Can't wait for the improved JSON version:
{"path": {"d": ["M", 10, 10, "H", 90, "V", 90, "H", 10, "L", 10, 10]}}2,219 karma · joined July 30, 2015
{"path": {"d": ["M", 10, 10, "H", 90, "V", 90, "H", 10, "L", 10, 10]}}1. Identify one problem you want to fix and ignore everything else.
2. Make a tool to manage the problem while still ignoring everything else.
3. Hype the tool up and shove it in every niche and domain possible.
4. Observer how "everything else" bites you in the ass.
5. Identify the worst problem from #4, use it to start the whole process again.
Microservices will save us! Oh no, they make things complicated. Well, I will solve that with containers! On no, managing containers is a pain. Container orchestration! Oh no, our clusters fail.
Meanwhile, the complexity of our technology goes up and its reliability in practice goes down. Plus, the concepts we operate with are less and less tethered to reality, which makes even talking about certain issues really hard.
As far as coverage, I liked this explanation of internal mechanics of stock trading:
https://rumble.com/vdf437-gamestop-and-short-squeezes-with-a...
I also enjoyed watching Rossmann's take on the whole thing:
https://odysee.com/@rossmanngroup:a
Reddit is just one small piece of the system that this even is occurring in.
There are zillion examples of this becoming more and more true. Increasingly often, articles are written to support shared meta-narratives, regardless of what's happening in reality. From just last few days, here is NYT and CNN drawing completely idiotic parallels between r/wallstreetbets and MAGA:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/29/style/gamestop-wallstreet...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/gamestop-...
This is borderline self-parody. The fact that several major outlets wrote something of this sort should raise red flags for anyone paying attention.
Sure they did. The CEO of Robinhood went onto CNBC and lied about why they restricted trading.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/robinhoods-ceo-den...
Also, here is their history of other recent fuckups:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/robinhood-sec-fine-65-million/
"Robinhood Financial fined $65 million by SEC for misleading users"
Stop making excuses for liars.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/gamestop-and...
"Some users are experiencing issues with trading platforms Vanguard, TD Ameritrade, and Charles Schwab due to heavy volume"
https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/some-users-are-expe...
Not to mention that the market is made up of all platforms and several of them were downright prohibiting GME buying. Some are listed in the article. Robinhood alone has more than 13 million users.
...and they jammed when a single subreddit decided to buy GameStop shares. Just think about what that means.
"Since Android 8.0 Oreo, Google doesn't allow apps to run in the background anymore, requiring all apps which were previously keeping background connection to exclusively use its Firebase push messaging service."
https://github.com/Telegram-FOSS-Team/Telegram-FOSS/blob/mas...
Absolutely. They've done similar things with similar apps. You just have to pay some attention to see the pattern.
Let's take video for example. They Kicked LBRY client off Play store not so long ago. (It eventually got reinstated.) They permanently banned BitChute app. Not app-related, but currently Rumble is suing Google for manipulating video search results in favor of YouTube. Look up the details, they are quite interesting.
Meanwhile, Google has an agreement with all Android hardware providers that forces them to pre-install YouTube and make it non-removable.
10 or 15 years ago people looked at web 1.0, saw many good communities and valuable conversations and said "we need to protect free speech".
Today people looks at Twitter/Facebook/YouTube/Reddit, see mismanaged cesspools and declare that we need centralized speech control.
This is understandable, but highly reactionary and irrational. Speech control is facilitated by big tech at their own discretion. Advocating for more of it means you're advocating for giving more power to the companies who fucked up the system in the first place.
Free market assumes that buyers can make their own decisions. This is a fundamental requirement. If you are "free" to decide something, but then your decision gets overridden when it doesn't suit a particular third party, you aren't really free. The mechanism of enforcement and excuses given afterwards don't change the fundamentals.
https://lbry.tv/@rossmanngroup:a/wallstreetbets-vs-citron-re...
https://lbry.tv/@rossmanngroup:a/why-mainstream-media-s-slan...
https://lbry.tv/@rossmanngroup:a/gamestop-shorts-lose-billio...
https://lbry.tv/@rossmanngroup:a/gamestop-shorts-are-full-of...
(That's how I learned about the whole thing, which I frankly find fascinating.)
You are clearly ignorant of the kinds of shit actual YouTube alternatives have to deal with. Their websites and videos get de-ranked or de-listed from search (Rumble [1]), their apps get removed from app store (LBRY [2]), their infrastructure gets constant attacks (BitChute [3]). Meanwhile, the mainstream media smears them at every opportunity.
This is nothing like the environment that Google and YouTube were started in.
https://rumble.com/vcxrxh-rumbles-anti-trust-lawsuit-against...
https://lbry.tv/@lbry:3f/googlebanslbry:7
https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/censorship-bitchute-depl...
It's blatantly obvious that we need transparency in decision making related to big platform moderation. This is far more important than any specific rules.
"Birdwatch allows people to identify information in Tweets they believe is misleading and write notes that provide informative context."
You're not going to fix anything by attacking the symptoms, which is exactly what this seems to propose. To fix the actual problem we need to create systems that generate and propagate trustworthy information, which people actually want to consume rather than attacking information you don't want people to consume.
"we have conducted more than 100 qualitative interviews with individuals across the political spectrum who use Twitter"
There is already a selection bias in play then, because there are large numbers of people who don't use Twitter for various reasons.
"I fear that many decentralised web projects are designed for censorship resistance not so much because they deliberately want to become hubs for neo-nazis, but rather out of a kind of naive utopian belief that more speech is always better. But I think we have learnt in the last decade that this is not the case."
What you should have learned in the last decade is that social networks designed around virality, engagement and "influencing" are awful for the society in the long run. But somehow now the conversation has turned away from that and towards "better moderation".
Engage your brain. Read Marshall McLuhan. The design of a medium is far more important than how it is moderated.
[1] Here is a recent discussion about 320 from a few lawyers and an YouTuber who used to work for the mainstream media:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a5H1A65wOM
As you will see if you watch the video, it is much more nuanced than the aggregate straw-man set up by the article.
...
The crux of the issue is that Section 320 was drafted with a lot of assumptions in mind. At the time the Web was a fledgling thing. At the time Section 230's practical effect was to empower emerging platforms to do some common-sense moderation without fear of being held liable for all content they distributed.
Does the law still has this effect? Yes, it does. But that is no longer the primary effect in terms of how this law affect most of the people out there. Today its primary effect is to give an impenetrable legal shield to giant tech corporations that engage in deliberate society-wide manipulation of information. That is what most people out there are unhappy about, even if they don't quite know how to phrase it.
IoT is a huge contributor to the DDoS problem right now, but I don't see any big names campaigning against it. It's not really seen as a threat, but as an opportunity. Many problems in security are, in fact, opportunities for big tech to consolidate power, squash smaller competitors and charge more for basic services.
It would change the public awareness, at least. Force coverage. Start a dialog.
However, my prediction is that there will be no large-scale protest in US about this. All those who are currently LARPing "resistance" against police brutality will just ignore his case. Mark my words.
This is supposed to prove that hundreds of videos posted there (many of which are sourced and attributed) are all fake? This sort of ad-hominem nonsense is getting beyond ridiculous.
They have originated with events on the ground widely reported by independent journalists, citizens and local news.
What people here are doing is dismissing the overall picture of what's happening on the ground in Portland based on a few misreported facts. No matter that that are hundreds of videos from different sources showing all kinds of crazy shit. "Breitbart lied about bible burning, so the protests must be peaceful!"
Are you seriously suggesting that 50% the most talented students in the country have $313,000 for tuition?
If financial aid and scholarships worked as advertised, Ivy League schools would be filled to the brim with talented people. There would be no space left for stupid kids with rich parents. Yet those kids get in, reliably. There were many scandals related to that recently. Heck, just look at the children of major US politician and media elites.
This seems like propaganda in its own right. With the exception of Fox and Sky, most news coverage I see on YouTube is neutral or positive:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=capitol+hill+au...
Most mainstream coverage of protests in general seems to be totally biased in favor of the protestors and against the police. The only big channels that show anything going in the other direction are, again, Fox and Sky.
This is a trivial problem to solve on a physical interface. One solution could be what is commonly used on hardware synthesizers. A shift button or switch. You engage it and all controls begin to perform their secondary functions. You get redundancy for the price of one extra control and a secondary set of labels in a different color.
Also, use of displays to virtually label buttonss is common. In such case you can reassign a control if one fails.
In any case Dragon capsule had physical buttons for important functions as a backup.
The public notion of good policing and the actual practices police departments follow have been diverging for several decades (if they ever converged). What we're seeing right now is not some inexplicable increase in bad behavior or cops deliberately targeting journalists. For modern American police this is just business as usual, except the volume of deployment is significantly higher than in the past few decades and the visibility is much higher as well.
Edit:
There is a flip side to this coin. When you have a systemic problem of this scale, you should be cautious about making simplistic (especially moral) judgements about individuals in the system. When someone's training, incentives, position in the community and even equipment nudge them towards bad actions, even decent people will routinely do bad things.
Someone at a protest was stabbed. Police was called to arrest the stabber and take the victim to hospital. They were actually leaving when some people started throwing rocks and bottles at them.