Nate Cox

The vitriol over this topic is humorous. We charge our phones and watches daily, nobody is losing their minds over that. However, asking for the mouse to be plugged in one night a month is outlandish and absurd.

The best part is that this minor issue overshadows the real issue: the ergonomics are terrible. I have large hands and simply can not hold onto the thing properly. Narrow and flat is poor design for something you need to get a grip on to slide around.

I’m pretty sure that we’re friends now by law.

Now if only they could add “swipe to go back” to their Linux client. Only thing keeping me off of Vivaldi these days.

Are you me? I’m also a lazy tech schlub now who was formerly a paint store warehouse worker, home renovation worker, etc.

Fully agree that everyone going into tech should spend real time working hard labor and retail. I genuinely feel that my non-tech experiences made me a better person and a better tech schlub.

I remember tech coworkers complaining that the wall filled with free snacks and candy didn’t have the right kind of snacks and candy, and having to hold myself back from going full Everett True.

Did I even watch the movie which hasn’t come out yet? I’m pretty sure I know which of us is a bot.

No.

Bring back my hopeful vision of the future Star Trek, I’m all done with this new wave.

https://youtu.be/gp4_GcI-atg?si=DE6K30H1wwmwpfgM

You’re welcome.

The cult of Stallman continues to baffle me. The man is venom in the veins of the free software community and people just adore him.

I love the ideals of the free software movement but RMS is so toxic that I won’t associate myself with it while he’s tolerated.

Careful now, “good faith” is religiously charged and implies that God is the source of all good intent, you’re gonna set this person off with that.

(/s hopefully obviously)

deleted by creator

Multiple reports from observers of this execution method: it’s horrible, they thrash around on the gurney and seem to suffer greatly

This guy: nuh uh.

The White House said in a statement it was “deeply disturbed” by the killing and seeking an Israeli investigation.

Waiting on “We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing”.

Being actively under indictment is a lot different than just being investigated. Indictment requires that sufficient evidence has been gathered, reviewed, and (for a federal case) at least 12 of 23 jurors in a grand jury believe there is at least a 50% chance that you have actually committed a crime (12/16 jurors at the state level).

By the time you have been indicted you have received a lot of due process resulting in a concrete belief that if you go to court you will be convicted of having committed a crime.

I appreciate your intent with this, but one of our fundamental rights is due process. Penalizing an individual for simply being investigated would violate that right.

I’m not sure I’m willing to participate in experimenting with a US government where due process is wishy washy. I remember how horny we got for suspending habeas corpus via the patriot act.

I assume if the client is undetectable that ads will escalate to phoning home for viewing confirmation, and then to something even more dumb once we beat that.

It’s an arms race, it’s probably silly to think we can just outright win for once and all.

This is so common it has a name, it’s called banner blindness.

One of the important aspects of interface design is supposed to be not showing alerts for everything, so that when they pop up you feel compelled to pay attention.

Not long ago a nurse killed an older woman by giving her the wrong medicine; she took accountability but called out that the software they use provides so many alerts that (probably unofficial) policy was to just click through them to get to treating the patient. One of those alerts was a callout that the wrong dosage was selected and she zoomed right by it out of habit.

It’s hard to have a discourse on a topic if you insist that the scope of that topic must by default be infinite.

X isn’t being threatened with litigation because they’re freedom fighters bringing literature to the huddled masses; they’re being threatened with litigation because they are a billion dollar business sustaining themselves by selling ads along with content that Brazil argues was misinformation and hate speech.

On the topic of freedom fighters bringing literature to the huddled masses: it may be moral in some extreme examples to defy the government, but there are means of doing that completely removed from the scope of microblogging on a corporate behemoth’s web platform. For example, there is an international organization who’s sole purpose is perusing human rights violations.

I don’t think it’s the responsibility of X to know the laws of every country; I expect them to respect the wishes of other countries when it is brought to their attention if they want to continue doing business there.

Also, I think we both know that the misinformation we are talking about here has nothing to do with religious beliefs. The context of the linked article clearly indicates that harmful mistruths leading to harmful actions is the subject here.

I’m not sure why it’s so tempting to think of internet content as a special entity that defies otherwise established rules. Maybe it’s simply because no special effort is needed today to get the content across the border?

Regardless, we aren’t talking about your geocities page, we’re talking about billion dollar businesses. Would it be appropriate to take your physical storefront across international borders and insist that the government there should have zero say as to what products you sell? If not, why is it appropriate to do the same with web content? X is selling content in the form of ad distribution, countries should get to decide if that content is appropriate for distribution.

I’m going to challenge your assertion that you’re not talking about what should be considered harmful by pointing out that you are loading your argument substantially by asserting that people need “help” protecting them from “harmful” censorship. Remember that the issue addressed in this thread is Brazil banning X for its promotion of misinformation and hate speech.

Censorship isn’t harmful by default. It is ok to ban people from shouting “fire” in a theater for example, because the shout may result in real harm. Now you can argue that some censorship may be harmful because of its impact on society, such as the removal of books from school hampering fair and complete education or banning research texts that expose inconvenient truths.

But, again the issue here is specifically an attempt to ban misinformation and hate speech; are you going to make an argument that these things are a positive to the community and should be defended as a moral imperative? Frankly it’s a pretty silly stance to take.