Fiona

There has to be a meaningful number of companies where each individually is spending more on adobe licenses than it would cost them to pay a bunch of developers to get gimp to the point where it is a fully sufficient alternative. But hey, the only thing more important to capitalists than making profit seems to be, to not go for cheaper FLOSS options, rather than spending pointlessly large amounts of money on proprietary software…

Not telling someone something isn’t gaslighting. That’s a very different thing.

And you are making the mistake of assuming that other people think like you, have the same preferences as you, also have memories on an at least subconscious level, …

There are just so many factors, that depend on the person and this is one of those cases where extrapolating from your own lived experience is not the right way to do things. Like: I’m trans and you can trust me, that I have my own places, where I know that I can’t apply my standards to other people (“what do you mean, people don’t like the effects of cross-sex hormones?”).

I’m positively surprised that the article acknowledges the nuance of question of whether unknowing victims should be informed, instead of just jumping on the “tell them all, no matter if it hurts them more than the crime did”.

Anyone who claims that there is a simple answer that is always best is acting out of ideology, rather than an interest in improving people’s lives…

The one thing that might help somewhat, at huge logistic cost, would be to ask everyone what their preference in a situation like that is, ideally with the possibility to have different answers for different crimes. Like, combine it with a question on being an organ-donor and a couple of similar things. Since it goes to everyone, people who don’t know and don’t want to know can stay in blissful ignorance, because the question doesn’t arise suspicions, as it would be if only they got asked. You could still get bad results, but in that case they would at least be the results the people in question choose. Though even this approach can’t easily deal with the cases of minors being involved…

All that said, there is another component to the case, that might be the biggest problem with it: The perpetrator getting of easy because it was assumed that the victims didn’t know and the implication of a much harder punishment had they been known to have known: Whether the victims knew, didn’t change the crime that was committed, only the outcome. And punishing the outcome rather than the action is an extremely bad way to enact justice. (Yes, attempted murder should be punished like murder!)

I saw “driverless waymo” in the title.

Also: Prejudice against people wearing fedoras is still prejudice and thus not really a great thing to have. One of my best friends also likes to wear a hat at times (not sure if it counts as a fedora, I know very little about heads) and is one of the sweetest people I know.

Okay, this really seems more like a case of sexual harassment, rather than harassment of Waymo customers, which was my first suspicion. Had it been the latter as part of a politically motivated action against the company I might have had a lot more sympathy, but this is disgusting…

That “m” should be a “b”. For a company that size, there is truly no excuse!

I’m not advocating against a seatbelt, I’m advocating against not wearing it, “because I am confident that I can hold on to something in case of a collision” or similar stupid reasons. Expecting that blocking does anything to hide public posts that you can simply open in another browser (or in the same browser in private browsing mode) is not a seatbelt, it is the equivalent of a slightly stronger handle on top of the car window that is being advertized as a feature to protect you in case of an accident.

This change first and foremost makes it clear that that handle does nothing meaningful and that you should wear an actual seatbelt (follower-only posts, ideally with restricted followers) instead, if you are worried about a collision. Twitter is a public forum. You can’t tell people to leave you alone, shout with a megaphone across the marketplace and then be annoyed when they hear you. If you don’t want them to hear you, don’t use a megaphone.

I don’t like discord, but it is a MASSIVE improvement over all the meta-garbage. Stop using Facebook, instagram, whatsapp and really also twitter first. Discord is the smaller evil compared to those.

Yes forums have their application and are better than discord for a lot of things, but discord is really more a competitor to IRC-chats with a focus on life discussion, rather than long-living content. And it isn’t discords fault if some people completely misuse it as something that it really isn’t trying to be.

Need to use their bloated (web)app.

Which means that it works in a regular browser, which is so much better than a lot of other infrastructure that is increasingly mobile-app only.

Charges for basic functions.

Does it though? It charges for certain emojis and the like, but that is honestly a MUCH more healthy business model than what a lot of other places on the internet are doing. And if you just want to use it as intended, you really aren’t missing out on anything.

I’m really not saying that it is great, but I wonder whether some of the people ranting about this may get signal boosted by meta to distract from their even worse cesspool…

The argument here is literally about stalkers. Not about random uninterested people that don’t care.

Please read again what he changed and then try to figure out why your rationale is clearly not what this is about.

Twitter massively reduced visibility for logged-out users,

I know, but it still didn’t fully remove it.

Not sure that being “more honest” is worth the price

The thing is that there really is no price, nor was there ever one. Your suggestion that you think there is demonstrates that the way blocking worked gave people dangerously wrong ideas. It’s about being clear to people what they can and cannot expect. Anything else is ACTUALLY dangerous.

As much as I despise Musk and Twitter and hope that both die a painful death, what is actually proposed here is honestly a change for the better: It’s not about preventing people from blocking users, it’s about blocked users being able to see public posts, which they could also see by just logging out. This is being honest about what a block does and avoids giving people a wrong sense of privacy that they simply don’t have on the platform. From what I’ve heard there is a possibility to post for followers-only which in combination with requiring approval to follow and that isn’t going away here either…

To be fair though: While circumventing that was as easy as logging out, the inability to see things while logged in was kinda stupid and gave people a false perception of privacy. In that setting that change is just a case of being honest.

With the ability to view posts without account largely removed, it’s a bit of a different story, but I have to admit that if it’s public on Xitter, it’s still kinda public, so hiding it still kinda missing the poin.

Yeah, a good self-checkout is amazing and a competely different category from the garbage you see elsewhere.

In the Netherlands at Albert Heijn the only verification consists pretty much of occasional random checks and in the one closes to me they replaced two of the manual counters with eight self-checkouts, meaning that the queues are pretty much gone. You can also self-scan while shopping, if you want with your own phone in which case payment is 90% of the time just scanning a barcode and paying at a debit-card terminal.

And while you are not supposed to, nobody ever cares if you use your own backpack instead of a shopping basket/car, in which case you don’t even have to pack up your stuff. If you do get a random check with it, you just open it up wide and let the employee pick a few random items to scan and they won’t even say a word.

The only other delay is age-verification if you buy alcohol, which in my case means that an employee looks over from across the room and sadly decides that I’m an old enough fuck to not need my ID inspected. (Then again, being trans without legal stuff having happened yet (soon though!), it does make things easier.)

Could you steal? Of course, but you can do the same with regular counters!

You don’t need quantum computers for that.

On Arch you can easily uninstall Linux.

The fun part is that there are even legit reasons to do so, the by far most likely one being that you want to use a different package that provides you with a kernel, such as linux-lts or linux-hardened. Definitely know what you are doing in that case though!

AI not, but I’d be less certain about LLMs.

The hype-cycle is the exception, not the norm. Very commonly stuff just ends up dying.

Misandry is sadly extremely widespread and often not even recognized as a problem: Erin Pizzey who invented modern women’s shelters quickly found out that women were just as capable of being violent to their partners and logically tried to start men’s shelters as well.

What she had not expected was that instead with the support that she previously got with women’s shelters, the same did not happen with men’s shelters; instead she received insane amounts of hate, victim-blaming and death-threats from radical feminists. She had to repeatedly flee her countries because of material safety-concerns as a result of that.

In some way the peak I encountered of this kind of hate was some Fedi-site that had a rule banning misandry (good!), because it also harms trans people. Now the second part is very much true and as a trans girl I agree that it does and that that is bad, but that should not be the primary argument for why it is bad. That’s like saying anti-judaism is bad, because some Jews are white or saying misogyny is bad, because it also affects trans men or saying anti-black racism is bad, because it might affect white people with a strong tan: The statement is true and the secondary victim group fully preserves protection, but by making that statement you betray an incredibly bigoted mindset that doesn’t even respect the primary target-group enough to care about them at all.

There is a lot feminism that really just amounts to men-hating and that is why I do not use that label for myself. I believe in equivalent treatment and rights and so should everyone;

Well it’s the old fact that reality has a left-wing bias, as someone once put it.