atoav

It is mentioned at the bottom of the page, but yeah Orca ia pretty good.

Sometimes people fall down the stairs in their own homes. That doesn't mean the government should mandate everybody to wear helmets at home does it?

A measure needs to be in proportion to the actual risk it seeks to mitigate.

No we can't. Because my opinion is that a government should punish speech in certain cases, e.g. speech that is against the human dignity of other people or speech that is dangerous (e.g. yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

We delegate these rules to governments to secure the individuals rights to life, liberty, and happiness (as your declaration of independence so wonderfully puts), not because we want to allow shitheads to allow to shittalk. This is just a side-effect we all have to endure, because we don't want governments to police all speech.

That means also in the US not everything you could say goes unpunished by the government, especially if you're not white, male and christian. Remember, the police is part of the government and if they can shoot you because they thought they have seen a gun, they can also shoot you because of what you said.

On top of that we, collectively, form governments for (among others) the purpose of protecting each others speech, not just from governments, but from each other, from our bosses, coorporations, from the police. That means, we collectively, use the government as a governing body tho whom we delegated certain powers. Where to draw the line is different in different regions of the earth. For example the female nipple printed in many European newspapers would not be protected speech in the US for puritan religious reasons.

Freedom of expression, as defined in the US, sure. But not everybody in the internet shares the definition.

E.g. as a European my idea of freedom of speech is not limited to the things I am allowed to say, but also about whether spaces exist in which I can say them. US style freedom of speech, doesn't produce any more insightful or free discourse than over here. In fact I'd argue it produces a discourse where voices win that are the loudest, most outrageous and least respectful, while voices that are more reasonable are frightened away.

It is the same thing that happens if a state gives up her monopoly of violence: The strongest dominate, while the weaker, more peaceful ones suffer.

Freedom is not just the freedom to do X, it is also the freedom of not having X done to you, as well as the freedom of living in a space where doing X is actually possible.

This means a free society does not have to endure all voices, especially those that aim at harming others or have the goal of using freedom of speech to get rid of the free society. Don't like the rules of a free society? Then you don't get to easily claim the protections granted by one. You can't whine to the referee if your goal is to get rid of the referee — I mean you could, but that would be pathetic.

Yes sure, given a sufficiently corrupt system nothing helps. Even being innocent and revealing everything won't help.

But this stance amounts to giving up. Within the wiggle room a system gives us there are still ways to widen cracks or attach a lever, however small they may be.

Spot on. There is by the way a very interesting historic connection between suffragettes/early emancipation movements and the bicycle. Bicycles allowed women to move around more freely and was thus greatly empowering. Additionally women chose to wear pants on bicycle thus it became also a symbol of that freedom.

Deadmans-switch, nice. I always had a weird fascination for that kind of mechanism, because it inverts the whole situation. Where before you have to actively wipe a phone, now them taking your phone may be the mechanism that triggers the wipe.

Well. I thought so as well about LDAP. Until one day I had to interact with the kind of technology LDAP was built to replace...

Thanks for the kind compliment : )

I try to ask myself whether things I write are (1) writing and (2) reading before writing. Sometimes that works.

fine = previous_fine²

This is probably one of the biggest sins in technological teaching. Sure it is crucially important to take away the fear of a topic. But you don't do so by saying it is simple, you do so by showing it is simple.

And it turns out sometimes you cannot show it is simple, because it is in fact very complex. But every complex topic is made up of smaller, simpler ones. Good teachers then manage to find a good order of those smaller parts that makes the steep hill climbable. Then you only need to convince people it is actually worth climbing.

LG is on my blacklist. That means I won't buy LG products and in my job actively fight against buying products from them. And they put themselves onto that lost with their behavior.

Well you know you will likely have an outlier. The question is when.

I am all for it, where do I sign? The whole ad world has brought nothing but problems to our world.

> 4. Voice capture can include other people. Voice-enabled products may record and analyse family members, children, guests, and bystanders. LG places responsibility on you to inform them and obtain any legally required consent. (Section 4.d)

Cool. Meaning you either inform every guest before they enter your home or they can sue you. Great LG! This is a good way to ensure to land on my personal forever-blacklist. I won't even come back to check whether you changed.

Good to know. LG is now on my blacklist.

There has been a history of problems with that exact airframe where people died. People dying is usually considered bad.

Now root cause of the issue that airframe had before was that Boeing was given the leeway to certify it themselves with too little oversight by the FAA. In short: the airframe of the Boeing 737 MAX is so far away from the originally certified 737 airframe it is ridiculous to consider them the same airplane. The adjustments Boeing made via softeare to deal with the physical changes (like putting the much bigger engines forward so they have enough clearance under the wings without having to certifying this as a new airframe) was the cause of the incidents. A truly independent FAA would have never even remotely accepted that.

I would say, you install a lightweight Linux, boot directly into your favorite distraction free editor at full screen and sync the files back to phone and big computer via something like syncthing/Nextcloud/etc.

As for which editor that is, it depends a little bit on your needs, but there are ones specifically geared towards being distraction free like https://ghostwriter.kde.org/

Although markdown may not be what you're after. I personally consider formatting another form of distraction, ao this would be a plus for me. But if you write math-heavy papers, going with something else like Typst or LATeX may be a better choice.

Are they? I can easily dangle my Phone of my USB-C cable. Maybe this is a regional problem. Within the EU I rarely ever had any mechanical problem with USB-C, where applied reasonably.

You don't necessarily need to argue a lot of times. Often the much better way is to deploy the rhetoric equivalent of a Judo throw, by using the momentum of the other side and ever so gently redirect it to have them lose their footing a few steps later. Do this well enough and it isn't even immediately clear who caused it.

Directly arguing has the downside that people with big egos will harden their positions even (or rather: especially) if they suspect they they might be wrong. If your goal is to let of steam while causing destruction, that is a valid strategy, if your goal is to reframe a topic, refute a point and/or win over the room, it often is not.

That all being said, we are talking about a public argument, not about private discussions. If you can make good points, bring the receipts arguing for those points is a good idea. However if given the chance it is a good idea to make these point in a smaller circle, in writing or in a one-in-one with your boss first, to give them the chance to agree with you when it is easy, instead of feeling put on the spot in front of everybody.

Not to be that guy, but the USB-C specification requires an extraction force of 8–20 N for a new connector, measured on the sixth unplugging cycle after five conditioning cycles. After 10,000 insertion/removal cycles, the permitted range is 6–20 N.

Equivalent hanging mass:

  8 N is 0.82 kg  
  20 N is 2.04 kg  
  

So the problem you have is likely one of your manufacturer not producing equipment suitable to pass the USB-C spec.

As an aside, the specified extraction force for USB A is:

  10 N minimum when new  
  8 N minimum after durability cycling  
  

So pretty much the same, in some cases even less.

I don't have problems with USB-C connectors per se. I think HDMI is worse in terms of durability.

It is easier to get an LLM to tell an unusual story using the most popular phrases than have it tell a common story using off-kilter uncommon phrases.

The big arc is easy to get using an LLM, getting it to do the details correctly, that is the actual hard part. So in my cases I (by other people's account a legendarily patient person) lost my cool trying to get a LLM to write CSS in a way that makes any sense if you have a design background. I ended up rewriting the whole CSS by hand, because it is inconsistent, piecemeal and just doesn't make sense. Yeah let's make everything bold and important. Yeah let's write internal implementation details into a label in the UI.

I decided to use LLMs as an aid to my own thinking, not as a replacement.

Huh? That is a really common term. There have been even memes about it. I remember roughly 5 years ago I first heard the ironic; "Real men use after free" in a discussion about Rust's benefits as its borrowing checker would have also prevented this one.

"Use after free" is also described in most standard books about C as a thing you should never do, have you read one?

Consider reading the post I commented on.

Until drones deploy counter-blinkenlights. As someone who has built a realtime people tracker art installation in a disco: Stroboscopes are highly effective at confusing these models.

Current metric time can be seen here: https://metric-time.com/

I mostly agree with the points made, however I would not call this "invisible" as it was chosen to be called in the title.

Good tools should be obvious, with the main ways to use it being very low friction and low cognitive overhead. That is not the same as them being invisible. It is just a different type of visibility (one that doesn't require users to get a driving license before they can use the tool properly).

When I design such tools, I tend to think about the problem from the users perspective. What is the information they really need to know? In which environment does the rest of the context reside? Which error cases exist, who will have to deal with them and what will they need to know?

I'd did not claim that things do not have downsides. I said tech embargos are the wrong way to deal with that specific downside and even proposed another way to deal with it (targeted, stochastic checks). If the people making those checks are good, the paperwork you described won't be necessary. E.g. in the EU the police may put your car onto a test stand and measure the exhaust during operation. Who cares what you did to the thing if the result is that it is within the emission thresholds.

In the case of guns this documentation makes sense, because of what guns are used for typically.

To play the devils advocate: It is efficient — for them.

It is a bit of a myth that everybody in Germany talks English. Sure in an academic or business environment, or in certain social circles that can be taken for granted, but there are people who can only talk German or whose English is so bad they will avoid talking it.

If you want people not to have out of spec tractors that is a regulation and oversight issue, not an issue of locking down tech.

Right to repair argues the tech should not be locked down, it doesn't argue you should be free to break the law.

You are also free to remove the handrails on a set of stairs using a simple wrench, but if a building inspector shows up or someone falls because of it there will likely be consequences. The argument here is that the simple wrench isn't the problem nor is your potential ability to remove handrails. In fact removing them may be necessary in some situations. The argument here is, you should be able to decide when it is necessary, while also facing consequences if tou do so in a way that is potentially harmful to others and the environment.

If you worry about the environmental impact of people turning a screw in a tractor you need heftier fines and more random unannounced controls. This is btw. how gun law works in countries where they make sense. Own a gun? No you don't unless you store it correctly and have documentation of ammunition spent etc.