsoft and a con for Citrix. Though, seemingly, Microsoft's approach, naturally, centers around their own devices and OS rather than Citrix's approach where just about every device/OS has an available application that can be used.
I would assume it's companies that are running computer kiosks, point-of-sale systems, or systems that would otherwise be extremely locked-down (like bank teller systems).
As an example, we're currently evaluating it as an option for doctors to access certain EMRs offsite where it doesn't make sense to provide them an entire workstation, e.g., community doctors working from their private practices.
Microsoft still sells single, non subscription licenses for Office. I think Windows is safe for the forseeable future, especially since they sell it to OEMs...
Yep, you're absolutely right. I think my main point is that switching to only offering a cloud-streamed OS as their only offering would kill off a massive market where they have market dominance (enterprise desktops). It doesn't make business sense for them to leave that market. If the demands of that market change, then you're right -- they're going to do whatever is most profitable. But we're nowhere near there yet.
Microsoft isn't going to be replacing desktop Windows installations with cloud installations, and nowhere in the article does it suggest it is.
I'd say Microsoft's long term needle-moving strategy including the bullet point "Move Windows 11 increasingly to the cloud" suggests it pretty strongly. Calling it "needle-moving" says to me that they want the cloud to be more and more the expected default, rather than an option that exists alongside desktop installs.
Perhaps I've just read too many Microsoft business documents (I used to work for them years ago), but that's not how I interpret that slide. It looks more to me like they want to "cloud-ify" functionality that could be used either from a desktop install or from a cloud streamed version. The key phrase in that slide to me is "Use the power of the cloud and client to enable improved AI-powered services and full roaming of people's digital experience".
That kind of fits with what they've been doing by moving Windows login to use a Microsoft Account by default (which I hate, btw -- I'm one of those local account people), as well as integration of OneDrive as default file save location. It's the same kind of thing Apple's been doing with macOS for the past few years, adding iCloud integration with everything. If you move that functionality for desktop installs to mostly be cloud-based, it also allows you to create a more viable cloud-only offering. But it doesn't mean there's a reason to stop selling a desktop-installable version.
Microsoft is still a business, and they'd lose a ton of market-share by killing off desktop installs, especially in the enterprise sector, which is their bread and butter. They're looking to expand into other markets, not kill off large existing ones.
I'm absolutely with you. Boiling frog and all. 10 years ago nobody would have believed that you'd require an online account to log into your local machine.
As soon as it's viable from a business point of view (as in people will swallow it), it will be cloud only.
Because why would a business buy a computer for $1k that they can write off by depreciating the value of, when they can not own a less useful, less powerful one that only works when there is internet for only $100 per month instead?
yup, microsoft has made great strides in creating individual windows instances in the cloud for business purposes. This makes sense to their long term goals to support business. local installations are a different discussion.
Glad someone is calling this out. Came from a link elsewhere and the headline just screamed no fucking way. Users won’t tolerate buying a machine only to stream the fucking OS from elsewhere. Sounds more like when I had to stream a desktop from AWS to access my schools licensed Adobe suite.
All Reddit had to do was STFU and wait for a month or two. Lack of any reaction or results is probably the most demotivating thing in all human experience. Go forward with the plan, say nothing, give no interviews, send no messages, do nothing to the mods or the subreddits, and within just a couple weeks, the users would get bored and force the place to return to normal. Either through pressuring their mods or just starting new subreddits with the same theme as the closed ones. The effect on the front page and the common lurker would be minimal and transient.
Instead, Spez has to go around slinging shit from his diaper at literally every opportunity, taking more and more extreme actions, hiding behind a fake mod name, saying super salty things to everyone, etc. He's basically the only person continuing to add fuel to this dumpster fire. It's literally just him. If he got sick or hit by a bus or something and had to shut up for even just a week while he was recovering, Reddit would lose interest in the whole thing, because without a visible enemy to fight, the users would turn their frustrations on each other. But he's clearly suffering from some deep psychic wound that keeps him from being able to shut his pie hole.
He can't reverse course and admit defeat now, reddit will keep trying to strongarm mods because they have to win and show that they're in control and not their mods or their users. Ultimately they do have all the power and can ban everyone and remove all the mods and replace them, but it will damage the site. Spez doesn't care though, even if the entire site is burned to the ground, he'll have won. And he'll blame everyone else for his loss of IPO value.
It's not just spez. It's the board that probably made the decision to disable API access, and that can remove spez if they choose to. But they won't, because they want the enshittification necessary to let them cash out once they go public.
Maybe he's a willing scapegoat for the board with a promised golden parachute? I just can't think of how somebody can get that far and be so tone deaf.
No like even today, if he came out with an honest apology video and offered to work with devs on a reasonable API price plan he could still mostly recover and keep all the low effort users.
But for some reason he's hell bent on actually crashing the community. Even the lurkers are starting to jump ship. It's either sociopathic narcissism or a high school shaped ego, but he just can't let it go.
After reading Spez's interviews I deleted the reddit bookmark on my browser. Once Apollo shuts down I'm deleting the only reddit app on my devices. That dude is a tool.
I downloaded an extension that can automatically redirect me to another website that way if, by force of habit, I try to go to reddit, it redirects me here.
I had only planned to leave Reddit once their API pricing impacted apps. But then spez/Huffman decided to go around bad mouthing all of us old guard reditors and moderators, so now fuck him. I'm not going back even for a day or two.
I left Reddit and deleted my accounts a few hours after the subs went dark and my feed dried up. I don't use mobile apps, I have no horse in that race at all.
It just wasn't an enjoyable place to be anymore, and that's all because of spez.
My guess, a month or two delay doesn't fit into their timeline. It shows with the rush to API change, and the "convenient" July 1 (3rd quarter) start date. They're going all out to prove Fidelity's valuation downgrade wrong, and show a full quarter of Reddit's revenue potential.
Canceled my sub a year ago (which had lasted since the Blockbuster days) when I heard about the changes and never looked back. Their horrible treatment of talent and their refusal to provide proper residuals is one of the main dynamics driving the SAG AFTRA strike. Imagine being a major actor in a show millions are actively watching, and your monthly check from it is $27.
Side note, Netflix has 3.5 billion in free cash on hand. Once the strike was announced, they scaled back their content investment and are now claiming 5 billion in cash reserves.
These fuckers can absolutely afford to pay their talent a living wage. Until they do, they aren't getting a dime from me.
Generally, but the way movie-web and goku.sx work is that they're linking you to cached streams pulled from torrents and hosted on separate servers like Upcloud - you're only viewing the content, not hosting it. As such your risk of being prosecuted is considerably less than directly torrenting, especially if you've got decent privacy protections on your browser.
That being said, safety first unless you trust your ISP.
It's not even about morality. It's a dumb law that doesn't protect users most at risk—even if enforced—while making it incredibly convoluted and awkward for everyone else.
On second thought, that second part was probably the point.
First, the US would need to have more locomotive manufacturers than you can fit in a single sprinter van. We've abandoned rail so thoroughly that we have to have foreign companies manufacture most of our rolling stock these days.
We’ve abandoned passenger rail, but not freight rail. The USA consistently ranks as one of the top users of freight rail (and by many metrics it is the top user of freight rail). The issue is that most American cities outside of the northeast corridor tend to be far enough apart that you are going to be better off flying. High speed rail hasn’t really caught on yet, but I suspect in another 15 years it’s going to be lot more common now that it’s starting to look commercially viable
We have just about the dumbest freight rail operators, though. They care so much about cost curves that they regularly turn down highly profitable expansions because it would make the line go down. Being highly profitable isn't good enough when the line isn't going up. It also makes them absolutely allergic to capital expenses, not to mention how extreme their cost-cutting measures are (especially re: labor) even at the expense of safety. Cutting $10 of cost by rejecting $20 of new business is a bargain in the eyes of these morons.
Not to mention the pure madness of the track & right-of-way being privately owned. That shit is just bonkers.
I wonder how much worse our rail mode share would look if you did a comparison of countries without including unit trains. I suspect very, very much worse.
Also average rolling stock age is what, 20 years? And there's still units from the first days of modern roller bearings in service? Yeesh.
I am not at all expert in the matter, but aren't freight rates heavily regulated? That would likely put a damper on expansion -- if you can't easily increase price in response to demand, the default strategy will be to milk your existing resources for every drop. Any expansion will detract from profit margin.
I wouldn't say that at all. I would describe it as the opposite, an unregulated hellscape.
They build and maintain their own tracks at their own discretion except when the public steps in to fund a particular project. There are rules about operating their right-of-way... many of which they have a standard practice of completely ignoring and nobody does anything about it, especially when it comes to the law that they give passenger rail preference.
They mostly can set their own prices, with only market competition controlling what they set them to. The STB is pretty toothless even when there is a complaint of anti-competitive behavior.
Outside of a small number of high-volume passenger corridors, they have complete freedom to set their own schedules. In the last decade, they've started increasingly operating trains unscheduled and calling it "precision scheduled rail". In actual practice, PSR is just running the longest trains they physically can and having them leave the yard exactly when they're full and not according to any clock. They theoretically need to show right of way to passenger service, but their trains have gotten so big and long that they are physically unable to show right of way and so they just don't.
The mandatory safety rules are pretty minimum, especially when compared to things like air travel. Enforcement of Environmental Protection rules and post-incident safety reviews are pitifully enforced.
They're also the only private industry specifically exempt from the NLRA. Just the rail industry has a largely weaker set of worker protections than every other American gets.
I'm sure I could keep coming up with more examples. But as far as I've ever seen, the only thing stopping them from expanding service is an unwillingness to do so. Regular Old Market bullshit short-term financial goals are preferred even if they are not sustainable and long-term sustainability is unacceptable because it would hurt short-term financial goals.
The industry doesn't really need more regulation though. Because what it needs is nationalization, at least of the track and ROWs.
Just in case you're not aware, armored trains are (or were) a thing. In the US they were used from the US civil war to early in the cold war (at the end there to transport nuclear weapons).
In the rest of the world... the most recent use is by Russia in their invasion of Ukraine.
Statistically close to all trips are within a couple of miles of home. US average vehicle miles traveled per person per day are a staggeringly high 25, yet still, nearly all trips people make are very close to home. Good pedestrian and bike infrastructure is enough to cover virtually all of those trips. You don't need roads for cars. You don't really need trains. You don't need personal aircraft for sure. You don't need autotaxies or any other weird techbro drone solution. You just need maintained, pleasant bikeped routes where you won't feel like at any moment you may get mowed down by a F250 SuperDuty. But we deliberately design spaces to be unpleasant and unsafe for anyone outside of a car to stop people from walking even though designs like that are WAY more expensive for the taxpayer.
High-speed rail and intercity mass transit are super neat and I'd love to see more of it. And that's definitely the kind of trip a "flying car" is primarily confronting. But it's not even the real problem that needs fixing. Trips to a park, grocery store, and bar are the trips that need fixing, and the fact that we encourage and sometimes even force designs where you NEED cars to make those trips is madness.
and bar are the trips that need fixing (...) and the fact that we encourage and sometimes even force designs where you NEED cars to make those trips is madness.
It's utterly baffling to me that bar culture is so alive in America where we have to drive everywhere. It seems like a fucking obvious problem that everyone just ignores. Under what circumstances is a person driving themselves to a bar, parking there for a while, then leaving unimpaired? People should be protesting this in the streets; why does no one seem to care?
It's worse than that. I would venture that in nearly all US places where a new bar can be built there is a required mandatory minimum number of parking spaces to build next to it to ensure it's "easy" to drive to. Which doesn't even work, but that's a separate screed.
Most civil engineers and urban planners don't even think about it because that's not the job as they see it. The professions surrounding urban planning and development largely just consider the codes and manuals to be received wisdom and so carry out their teachings uncritically.
Other countries mange this with proper clothing and a variety of alternative public transit options.
Rain Capes are a popular solution for rainy weather when cycling.
Or you chose to avoid the bike that day and take the bus/streetcar/metro/etc.
I live in NYC and by far my favorite aspect is being able to decide between a variety for transit options that best suit the specific trip I’m making. For example, I typically commute by bike, but if it’s raining I can easily switch that trip to be on the subway.
There's very little correlation between cities with good bikeped culture and cities with good weather. The only factor that's highly correlated is quality of the bikeped network. This idea is a flat-out myth.
The US has loads of trains. This is a huge misnomer. The US has one of the most complex commercial-industrial train networks in the world. The problem is the commuter one uses the same tracks and is massively underfunded.
America has one of the worst run freight rail networks in the world. Plighted by decades of deferred maintenance and destruction of existing infrastructure in service of the all mighty operating ratio.
Amtrak would be far more reliable without the American freight rail industry clogging up the lines with massive super trains and refusal to make capital improvements to the network.
Literally all VTOL ideas are like this. People are totally oblivious to the fact that helicopters are VTOLs, so anything that tries to mimic that ability is just building a terrible type of helicopter.
Yea, I'm having a hard time believing those claims. Beating gravity requires a lot of energy, and oil still has a very high energy density, so that's why no one's really talking about electric planes. Driving range of 200 miles and flight range of 11 miles would've been plausible to me.
If like me, you only engage with Twitter to the extent of clicking on a link that takes you to a Tweet, reading it and then getting the hell out before the brain dead replies consume what little remains of your soul, then can I recommend Googling up an addon for your preferred browser that redirects Twitter to Nitter as a way around this new barrier to entry.
Most of those servers are dead though (including some nitter instances). You will need to manually disable those that don't work and it's pain in the ass.
Nitter unfortunately does not work right now due to this change. Hopefully they will fix this somehow (probably by changing user agent to googlebot, because they still allow web crawlers)
I absolutely refuse to buy a car where the only thing in the dash is a single big touchscreen. This is a really cheap and lazy way to design a car. It’s not fancy or futuristic. It’s turning an engineering problem into a cheap software problem.
If electric vehicles 10 years from now don’t re-engineer buttons, dials and knobs into their cars I am just going to walk 30 miles every day.
The touchscreens are cheaper, that's the main reason they are becoming common. Honda has already realized they are an issue, and has been going back to physical buttons.
The horrifying part is that often physical buttons are mere affectations now anyway, and instead everything is still controlled by the central computer system. Like I was comparing Hondas to Subarus and while the latter had physical buttons where the former had touchscreens, whenever the computer is busy then e.g. the volume knob still gets entirely ignored. I still like it better, but it is not really better, instead it just "looks different".
As far as I'm concerned the man point is tactile feedback. I don't want to have to take my eyes off the road to switch between screens and find the right menu item to turn on the AC while I'm driving.
In that case then, yes Subaru has you covered. They do seem extremely well-designed to me. Like my mother was saying do not get a car with a light-colored interior b/c it can distract you as the sun shines on it while driving, and my brother was saying do not get a car with a dark-colored one b/c dropped items can get lost extremely easily, but Subarus have the best of both worlds, with light coloration down below and dark coloration up above. There are SO many aspects like that, which I very much appreciate! It is all plastic, so like not a Tesla or anything like that (which I consider very much a good thing imho), but the overall look & feel & design aspects to it are very well-made. Like the tactile knobs.
Not only do I not want to sort through menus, I don’t like the thought of every other driver in the other lane having to sort through menus if they get too hot or cold.
I can just use the volume knob on the steering wheel with my thumb to control volume or mute music, but if I’m parked and want to listen to a specific song it’s fine that I go poking around on the touchscreen to do that.
I can use the ‘mode’ button to switch to the radio or Spotify, but if I want to set up Spotify with my account details I need to use the touchscreen.
The touchscreen lets you easily expose rarely used, complicated functions. Things you need to do while driving need to be buttons.
Mazda has had it figured out in my opinion for years with their dial setup. Most of the important stuff is on the wheel itself, but you can control the entire center console with an easy scroll dial and like 4 buttons surrounding it, and all the traditional stuff has physical buttons right near it. Their cars have other drawbacks, but the interior design just makes sense to me.
Driven a few Mazda 3's and the wheel / button placement is great. Lots of things within fingers reach. One thing I'm not keen on is the sports mode button, that should totally be on the steering wheel, where right now it's on the middle dashboard.
I guess the idea is you want people to think about switching this mode on/off so it disincentives them doing it all the time maybe?
Another bump for Mazda. Their recent engines are phenomenal as well. Really well made naturally aspirated 4 cylinder with a normal 6 speed automatic. They drive fantastic and feel very well engineered. No more cheap ford parts. Best bang for your buck right now in my opinion.
The Mazda system was a complete deal breaker for me. You have to locate the hotspot on the screen, then fiddle with the knob to get it over the right spot, then select. Way more aggravating than a touch screen.
If you use Carplay or Android Auto, it reverts to a touch screen anyway. The whole system was a muddle.
Lexus and Audi have both dropped their puck controllers due to customer feedback.
There's an irony in the British government going on about this all the time, while at the same time fighting in court to prevent their WhatsApp messages being turned over to the Covind inquiry because of privacy concerns.
More generally, I think it's a symptom of governments not being at all as tech savvy as they like to think they are.
The UK also has RIPA, under which it can compel a user to hand over passwords to encrypted material. For those of us in the US, that's prohibited by the Fifth Amendment.
There's a penalty specified by RIPA. Depending upon the specifics of what they believe to be at stake, up to between 2-5 years in prison for failing to provide access.
As far as the US goes, that's incorrect. The issue is a 1A issue, not a 5A issue.
tl;dr - you are required to provide keys, combinations, fingerprints, etc. when there's a warrant. You might not be required to provide passwords.
Let's say cops have a search warrant for your house, and you have a safe in your house that they think the evidence of the crime they're investigating is hidden in. But it's locked. You are obligated to unlock that safe for them, whether it's a physical key, a combination, or a fingerprint. If you refuse, you can be compelled, and can be held in contempt of court and held in jail until you comply. (Or course, in the case of a physical safe, refusing the provide the key would mean that they'd hire a security expert to destroy the safe in order to retrieve the contents. But that's not possible with encrypted data.)
The problem is that a password is both a key and speech. I can be compelled to provide a key, but I can't be compelled to engage in certain speech. So far, courts have been divided on what a password is, and I don't believe that the question has been addressed by SCOTUS yet. (Although, knowing SCOTUS, I wouldn't expect them to be tech-savvy enough to make a good ruling.) In some cases, people that have been under court orders to provide passwords have been held in jail on contempt charges until they've divulged the password, even when they say that they've forgotten the password in question.
Keep in mind that the people that this is often applied to are not usually people you'd want to be friends with; most of that cases I've seen in the news involve people that are accused of having child pornography, either uploading or downloading it, or terrorism. But obvs. revoking rights to deal with exceptionally scummy people also means that those rights get revoked for everyone else...
(Although, knowing SCOTUS, I wouldn't expect them to be tech-savvy enough to make a good ruling.)
Honestly the current SCOTUS has largely been finding in line with those things explicitly and literally within the US Constitution. I could see them considering being required to provide a password being required to provide evidence against yourself, which is a Fifth Amendment violation, or compelling speech in violation of the First, like you said. It's not impossible it violates both, and I'd expect to see that argument made in the decision.
If we extend this thought experiment to a physical key, then that argument falls apart. A physical key is 'real or physical evidence', while a password (and apparently combinations?) ends up being considered 'testimonial', despite both serving the same function. While I may not be required to provide testimony against myself, I can be compelled to provide real of physical evidence. If, for instance, I have committed tax fraud, and my accountant has already told the IRS as much, but I have the only copies of the tax documents encrypted, I can be compelled to decrypt them, because the 'testimonial' value of the password is negligible since the gov't already knows that I have the fraudulent documents. But if they can't already demonstrate that they know what--roughly--the real evidence that's encrypted is, then no password for cops.
This seems inconsistent to me, since a password and a physical key serve the same function.
As far as the US goes, that's incorrect. The issue is a 1A issue, not a 5A issue.
No, it's a Fifth Amendment issue. The Wikipedia article I linked to discusses it. Being compelled to provide a password runs into some of the same problems that compelling self-incriminating testimony does.
search
You're confusing the Fourth Amendment -- which deals with searches -- and the Fifth Amendment. You're right that it's not an issue of protection against illegal searches, which is what one might assume to be the case, but not correct as to the actual rationale that it runs into.
That seems to be the case. Ditch IG and let them come to Fedi instead. There's room for sex positive people, positively.
EDIT
Yet this is also another casualty of shittification, so what would we expect? Meta is all over the place with their moderation. I still have a FB account and occasionally I'll receive warnings for posts I made 5-10 years ago. No link to the post, no arguments, no real recourse. While I kind of don't care, a part of me does. I wonder what innocuous thing someone at FB didn't like on my friends only visible account (which probably really isn't that way because FB sucks).
I know at least two people who had their FB accounts stolen by scammers. The scammers used the accounts to try and scam their friends. Many people reported them but nah that’s all acceptable behavior to Facebook and both people just had to create new accounts and let the scammers keep on scamming under their names.
I‘m the type of determined contrarian who even pays for AdBlockers to support them in this arms race, so if they want that sweet subscription cash to keep coming they‘ll defeat whatever bullshit Youtube comes up with. Worth every cent, for a less ad infested world.
Ngl would like to see the browser vs. app usage statistics for YouTube. They've been moving into shorts hard so I'm thinking that desktop users are becoming a minority on the platform.
I get the feeling we are now talking about two different things. If by "cracked" you mean that someone can rip and redistribute the content once they get access to it, sure, it's very hard to protect against that.
What I mean is: it's possible to restrict access to the service so that you cannot watch a video unless you've played the ad first or you are a paying customer. As an example: Netflix or any of the movie streaming platforms. There's no add-on or special browser that allows you to use Netflix without being a paying customer, and if YouTube implements their plan, they can make it so you won't be able to circumvent it just by using Firefox, like you claimed.
tech
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.