Pfhortune

> You can express your own religious identity and explain your beliefs, but you can't call your coworkers infidels if they disagree, or try to ban them from saying things that contradict its doctrines, or insist that the organization adopt yours as its official religion.

The issue with this is that it enshrines denial of identity in the same place as religion. If a trans colleague identifies a way that you disagree with, does this give you free pass to misgender them and deny their identity? That is cruel, and you would be denying a colleague their right of self-determination. This is bullying.

I'm not saying you should be stricken down for needing time to adjust to their pronouns and chosen name; I'm saying you shouldn't be cruel to them by denying them their identity, and that such cruel behavior should not be protected in society.

---

I would turn this entire discourse about "wokeness" on its head, especially the discourse from the pg's and Musk's of the world, and assert that they don't actually care about the way the ideological wind is blowing; They're afraid of the collectivist nature of it.

That many less-powerful people can band together in pursuit of social justice against them, entrenched titans of capital, those capable of steering mainstream discourse, can provide a counter-argument to their power structures, is what _really_ troubles them.

> The drawback could be as simple as “higher cost to manufacture” or “higher risk of consumers using incorrect/third party batteries”

This wouldn’t be an issue if we had some kind of standards around batteries for cellphones rather than making unique batteries for every single model.

If you could just buy a “Type B” format phone battery for a phone this would eliminate the issue. It would be similar to the charger market, where different manufacturers could compete. This is _toward_ the market economics that capitalists so love, unless they’re benefiting from market capture of proprietary parts.

One-off designs are wasteful and drive up costs and drive down quality.

You will continually get better at not just writing the right code, but at interpreting requirements into the right code. You will learn the edges and corners where bugs will hide. And sometimes you'll write them anyways, because that's life. You'll fix it in the future.

In this trade, a lot of orgs put a lot of emphasis on "sprints" and "deliverables", but you really have to look at software development as a continuum. Optimizations and bug fixes are a part of this continuum, and any good team has space for these things in planning.

Not all teams recognize this, however, and I would recommend discussing with the other engineers on your team how you can work together to advocate for this. No sprint can be 100% features. Software requires upkeep. Bugs are a natural part of this.

Netflix is more akin to renting, though.

The framing of this article is absolutely ludicrous. I'm no Apple apologist but this is genuinely a good feature that puts power to control who gets access to contacts back in iPhone user's hands.

"The city is helping citizens install locks on their doors to keep burglars out! That's going to really hurt all the new small-time crooks who might just be starting out!"

GrapheneOS has this really awesome feature that I wish would come to mainline Android: Contact and Storage scopes.

Essentially, it works very much like the feature Apple has introduced for these things, but importantly, it makes apps believe they have full access to these resources, while still maintaining a limited scope through the OS.

I doubt Google would ever adopt this (due to their less than privacy-friendly attitudes) but it is absolutely technically possible, since GrapheneOS has it today.

Any ETA on F-Droid, Accrescent, and/or APK releases from Github (for Obtainium)?

I know it's a non-trivial ask, and is planned, but seems important that software against censorship be hosted on a less censorship-friendly platform than the Play Store.

That said, thank you so much for doing this important work! I've often thought that I should start or contribute to a project like this, considering the direction of the world seems to be bending towards censorship and autocracy on the internet.

> yet Google shows you 10 pages of 10 links each

And five of them are ads/sponsored links!

Fair. Though I still think we need a tech equivalent of "look both ways before crossing the street." Though as I type this and think it through... Cars aren't trying to deliberately camouflage themselves as harmless parts of the environment, which is the logical equivalent to this particular case.

Android at least does show a little browser badge on PWAs. (Or is this a feature of certain launchers? I'm not sure). iOS should do the same, once Apple is done pretending PWAs don't exist.

PWA as a mechanism for delivering phishing apps is an interesting avenue. I would have thought the hoops Android/iOS make you jump through to add a PWA would be enough to make people question whether they are doing the right thing. The fact that folks did not find it odd that they had to do a particular dance to install the "app" from the "app store" is just... tragic.

I do not know what education is like where this campaign seems to have taken place (Czech Republic), but really basic tech literacy should be taught in schools. I know it's tricky to teach someone to be tech literate with a moving target like evolving tech, but we should be _trying_.

Were these streamers offered more than a $60-70 game key to self-censor? Why would anyone agree to such a thing for so little?

Why only Europe?

> If you opened up the phone so it could run any software, all of them would instantly become infested with malware that would massively invade everyone's privacy and probably steal their credit cards and scam them.

That's extremely hyperbolic. Not every Android phone got infested immediately with malware, despite shipping out of the box with the ability to sideload apps. I don't think the platform would have survived if that were the case.

> The Internet today is a "dark forest." Any platform made for technically unsophisticated people must be locked down like military hardware for operation in a theater of war.

That's quite a bleak outlook. One seemingly founded in fear without any faith in free software and the communities around it.

Sure, a person needs to learn some caution in installing and running software, but there aren't monsters around every single corner. There are communities that do a lot of work, without expectation of compensation, to provide safe, trustworthy software.

The internet is _not_ a dark forest. It is a place with people of many stripes and intentions. Some are dangerous, but shooting first and asking questions later is _not_ the way to navigate this wondrous thing humanity has built.

Well... yes, one does have to make good decisions and be intentional about using private software even on open platforms. But at least with open platforms, one has the choice to do so without a corporation being able to unilaterally wipe something away from that platform, or impose terms on that software due to market capture.

I thought Marzipan/Catalyst were still native, just bridged over from the mobile OSes. Are they really using web tech to render them?

Desktop Linux only "competes" with Mac O's and Windows on a superficial level. While it seems like marketshare matters... it really doesn't from a existential standpoint. Desktop Linux has no* financial driver towards greater marketshare. It's not* competing for dollars with commercial, proprietary OSes.

* Not entirely true... there are certainly commercial offerings and financial backing for the ecosystem, though I'm certain it would still exist without them.

I disagree. The beauty of open source is that many philosophies have room to prosper. The Linux ecosystem is not the Apple ecosystem.

For me this was the last straw to finally get me to switch my last couple of accounts off of it. Yes... the recent breach[0] should have been enough, I'll admit...

0: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40874341

Scant detail in this article about the papers in question or WPATH's objection. Maybe these papers were rejected for good reason?

As posted in another thread, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_boomerang

Also a bad idea, and if I understand correctly, landmines are already considered a war crime if not removed after conflict. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conventi...

The above comment thread is:

> AI weapons seems like a bad bad idea.

>> Why?

---

And let's not be naïve; this is the military we're talking about. It'll happen whether it's Luckey or someone else.

Putting aside all the ai-recommends-you-eat-a-few-rocks-a-day evidence...

Letting machines incapable of empathy, bereft of accountability for themselves or their creators, make decisions to end one or more lives, is a monstrous idea on its face.

Additionally, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_boomerang

Amazing stuff. Thank you for sharing! I think Cuba is ahead of the curve here, considering the direction the internet is going these days WRT encroaching censorship and media availability issues.

Here's hoping, but my inner cynic says it's unlikely since it doesn't do anything for those quarterly numbers.

However, I am curious what could be done with the stock OS... This repo here seems to suggest that the UI on the CarThing is just a webapp: https://github.com/williamtcastro/carthing-non-premium-spoti...

If we could take this and rip out the existing frontend, I wonder if we could turn it into a Chumby-like device at the very least. Though I suppose the tricky bit is to enable the bluetooth connection for any kind of network data transfer...

Ah, fair. It is certainly true that not everything just-works on a custom rom; that is a tradeoff of them. Everyone has a different level of tolerance for this kind of thing.

These are significant allegations, but without any documentation of them I have a hard time believing they can be true. Firing weapons into crowds of people is a messy prospect that would attract significant attention no matter the perpetrator.

> As I said there are zero journalists in Gaza. This presumes independent reporting and Hamas does not allow it. Any journalist that reports something they don't like gets a beating, and if they persist, they're killed.

Would like to learn more about this. Are there reports of this? Has Hamas issued a statement?

Completely clamping down on independent photo/videography is very difficult, even in a place like Gaza.

> That and the social isolation from trying use a phone that can't keep up with the activities and communication preferences of friends makes an iPhone a necessary compromise.

I am still shocked at how much blue bubbles seem to affect some folk's social lives. Does it really matter that much?