1,187 karma · joined June 26, 2022
I note this one more time: almost no posts talking in favor of banning stuff here specify any objective limiting principle of where it should stop. It's like an exercise of deliberately creating a slippery slope.
Problem is, this is not what Big Tech actually wants.
Cloudfalre claims to be an infrastructure company. Now we're somehow discussing "multiple layers of moderation". This was fast. No limiting principles in sight either.
Fast forward just a few years, it's now impossible to use use social media to coherently discuss any major issues affecting our society if you don't mince words and don't subscribe to orthodoxy de jour. And the worst part is the smug, obnoxious gaslighting about it all that happens all the time.
"Twitter doesn't delete content for political purposes. wink wink"
Hunter Biden laptop story? Unity 2020? Suspension of people like Jordan Peterson? James Lindsey? Hundreds of other high-profile accounts. Probably tens of thousand of lower profile accounts.
"It's not censorship of it's a private company. node nod"
https://thepostmillennial.com/breaking-biden-admin-held-week...
https://nypost.com/2022/08/28/fbi-put-the-hunter-biden-story...
"We're just doing commons sense stuff. Like following science."
https://reclaimthenet.org/youtube-quietly-dropped-covid-cens...
Etc, etc.
All these cliche arguments have been revealed to be entirely in bad faith, so I have absolutely no reason to trust people here who are now claiming that they want some sort of "reasonable" policy from infrastructure providers. It has been demonstrated time and time again that people who don't oppose deplatforming on principle are actually fine with it whenever it suits them.
Maybe you should read some negative reviews on IMDB to find out? Oh, sorry, I forgot. They all got deleted. Hence lies the problem.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/xm...
I think HTML should have a dedicated tag for this, but sadly <script> is the closest thing that I know of.
<script type="text/plain">
> hello world <- this is legal
</script>https://reclaimthenet.org/emails-facebook-coordinating-with-...
Usually HN comments complain about secondary sources. Now people are complaining about using primary sources. On a website where it's normal to see Git commits and FTC filing documents.
If the disease is "solved" then getting vaccinated should make you immune to the disease and you shouldn't care what others are doing.
The dynamics in play is highly questionable. Countless artists and photographers put effort into creating their works. They put they work online to get some attention and recognition. A company comes along, scrapes all of it and starts selling access to the model to generate something that looks highly derivative. The original cohort of artists and photographers not only get zero money or attention from this new endeavor, they are now in competition with the resulting model.
In short, someone whose work was essential to building a thing gets no benefits and possibly even gets (financially) harmed by that thing. Just because this gets verbally labeled "fair use" doesn't make it fair.
Additional point:
Just a few years ago a bunch of tech companies were talking about "data dignity". Somehow, magically, this (marketing) term is no longer used anywhere.
No, because the image itself doesn't matter. What matters is how much the public wants to hate someone. If t he public is primed, any remotely plausible incriminating image will do as an excuse.
Fortunately, these images are actually far than what someone can cook up with Photoshop. Unfortunately, it's a part of a bigger trend where we get more and more tools to produce, manipulates and share information, while the tools to analyze and filter information are lagging by at least half a century.
It doesn't matter. Google operates at scale. As long as they save more money by not bothering to handle such incidents better, they will see it as a perfectly good business policy.
Incidents like this turn customers off for life.
Small customers are completely interchangeable for larger service providers. You can easily get new customers by throwing around some free credits to college kids and posting a few tech ads masqueraded as tutorials.
Meter has a nonsensical data model and no standard way of styling it.
Dialog is a half-assed element that's useless without large amount of styling and code. For its sake they've added an additional form method, which will likely break many older JS libraries.
Mind you, we're talking about controls that have been faked or implemented on the web by developers for at least two decades. This is pitiful.
This is completely backwards. Universal problems on the web are routinely solved by everyone designing a standard website. They often have fairly standard solutions. Browser vendors routinely fail to generalize the experience of run-of-the-mill web developers. It's not about engineering. It's about misaligned incentives and operating from a bad frame of reference.
The overall decision-making around how the web works is insane and getting more insane by the year. We have fairly trivial and absolutely universal problems unsolved for decades, while browsers get crammed full of features that aren't used by 99.9% of websites.
Worse, some problems are finally solved in such a half-assed way that it's almost worse than having no solution at all. (Input type="date", meter element, dialog element etc.)
This is not at all what I imagined the field would look like when I entered it nearly two decades ago.
Should .git directory reside in the same directory as your source code? Maybe not. Fossil has an interesting compromise in that regard.
Should compiled artefacts reside in the same directory as your source code? Almost certainly not. This seems like a bad idea from some hacky implementation decades ago.
Should tools be able to distinguish between "real" files and metadata files? Almost certainly yes, except there are different types of "metadata" files, as you pointed out. I think naming conventions are simply not good enough to handle this properly. This is where FS metadata could come into play.
Generally, I think if someone without prejudice examined the common problems we have with data these days and designed a "file" system from scratch, they would end up with something vastly different from our current files/folders paradigm.
The irony of dot-files is that they became used for metadata, like .git directories, .htcasses files and so on. So, a solution that fakes metadata by abusing names is now used to indicate metadata at another level of the system. There is clearly something missing in file system design.
I interpret this as "file systems need to have a flexible metadata mechanism instead of ad-hoc hacks". Of course, at this point in time no such thing will happen, because it's easier to invent 100 new databases than change some assumptions about our core architecture.
What the tech world really needs is a better shared hosting software/standards. CPanel is far too manual. Kubenetes is far too complicated and was intended to solve an entirely different set of issues.