Looks like Noam Chomsky embracing Steve Bannon

The rub there is that the government probably now has a record of every site you have an account on.

What we really need is a system that’s anonymized in both directions. Where the website can verify the specific claim, age, nationality, etc, but the issuer of the verification, aka the government, can’t track where that verification has been used.

I think this should be possible, but it’s different from the way standard identity providers operate, and I haven’t heard of any of these government identity providers operating this way. That may be because it’s easier, and it may be because governments like the idea of knowing everything we do.

The last time I recall having engaging, thoughtful discussions on the internet was way back in the days of forums. And that was so long ago I’m skeptical of my own memory of it.

Lemmy comments may be different from Reddit comments, but they’re not better. I’ve concluded it’s structural. This format simply does not produce useful conversation.

None of the other social media formats produce it either. Perhaps it’s the result of optimizing for attention, which all social media does, whether by deliberate design or natural selection. Platforms that get attention grow. Those that don’t, languish. It may be that things which gather attention to themselves best are repellent of deeper, slower, more careful thinking.

Actually, maybe I can think of one example. I’m stretching the definition of social media, and I haven’t firsthand experience, but the way that Wikipedia operates may be a clue toward how to build a platform that produces useful dialogue.

For those of us whose German is not up to par.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_liberty

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_liberty

Finally got my last PC switched off Windows. It feels good.

A few references:

Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for usage, modification from its original design, and publication of their version (fork) back to the community.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without charge.

https://opensource.org/osd

The term open source refers to something people can modify and share because its design is publicly accessible.

https://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source

having the source code freely available for possible modification and redistribution

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source

I haven’t read any open source licenses, so it’s possible you are correct in some technical sense, but that is not what people mean when they use the term open source.

Clearly the OP was using the common definition, or most of the post wouldn’t make any sense.

If the source isn’t publicly available, it’s not open source. It sounds like you’re suggesting that the software remain closed source until some later date where it then becomes open source.

Being trans is an electoral advantage?

Punk, est. 403 BC.

Cyberchef does this and so so much more https://github.com/gchq/CyberChef

He’s a comedian. Is this a joke? How can someone honestly think this?

Okay but the studies I’ve seen suggest that EV batteries typically last between 15 and 20 years.

EDIT: https://spectrum.ieee.org/ev-battery-life

How is that different from any other used car?

Unless text is removed to add the picture, nobody loses anything by adding additional tools that help some people.

She literally said they were too ignorant of election law to be held accountable for signing and filing false documents.

That usually doesn’t fly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat

I’m kinda surprised how willing this court is to burn its own credibility for small inconveniences to the Trump regime. I expected them to sell out the rule of law at some point, but I figured they’d do it for something big, with a maximum show of courtly gravitas. This is just clumsy and obvious.

I’ll begin by confessing that I also tend to apply philosophies situationally, but I’d be curious how you’d respond to the criticism that such an approach sort of gives away the game that philosophical applications are all post hoc rationalizations for our existing, non-rational preferences. I’ve found that to be the strongest criticism of such an approach.

Trump doesn’t care if he’s smart or not. Trump traded dropping out of the race and endorsing himself in exchange for HHS. Purely a political transaction.

I think you should stop writing post titles

Maybe the Amish were on to something.