Let's be realistic. The only question is whether they'll censor dissident speech globally for the world audience—or merely georestrict it to individual nations falling to autocracy.
Coming from Silicon Valley companies, all the federation stuff aren't sincerely-intended ideas to promote free society values. They're an escape hatch. It's a free-speech zone to divert unwanted activists onto—away from the company and its brand, and away from its users—where they can blow off steam quietly. And it's something their PR can point to to deflect accountability for the awful things they will definitely end up doing, in their uncompromising pursuit of market share. ("Oh, we're not really censoring that; it's only censored on the main corporate instance, which is the only one people use").
With distributed moderation the repressive government can, in principle, publish its own labels, but by publishing labels they make public what it is they want to suppress.
Federated social media could be used for very bad purposes and it would be impossible to stop. Consider this situation
in the centralized case we can point to Facebook as a responsible entity. The thing is Facebook later got kicked out of Myanmar not as accountability for those crimes but because they were insufficiently pliant to the government. In the future a country like that might just run its own Mastodon network where it is all genocide all the time.
If you haven’t felt that way you probably never let yourself experience deep passion for your work. To each his own, but I find that it requires passion to do remarkable things. There is no shame in punching the clock for your 401k.
It's a fallacy to imply that this emotion is a kind of passion in the sense of passion for one's work. They are at best somewhat corollary, in that emotionally unstable people might be more statistically likely to have passion for their work.
Have you considered that you might not be able to gauge peoples competence and knowledge accurately? Statistically, if you are observing so manly outliers that is likely to be the case. Hope this helps!
Though browsers should really protect you against that already. ('Should', not 'would'.) Because SSL doesn't mean that there won't be malware on the site injected via some other means, ie by someone hijacking the server or by an otherwise malicious server.
Well the full-page insecure advanced continue with http is even worse. I (we) understand there's no real reason to need it, but if you're serving the general public (as isn't the case here) you absolutely need TLS whatever you're doing in 2024 IMO. Personally if I were blogging even for this audience I'd want to avoid that friction, but I think it's not like antirez doesn't know about it, I assumed it's a sort of protest.
I mean, it was a response to people saying it was ok to desecrate a corpse because they’re dead and won’t know about it. So where do these people draw the line? If it’s OK to desecrate a corpse but necrophilia is “too far” then what is their argument?
The corpse doesn’t know if it was desecrated nor does it know if it was subject to necrophilia. So if desecrating a corpse is “ok” according to the above commentators, why is necrophilia not ok too? And if necrophilia is not ok, then perhaps there’s a flaw in their argument.
That is, some things are morally wrong, even if there is no apparent “victim” as the victim is dead.
That is a completely unfair diagnosis and accusation. Respond to the thing you disagree with instead of claiming that the person you disagree with is mentally unwell.
any number > 0 when counting deaths because of a company's malfeasance, incompetence, or any other word to describe it is serious. since you seem to like superlatives, any number > 0 is the most serious thing. your product killed 1 person in a failure or 189 in a failure is no less damning. even if your product's failure nearly killed some number > 0 is a serious thing.
So now you’re saying it wasn’t serious because there was no one killed? I’m very confused here.
I thought it was serious, just less serious than those that actually killed people, because it does show system issues at Boeing related to actually doing safe changes to their planes.
Which is a scary operational problem, but at least not a major plane design problem.
Which will kill someone (or a lot of someones!) eventually.
And got called a psychopath for it, apparently? Which doesn’t seem very polite.
> So now you’re saying it wasn’t serious because there was no one killed? I’m very confused here.
Yes, you've been very confused in this entire thread. No, I did not say what you think I've said. In fact, I stated the exact opposite. You seem to have an agenda and are attempting to read that into this entire thread.
Your prior comment literally says ‘ any number > 0 when counting deaths because of a company's malfeasance, incompetence, or any other word to describe it is serious’. You say that same type of statement multiple times, using >0 every time. Instead of, perhaps, >=.
There were zero fatalities in this incident. I personally thought it was serious, but less serious than incidents which have fatalities.
Are we agreeing? Who is confused here? Am I a psychopath?
He is right about the fact that the Central Powers were fatally spent by summer 1918, though.
Austria-Hungary alone was on the brink of collapse without ever engaging American troops in a large-scale battle, and its collapse would have brought the already weakened Kaiserreich down as well.
People tend to forget Austria-Hungary, myself included. Well, not forget, but kind of ignore them. Which doesn't do justice to anyone.
And yes, Austria-Hungary was done, earlier than summer 1918 in fact. As I said earlier, there is the risk of viewing WW1 in terms of WW2, whixhbis dangerous and wrong. It leads to ignore the Ottoman theatre of war, the fact Austria-Hungary was major power until the end of WW1 and that Italy was on the side of the Entente. And that France was never defeated in that war (man, I hate the memes of French warfare so, so much..., different topic so).
Another fun fact: Spain was one of the big arms and ammunitions suppliers in WW1.
And over 750,000 Germans had starved to death by December 1918 as a result of the British naval blockade.
It's not surprising German troops starving in trenches for four years considered brand new entrants to the war equipped with the newest French-designed and manufactured tanks[1] to be well fed and equipped, though there was nothing spectacular about their combat performance. There's no doubt that weight of American numbers helped accelerate the timescale for winning the war, but it's difficult to imagine anything that has less to do with laissez faire capitalism than the scale of the US draft...
[1]The US decided to produce their own tanks in 1917, but manufacturing issues meant their first arrived two days after the Armistice so they relied on French units
You could at least spend 1 minute on the Genesis Wikipedia article which includes several sources to verify my claims.
There you'll also find another case where Sega lost in court against similar reverse engineering done by Accolade to run their games on the Genesis without a license from Sega: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sega_v._Accolade
