mreome

For an even deeper dive into this topic...

Technology Connections: Longer-lasting light bulbs: it was complicated

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb7Bs98KmnY

If you haven't tried it, I would take a look at Inoreader. Especially if you have YouTube channels that you want to follow (it directly integrates with YouTube subscriptions).

This is effectively a dupe of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46812933

There's a fundamental difference between just providing/using a mechanism for user feedback, and interrupting someone's workflow with frequent unsolicited nagging requests for feedback.

Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_v._Arriba_Soft_Corp.

Fair Use - Internet Publication - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Internet_publication

  > "... the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ... found the purpose of creating the thumbnail images as previews to be sufficiently transformative"

Not exactly the same since this involved a search engine, but would seem to agree that preview thumbnails would be considered fair use.

I'm currently paying for...

Obsidian Sync (Notes)

pCloud (Cloud Backup and Sync)

Pandora (Music)

ChatGPT (Misc)

ProtonVPN (VPN)

NameCheap (Domains/Hosting)

DigitalOcean (Hosting)

Interesting... it took me longer to think through this list then I feel like it should have.

This comment lead to what I believe is my first laugh-out-loud reaction to maximizing a window.

They still make (mercury free) versions of these. The Heat/Cool version is CT87N1001 and the Heat-Only version is CT87K1004.

The last apartment I lived in installed new "smart" thermostats throughout the building. It always seemed to change the target temperature at random and I got so frustrated that I swapped it out with a dumb Honeywell one (and swapped it back when I moved out). I never found having to make the occasional manual adjustment to be an issue.

/s

Maybe "It doesn't get promoted by the algorithms" then?

The account seems legitimate though, long post and comment history with a clear set of specific interests and personal views. Some of which appear to be related to working in video/graphics. If this is astroturfing, it's beyond expert level.

Thompson's Rule for First-Time Telescope Makers: "It is faster to make a four-inch mirror then a six-inch mirror than to make a six-inch mirror."

It doesn't appear to work for google subdomains. For keep.google.com gives a very blurry google logo with the edges clipped off. For mail.google.com the result is a broken image link.

It is not unheard of for a presenter to have to pay the same registration fees as a non-presenting attendee, but it is also common for invited speakers to attend for free and even have their travel and accommodation expenses covered. It is extremely abnormal (if not unheard of) for a legitimate conference to charge a speaker an additional fee for presenting.

The concern in the example is that if the data is unencrypted then there are many untrusted middlemen that also have access to the plaintext and could use it to blackmail either/both of the trusted sender/receiver.

All natural spring water. From concentrate.

Without adjusting for cost of living this kind of analysis is going to get heavily skewed in favor of the language du jour favored in select tech areas where the cost of living, and average income for almost everyone, is drastically higher. Additionally, many of those same cutting-edge technologies are not going to be represented in many lower cost-of-living areas, where there are still lots of opportunities using more mature technologies (think C# for business applications, or C for industrial applications). This will pull the averages down for those mature technologies, even though they represent incomes that may actually be higher relative to the cost of living.

Google, Facebook and Twitter can only block you from Google, Facebook and Twitter respectively. ISPs can, and do, refuse service to some people. In some areas that means effectively being banned from the entire internet.

Admittedly bans/refusals from IPSs are orders of magnitude more rare, but I find it disturbing that there there are no regulations or oversight to an ISP refusing or terminating service, when access to the internet is so fundamental to modern life, and to many people's livelihoods.

I can't do my job without high-speed internet access, but I either don't use, or can easily replace Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

I would point out that according to that link this is not a right under the US constitution, but a right under the California Constitution which contains a broader affirmative right of free speech. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that there is no implied right of free speech within a private shopping centers under the under US Constitution.

Also, at least 13 other US states with similarly worded rights to free speech in their constitutions have ruled that this does not include a right of free speech in private shopping centers, as has the European Court of Human Rights.

The problem with "tools to distinguish who's worth listening to" is that, as you said, "its an impossible judgement to make and its impossible to find a fair judge."

No individual can be knowledgeable in all the areas of science, economics, medicine, technology, etc, that would be necessary to understand and filter even a tiny slice of the daily news. Any tool will necessarily be making judgment calls for it's users in some way, and once the tool becomes the standard, those judgments will (effectively if perhaps not literally) determine who gets banned.

Secure should really be seen as a necessary component of correct security. I don’t see random() as part of security, and the problem is that people use it as such (that’s the failure of our profession as I see it). You wouldn’t want the default string equality operator to be constant time to prevent a possible timing attack, and in the same way I don’t think random() should be cryptographically secure by default. If you need secure random values, you are (should be) a domain-expert and should be selecting an appropriate cryptographically secure random generator from a security library, in the same way you would with a constant-time equality function.

I guess it's a matter of perspective over who random() is for. I see random() as for the programmers who don't know what kind of randomness they need, and don't need to know that because they just need something 'random' not something secure. I expect the domain-experts to know that it's not what they need. In my mind it's not that random() is not secure, it's that using it for something it's not intended for is insecure.