On the flip side: if I were to attend an event featuring Richard Stallman, I would rather it have a no-photos policy. I am interested in many of his ideas, but I have no desire to be associated with his ideas in their entirety or any public figure. Unfortunately, too many people believe that A implies B.
I also hate drama, and would much rather lead a quiet life as a person no one likes than an interesting life who some people dislike.
I am sympathetic with his message today, when I would have been dismissive of it in 1987. I also realize that I shouldn't have been dismissive of it in 1987. Even though the industry of today is far more damaging than it was then, it is only because there were so many benefits yet-to-reap. The industry itself was just as manipulative and just as greedy. While most of the old empires have fallen, new ones have taken their place.
That said, I think his tone was a mistake. It is not that technology is inherently good or bad. The fault is in how we fail to examine the role it should play. Each of the nine criteria that he lays out could have been met, but as individuals and society we have decided upon a different path.
It's too early to make that claim. There are multiple branches and levels of government to deal with situations like this. They have worked in the past for smaller scale violations. They should work in the present for larger scale violations. The problem is that it takes time, it always took time, so a lot of people are going to get hurt in the process. (Granted, it is also important for people to fight for their rights because the current government is pushing the limits.)
. . . aside from supporting slavery and then the Dixiecrats opposing civil rights, you mean? If you actually look at American history, the ugly parts are ultimately bipartisan.
> . . . aside from supporting slavery and then the Dixiecrats opposing civil rights, you mean? If you actually look at American history, the ugly parts are ultimately bipartisan.
You are really pushing both-sides-ism to its limits.
It goes without saying that if you have to go back that far in history to find an analogy to today's abuse of power, you are proving GP's point: the lawlessness of the Republican party is unprecedented in modern history.
The person I was replying to said "never before," which means that AND the internship of Japanese-Americans during WWII are squarely on the table.
I never voted for Trump and I don't support the power grabs he's trying to make, but I also understand America has a history of playing footsie with authoritarianism every 80-100 years or so.
Internment camps, a civil war over literally owning humans as property, the Alien and Sedition Acts . . .
It is not. The precedent is around ninety years old, but firmly within modern history. As Franklin Roosevelt attempted to enact his New Deal agenda, the so-called "Four Horsemen", often along with Justice Roberts and/or Chief Justice Hughes, repeatedly ruled against his alphabet agencies and sweeping social bills.
So, Roosevelt worked to find the necessary votes to pack the court. His "Judicial Procedures Reform Bill" was not so different from any of the other "judicial reforms" we've condemned when other strongmen around the world used them to strengthen their power. Politicians from Roosevelt's bloc spewed vitriol at the justices who were simply trying to do their jobs. In Iowa, effigies of the six justices who had opposed any of Roosevelt's actions were found hanged by nooses. Once Roosevelt secured political support and signaled his willingness to push for packing the court, the justices backed down and began ruling in his favor, repeatedly. Where months before it had struck down a New York minimum wage law, a nearly-identical law in Washington was deemed perfectly constitutional. The National Labor Relations Act was fine and dandy. Coal mining was suddenly interstate commerce after all. In fact, the Commerce Clause now covered everything; one clothing factory in Virginia was enough commerce to quality. Later, the court would rule that a man growing wheat for his own consumption was sufficient "commerce" to warrant near-limitless federal rule-making. After all, it meant he bought less wheat from someone else, so clearly it was within the feds' purview. Wickard v. Filburn stands as precedent today. The justices on that court kept their seats but gave up their power.
Now, another populist has shown up. One who has a different vision for the nation than that laid out by the neoliberal technocrats who have dominated American politics since Clinton. Trump has explicitly called out FDR's new deal coalition, the coalition emplaced by vaguely authoritarian means quite similar to those he is using, that was the underlying basis for politics for almost the past century. I don't care for Trump's vision much more than I care for Roosevelt's or Clinton's. But claiming that this is "unprecedented" only serves to point people away from the prior time in history when this happened, when we utterly failed to stop Roosevelt and remove his power. Perhaps learning from history is the better choice so this time we can do a better job of it.
This tradition goes back further than Roosevelt. In addition to being a notorious bigot and racist, Woodrow Wilson was open about the idea that the Constitution was outmoded and needed replacing so that a technocratic government could take its place.
You also have Roosevelt's first appointment to SCOTUS, a literal hood-wearing klansman and true-blue progressive. Broadly the progressive movement was also home to a high level of racism; more of the paternalistic variety than the hateful, but still led to e.g. forced sterilizations. Progressives today have abandoned that, but there was no such radical realignment for them.
Our history is ugly, but that particular detail needs to address the southern realignment where the Jim Crow-era Democrats moved to the Republican Party. I think it’s less about bipartisanship and more that there’s a group of people who both switch parties and influence within parties trying to accomplish their goal of maintaining their superiority over other groups. Their loyalty is to their group, not the party.
This isn't an accurate picture either. A good example would be Justice Hugo Black, Roosevelt's first appointee to the Supreme Court. Black remains one of the most noteworthy big-time liberals in the history of the court (with a few exceptions like Korematsu.) He was a southern democrat and a klansman; not a member of some shadowy cabal that exploited the democrats for political expediency but a true believer in progressivism.
Perhaps one of the funniest elements of the American left's propensity to preach slavery and racism as a form of original sin is its insistence that it, unlike others, is pure, and only through it can one be purified. None of us is free from history, none of our forefathers was clean, but neither are we responsible for their failings.
> Perhaps one of the funniest elements of the American left's propensity to preach slavery and racism as a form of original sin is its insistence that it, unlike others, is pure
Opposition to slavery isn’t exclusive to the left, but also if that isn’t hyperbole you really need a wider sample. By far the most common perspective I’ve heard from anyone in the anti-racist camp is that nobody is perfect because we are all shaped by our environment. The whole point of entire campaigns is to avoid reinforcing those biases because they’re so widespread.
This also touches on the perceived inaccuracy you mentioned: my argument is that the key part for Black isn’t the Democratic affiliation but the southern white identity. People are motivated by issues but some people prioritize that one above everything else, and that’s what happened with the southern realignment: some people valued white supremacy most and changed what were in many cases generational party affiliations, while others decided that things like labor rights or social programs mattered more and shifted correspondingly. It was largely the same people but they sorted themselves into different parties and that shaped the policies of those parties.
Get a list of all democrats in office then highlight the ones who changed party. The number that switched were a small minority. Wikipedia lists less than 70 and most of those were state rather than federal.
Compared to the thousands of state and federal seats, it’s minimal.
So-called civil rights pioneers like Lyndon Johnson were raging racist who saw the civil rights act as cheap lip service to get black votes for decades to come.
You also forget that republicans were radically IN FAVOR of civil rights, but wanted the changes at the state level instead of the federal level.
As someone who has lived in the south (my family is not from the south), I’ll tell you that the Republicans were correct. The clan controlled the local counties (most important offices) and nobody would stop them from disappearing people or burning them out of their homes regardless of that the federal government said.
What changed was the people. Each generation has grown more tolerant. That finally broke the clan control and the millennial generation in the South is overwhelmingly not racist.
Unfortunately, the recent moves away from MLK-style equality to the radical Marxist-style equity (equity except for people who happen to be born white as they see it — very similar to Russian discrimination against children of formerly Middle/upper class people like engineers) seem to be pushing gen Z back toward racial supremacy (this seems true across the whole country).
The most interesting question is why republicans and democrats supposedly swapped parties in the 1960s, but the black vote shifted in the 1930s. The answer seems pretty clear. Black unemployment was through the roof and the New Deal promised jobs, so they broke with the part of Lincoln because they were forced to. As things stabilized, there was a risk of them switching back and once again creating a Republican supermajority which is what spawned support for a federal civil rights act by the racist democrats.
> You also forget that republicans were radically IN FAVOR of civil rights, but wanted the changes at the state level instead of the federal level.
No, they didn't. The Republicans took up the “States Rights” rallying cry of the old Confederacy only after they became the party of the racists, years after the 1964 Civil Rights Act. From the 1866 Civil Rights Act up through and including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the Republicans were always more supportive of federal action than the Democrats on the issue. Each of the key votes on the 1964 Act (passage of the original version in the House, cloture on the Senate version, passage of the Senate version, concurrence of the House to the Senate version) passed with 80-82% of Republican votes in the respective chamber and 60-69% of Democratic votes. The attempt to pursue the disaffected Democratic white racists, upset about Johnson support for the bill, is what distinguished the 1964 Act from earlier conflicts over segregation that had split the same faction off the Democratic Party temporarily, but not permanently when they found no other (major party) place to go, and couldn't form their own competitive major party. And that was the second phase of the long 1930s-1990s overlapping realignment.
LBJ wasn't a civil rights “pioneer”. He was just the Democratic President that opened the opportunity for the Republicans to steal the most dedicated racists away from the Democrats as a constituency by not seeing his personal bias as a reason to block equal rights as public policy. And all Republicans had to do to win this prize was give up on the concept of equality, under the same rallying cry pro-slavery forces before the civil war, and anti-civil-rights forces from the day the war ended, had always used.
A larger proportion of both House and Senate republicans voted for the '64 Civil Rights Act, true, but that doesn't change the fact that many preferred the state model. Goldwater, the party's nominee for president in '64, had been an outspoken civil rights supporter since before it was cool. He opposed specific titles on specific grounds because he, like many others, believed in upholding constitutional limitations on federal power, rather than just writing a bill and calling it solved. This was not as a proxy for racism, and Goldwater had been a major proponent of the prior two major civil rights bills in '57 and '60. He even spent many of his later years advocating for gay rights.
I am personally opposed to maintaining what I see as an overreach of the federal government. This goes back to the start of the new deal and stretches through much of what primarily the Warren Court found constitutional. Plenty of us "states rights" types are in favor of it on a whole host of other issues, e.g. many of the policies Trump promulgates. Please stop trying to erase the concept of local governance with hostile and incomplete interpretations of the past.
On the extrapolation to zero videos by September 2026: it is already here.
Seriously. Clear your cookies or open a private window. All of the videos are replaced by the message "Try searching to get started". Granted, as someone who clears cookies regularly, I like the change.
As an aside, this is something I've noticed recently switching to KDE from Windows/OSX No one is trying to get me to do anything with my computer to pump their metrics. You log in the first time, there's a little welcome popup, and that's it. You are now free to use your computer as you wish.
It's oddly stressful being a rat in a bunch of PM's maze.
I had the same revelation when doing the opposite, using Windows for two days after using Linux for years. It's a constant stream of attention grabbing distractions, questions and notifications. I don't even know what they are all doing. Like why does the graphics driver has it's own update mechanism and its own tray icon, why am i being asked to put the application as a desktop shortcut, why is the start menu rotating ads and news next to my applications. Some of them are not even metric pumping, it's just bad design. And that's just the start, the things getting in the way of you actually doing your job just don't end.
Except the results will be what the algorithm has determined that people accessing from your IP address at your location using your exact version of your browser on your exact version of your operating system on a screen with your exact width and height and pixel resolution are into lol
Yeah I find this so strange. Why not take the opportunity to throw a bunch of heavily cached shorts recommendations in our faces when signed out? I don't understand how the anon home page is not both a money maker and extremely cacheable and cheap to serve
The only explanation I can imagine is that the risk of turning someone off YouTube by showing them the "wrong" vidoes is worse than the views or attention capture lost this way.
I can imagine my mom opening YouTube (hypothetically) for the first time and seeing an anime video, or my younger cousin being shown a Top Gear video, and them deciding that YouTube is "that app with the weird videos" that's not for them. It's not a carefully thought out conclusion, but in the era of a hundred competitors, it's plausible that superficial decisions like that have a lot of impact on the app usage.
Or it could just be that someone with a forceful personality on the YouTube team decided this is how we're going to do it and nobody could oppose them, not every decision is scientifically planned and executed like it's often assumed from the outside!
Normies expect platforms to have a vibe that it's full of their kind of person, regardless of how many thousand/million/billion users it has.
It's a fundamentally broken understanding of internet communication, but catering to it is possible and profitable. (I've done it in moderating smaller communities. We've handed out undeserved and unjust bans because getting rid of a high profile nuisance is easy compared to convincing someone to stop getting one-guyed. We also kept the most toxic users around when they're crowd favorites.)
You're spot on. YouTube knows they're the boring old video platform, the bland safe-for-tv default homepage that would be shown to someone with no surveillance profile would only confirm it's not the platform for someone with their taste in TikTok slop.
does anyone know why when I do this all my recommended videos are always
"10 hours star pattern" or the like? does youtube figure any cookie-less machine is usually just a stick pc in a restaurant serving screensavers?
I figured out why the feature was failing on my system: I needed to enable Install and Run Studies under Send technical and interaction data to Mozilla under Firefox Data Collection and Use under Privacy & Security under Settings. I can understand why Mozilla would do that (they consider it an experimental feature).
Along the same line, the Firefox Labs section of Settings requires the same settings to be enabled. When I enabled it under about:config then opened the settings, the label would briefly appear then disappear. When I went back to about:config, I found the setting was reset to disabled. Again, I can understand why Mozilla would do that.
Yet understanding why is not the same as accepting why. If they want to promote themselves as an open and privacy preserving web browser, they should accept there are some compromises to be made when it comes down to letting users experiment and collecting telemetry.
> I don't like the 300 search limit, because it scratches my brain - "do I need to search for this? can I find it some other way? should I just use duckduckgo for this search?"
I have been using the free 300 search trial for several months now, and have not found it limiting. In a way, it highlights the strength of the search engine since I devote more time to reading the sites it directs me to than sifting through search results or refining my query. In other words, I am spending less time searching and more time pursuing the fruits of those searches. I am also okay with the idea of using different search engines for different purposes. I have a general idea of which queries will produce good results on DDG or Google, and use those search engines in those cases. I also have a general idea of which queries will generate terrible results on DDG or Google, and reach for Kagi in those cases.
> I'm largely allergic to subscriptions. Still, if I can spend $360/year on Disney/Hulu/Max, I should be able to upgrade my search experience.
I am allergic to subscriptions, which is likely why I am working within the bounds of Kagi's free trial for as long as I can. Once I have used up those queries, there will be a decision to make. Thankfully they are advertising $5/month for 300 queries. It's something that I can live with, even if I do go hog-wild with queries using the model that I have settled upon. Still, I have to get over that allergy first.
> Homebrew scenes seem like a candidate for doing things "the right way", but culturally they're a lot closer to piracy scenes than anyone wants to admit, at least in front of a court.
I realize the homebrew scene doesn't view themselves this way, but I pretty much view them as part of the piracy scene even when they are antagonistic towards those who pirate games. The main difference is that they are "pirating" hardware rather than software. By that I mean they are overriding DRM created by the hardware vendor to use the hardware in unauthorized ways.
Now it is easy to say that you should be able to do what you want with hardware you own. In most respects, I am sympathetic with that. Yet I don't like that philosophy for one big reason: it creates a huge disincentive to those who want to create open platforms since it is going to be nearly impossible for them to get any traction when they are up against jailbroken devices from huge multinational corporations.
> it creates a huge disincentive to those who want to create open platforms since it is going to be nearly impossible for them to get any traction when they are up against jailbroken devices from huge multinational corporations.
I'm not so sure about that. More specifically, I wonder if there are more or fewer Steam Decks in the wild than jailbroken Nintendo Switch units.
When I was writing that, I was thinking of other platforms. For example: I had a GP2X at one point, which was a handheld console that ran Linux. It clearly wasn't a mass-market device, but it was an open platform with plenty of development tools. It should have been the sort of thing that appealed to homebrew developers. It was appealing for some, but it was up against the Nintendo DS with flash cartridges. There were almost certainly more flash cartridges than GP2X's in the world, even though they were a grey market item (at best). They didn't have a chance, and I think they only managed to produce one successor before going out of business. (Of course, there were other factors. This was right around the time of smartphones becoming popular. Smartphones may have crumby controls for gaming, but at least anyone could develop software for Android and the barrier to entry was relatively low for iOS.)
The Steam Deck, well, that has other things going for it. Yes, it is an open platform. Yet it, along with similar devices, are also PC compatible. That makes it appealing to developers, may they be developing games for Linux or Windows. Perhaps the biggest thing going for it is being backed by Valve, which is large enough to coexist with Nintendo and is unusual for a larger company in that they value an open ecosystem. To understand how unusual that is for a large player entering the market, just look at the original Xbox.
I very much doubt that jailbreaking and the homebrew scene contribute significantly to the difficulty of building a financially viable open hardware platform.
Building a mass market hardware platform of any kind is incredibly difficult on its own merits.
To be fair, one couldn't have even said that much about Linux a decade ago even though Linux ran on the same hardware as Windows. Now we can say that we can do Windows gaming on Linux and it is amazing. It is possible to both play a huge swath of Steam games under Linux, with comparable performance to Windows, and to go the "a lot of effort" route with non-Steam games under Wine (again, with comparable performance to Windows). That's before considering native Linux games.
It's funny how what people consider "a lot of effort" varies through the years. As a kid I was cracking open my apple-clone 5.25" drive and trying to manually adjust the drive speed with a screwdriver, with absolutely no documentation, internet or other support to help out - just to get a game work!
You're right. Even though I was thinking along the line hardware and software compatibility, repairs certainly fit the bill. It's not like today, where a flaky drive is simply replaced. A floppy drive of that era costed as much as an entire computer today. And let's not forget the MS-DOS era, when people were pretty much expected to tweak their system's memory configuration to play games (and different games required different profiles).
Out of curiosity, does kid-you remember whether the drive came poorly tuned from the factory or if it drifted after the fact. (Or perhaps it was the disk at fault, having been written on a poorly tuned drive.)
Perhaps we should trust it more because it is fluid and that fluidity is documented (see the history and talk tabs for any given article). Historically, reputable sources depended upon, to a very large degree, the authority of the author. The reader typically had little to no insight into what was generally agreed upon and where there was some debate. How the Wikipedia exposes that may be imperfect, but it is better than nothing.
> If an insurer says "we're going to jack up premiums by 20% unless you force employees to change their password once every 90 days", you can argue till you're blue in the face that it's bad practice, NIST changed its policy to recommend not regularly rotating passwords over a decade ago, etc., and be totally correct... but they're still going to jack up premiums if you don't do it.
I would argue that password policies are very context dependent. As much as I detest changing my password every 90 days, I've worked in places where the culture encouraged password sharing. That sharing creates a whole slew of problems. On top of that, removing the requirement to change passwords every 90 days would encourage very few people to select secure passwords, mostly because they prefer convenience and do not understand the risks.
If you are dealing with an externally facing service where people are willing to choose secure passwords and unwilling to share them, I would agree that regularly changing passwords creates more problems than it solves.
I also hate drama, and would much rather lead a quiet life as a person no one likes than an interesting life who some people dislike.
reply