fivre

they're robust at generating false positives! i got insta-locked for, i think, signing up using my own email domain, to make an account that shares pictures i took of geese. it took about 4 months to wait for them to unlock it

meanwhile, saudi bot armies apparently basically run rampant across the platform

The company doesn't want to give anyone a raise. They are not happy to give anyone a raise. Companies do not willingly increase their costs, full stop.

You could maybe make an argument that companies may increase wages for high performers for retention reasons, because needing to replace valuable employees is a large, if somewhat intangible cost, but that's pretty iffy. Companies are made up of and managed by humans, who are notoriously short-sighted and willing to discount potential risks when there are financial incentives to do so.

50% of the time Joe Useless makes more than you do already, because they joined later and market rate for the position shifted upward. You'll still need to fight tooth and nail, alone, individually, to reach parity, even if you're a top performer. Your manager isn't usually going to say "hmm, we're paying Joe Useless 1.2X, while we're paying Sally Superlative 1.0X--we really should pay Sally 2.0X! Your manager will be overruled by the CFO if they do suggest this anyway. Large wage increases based on expertise happen because you're able to better sell yourself to _another_ company when changing jobs.

Ultimately, I'd prefer a system where Joe Useless and I fight for equal wage increases collectively, because the balance of power is such that we're more likely to get them than each of us going it alone. Joe Useless is gonna be there anyway unless the company decides they're so useless as to fire them. So long as Joe Useless is there in the same role as I am, I don't care if they get equal pay, especially not if they're helping in the fight for increases in our equal pay.

No. IAC absolutely absolutely solves problems (repeatability and a source of truth you can put in source control, among others) that GUI management has no good solution for.

What OP is getting at is that IAC is often not /sold/ this way, it's sold as way to make managing complex systems simpler, in the sense that someone with less expertise can use it effectively, because marketers and salespeople love promising something that will remove all that pesky setup work and let you start on whatever it is you actually want to do. This can be true for some tools (e.g. I don't have a great deal of knowledge about compiler internals or assembly, but my compiled code still does what I wrote it to do), but not necessarily all.

Managing an AWS environment is an inherently complex task, and IAC tools can't reduce that complexity without being prescriptive. We may in the distant future get to the point where prescriptive configuration is fine (I trust that my compiler will make better assembly optimization decisions than I ever will), but we're not there now. What we have now addresses UX issues with using GUIs for these tasks.

> If you are a startup, you cannot create a popular app in a crowded marketplace by being scrupulous about best practices. > Match owns almost all of the dating-app market, and they have extremely deep pockets to buy/extinguish competition with.

understood. the only practical response to the banal corporate indifference of modern markets is ultraviolence. establish a rival dating app and send ninjas to the bedrooms of match owners to threaten their lives

hn says "there's not much a small team can do about it" but they are clearly considering only a small team of technologists and a few salespeople/growth marketers. hn has drastically discounted the impact a small team of (kunai-wielding, not mid-2010s startup recruiter speak) ninjas can have

>> How is Twitter supposed to know that the Tweet was made by the OP or was a compromised Tweet?

> For starters: it would be interesting to see what IP address the tweet was made from, whether or not it was preceded by a password change or contact with Twitter support to turn the account over to someone else.

>> When something is egregious what should Twitter do if it doesn't have resources to investigate whether the tweet was "intentional" or not, if action must happen quickly to avoid problems?

> Good question. That makes me wonder if they are able to operate safely at scale at all.

i'll hazard a guess that this isn't a factor at all, since the vast majority of cases where such differences exist could be explained by the user traveling and logging in from a different location. your abuse team would declare open riot if they needed to investigate whether every "posted abusive tweet, but from a coffee shop wifi instead of their home" needed to be evaluated as a possible hijack.

like most large services, Twitter has self-service hijack protections: you should receive email notifications when Twitter sees a login from an unknown location (i sure do) with the usual CTA about changing your password and such if you do not recognize it. that does appear to be what you should do here, insofar as they state you can cancel the appeal, delete the tweet, and regain access. asking users to delete tweets made by a compromised account sounds normal enough, given that it's both what will happen anyway

i'll grant that Twitter's account blocks and support system can be _bad_, in that they often have conflicting or outdated instructions, but that's only a problem when the recovery process fails, not when you don't attempt it. this seems more a complaint that they don't offer concierge service but, eh, not much surprise there.

eh, perhaps true too often, but i'll still get fighty against it in comments when bored

The Federal Arbitration Act explicitly permits. There are a variety of situations where arbitration entirely makes sense: companies may not want to deal with court resolution of contract disputes for efficiency reasons (the courts are slow and expensive) or may want to have a defined venue with rules of their choice (I've been told that, for international deals, foreign firms are _very_ wary of US discovery rules, and agreeing to arbitration instead can let you avoid them and smooth signing the deal, which the parties probably care more about than potential disputes in the future). It's a very useful and reasonable option for contracts _between peers_

Unfortunately, the law treats negotiations between actual peers and large companies "negotiating" with individual customers the same way--it'd be hard to delineate distinct classes of actors that can and cannot enter into arbitration agreements (or contracts in general).

Requiring an explicit opt-in versus "by continuing to use this service with saying otherwise, you consent to this change" for certain classes of contractual changes is probably doable (IANAL this could possibly raise some issue I'm not thinking of), but in practice there's no political will to make that change. Automatic consent is legal currently and will likely remain legal in the future.

In what bizarro world are you living where there is a competitive market for ISPs? 2 ISPs at best, via the municipality-granted local telecom and cable monopolies, is the norm for most of the US. Service does not improve because there is no competitive reason to improve it outside a tiny subset of markets. Services that require physical infrastructure over a wide area, such as power, water, and telecom service tend to result in natural monopolies as a rule.

The limited competition between consumer ISPs in the current landscape isn't providing value by any meaningful assessment. Internet service is functionally a commodity: so long as it's fast enough with consistent uptime it's functionally identical no matter who's providing it. As much as Comcast would like to believe otherwise, consumers largely aren't choosing them for their shitty Netflix knockoff or their free email inbox, they're choosing them because they're probably faster than AT&T DSL. In most markets they're "providing value" by deferring infrastructure upgrades and leveraging dark patterns to generate additional revenue (lol at the common scam-level prices for router rental) to increase profits for their shareholders. Commercial consumer ISPs do not have the best interests of residents in the service areas as a priority.

If nothing else, allowing municipalities to run fiber is in favor of far better competition than the status quo. I sincerely doubt that competence is a major concern with the simple practice of laying infrastructure in a trench (if it is, it doesn't bode well for your water and sewage systems, and that's probably a far more pressing concern), and that's the main barrier to entry for competition. /Running an ISP/, an entity that handles routing and uplink agreements with peers for its customers, is not profoundly heavy on infrastructure cost: you can start your own with leased access, a couple blokes in a shed, some routing and switching gear, and someone who can negotiate a transit contract or two. /Laying a shitton of last-mile fiber across public land/ is infrastructure intensive. The incumbent providers just happen to do both.

You could easily have a municipality provide only the fiber or have it provide both the physical infrastructure and run an ISP service atop it while leasing out line bandwidth to other ISPs. A single ISP can't really monopolize last-mile bandwidth--its usage is a function of the last mile users, not who offers service over it. Fundamentally though, choosing whether subsidize an entire ISP including infrastructure, subsidizing infrastructure alone and renting it, or subsidizing nothing should be the choice of citizens through their government. There's no god-given right that telecom companies have to that market, but they're often able to secure it by bribing a few state reps to listen to their stories about the SCARY PERILS OF MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE and THE GREAT THREAT TO THE TOTALLY REAL VIBRANT ISP COMPETIIVE LANDSCAPE and vote on something most constituents aren't aware of for a continued stream of campaign contributions.

lolwut

the job of Netflix is to provide a product its customers want. i don't think OP is in a tiny minority of people who want an option to disable autoplay; it's a desire i've heard expressed quite often. hell, fucking YouTube, a service that exists to play ads and that plays more as you watch more videos, has an option to disable autoplay

Netflix gets away without doing this because it doesn't immediately lose them customers, and implementing it wouldn't really gain them any, but i am always quite at people who declare that it's therefore good. i need to figure out some tech service that's growth positive as a function to sacrificing its users' children to Moloch, just to watch the HN crowd cry "well, it's not the service's job to /not/ sacrifice your children to Moloch, and you can put them in an anti-Moloch safe room, so I personally don't see why they shouldn't keep sacrificing to Moloch the children of those that don't bother to go the extra mile to avoid it"

Maybe you can explain one of my long-burning questions: why are non-English tracks handled so inconsistently? I'll sometimes see an English translation, sometimes a transliteration (for non-Latin scripts), and sometimes the original language. It's not consistent which gets used even for a single artist, and sometimes changes to a different one.

The albums Ангедония (https://open.spotify.com/album/1HxmgR8wpc1ySplYCTNwaW or https://i.imgur.com/ndOXsgL.png) and Продано! (https://open.spotify.com/album/5kp7j9B4TDA3VfhaXz9XcJ or https://i.imgur.com/QJNjXc1.png), for example, both contain a version of the track "Рижская". The former uses the original Russian while the latter uses Rigas', which is a sort-of translation (it's an adjectival version of "Riga", which doesn't really exist in English).

https://help.apple.com/itc/musicstyleguide/en.lproj/static.h... indicates that there are separate fields for each of the original, the translation, and the transliteration, but it doesn't seem like anyone actually _uses_ these, and instead just picks one arbitrarily to stuff into the main/native field. I'm not sure if Spotify even has a way to display the alternates--I can't recall ever seeing a toggle for it, though idk if I've ever actually encountered a track that includes the variants, since you can't see raw metadata on Spotify.

Is it just that music labels do a lackluster job of handling metadata? I expect this is probably the case, since classical music is similarly messy--it's a crapshoot whether the composer or performer gets used as the artist. For that I've at least seen the composer metadata field populated sometimes, but internationalization fields don't seem to be used ever.

> Now…that does present a bit of a chicken/egg problem. Because I had just terrible proprioception growing up. Awful. Clumsy as all get-out. Which tends to go along with spectrum disorders.

I was much the same way--absolutely abysmal at any sort of sport requiring the barest ounce of physical coordination. I semi-randomly ended up in ballet class in my early teens though, and started social dance in college because my friends did. I can't say I was amazing at those either, but not so awful as I was at youth sports, and it's developed into a great way to de-stress.

My proprioception for dance is quite good now (even if I'm still shit at remembering specific steps), and while I can't compare it to others', I'd guess that sticking with it forced my brain to compensate for whatever normal proprioception pathways it lacks by building an alternate one. Neuroplasticity is great!

It's hard to practice social basics when you're older because most of the adult population have mastered them and expect the same of others, but there are _plenty_ of people of any age who aren't any good at dancing and are trying to learn despite.

You have a very acerbic approach to the notion that other people have developmental disorders apparently borne out of a persecutory delusion that they have developmental disorders solely to declare the way your brain works boring, and brandish your ignorance about them with unusual glee. If someone tells you they're dyslexic, do you lash out at them because you think they're trying to throw shade on your boring normal ability to read?

Autism is not a catch-all for people who are weird. Psychiatrists diagnose autism using a set of defined criteria where autistic people differ from the average population, where those differences are not explained by other disabilities that often result in similar differences (https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/hcp-dsm.html).

It's true that we don't have a full understanding of autism, or explanations of why individuals vary in the specific symptoms they exhibit, but that doesn't mean the diagnosis is a random label applied to anyone who is weird, it means that psychiatric conditions are often difficult to understand, and that we need more scientific research to understand them better. People with schizophrenia would also be considered "weird" by most of the population, but we don't label them autistic because of that. I, and I think many others, consider Snoop Dogg a bit weird, but I wouldn't attribute that to autism; I would attribute it to his Snoop Doggness.

Gadsby isn't saying that autistic people have a monopoly on suffering, but that autistic suffering comes from a specific set of limitations, and not understanding what those limitations are, or thinking that you could just rid yourself of them through sheer force of will is very frustrating. Paraplegic people also suffer, but it's not because they have limited social cognition or hypersensitivity to sensory input, it's because they lack the use of their legs in a world largely designed for those that can walk. Paraplegia is, however, much more visible and more easily diagnosed that a developmental disorder: we can easily see that paraplegics cannot move their legs, and paraplegics can easily see what people who can walk are able to do that they can't.

Developmental disorders are much harder to see: you cannot peer inside an autistic person's brain function and see how their brain functions, and autistic people cannot see inside the workings of allistic brains to see that they're using mental "limbs" that they cannot exercise. It'd be cool if we could! but science has a ways to go before we can.

The complaint about neurotypical parents and medical professionals isn't that they're oppressing or subjugating autistic people, but that they're describing the condition from the perspective of someone who lives without it and can't easily conceptualize that experience--the diagnostic criteria can identify who has autism, but they can't describe how it's shaped their lives. For lack of a more elegant description, if you're disabled, hearing someone who shares that disability "i know that feel bro" with you helps immensely to alleviate feelings of isolation, much more than a doctor explaining the diagnostic criteria you meet.

Your strong objection to people talking about negative experiences and view that emotional repression is a virtue are yours to hold if you so desire, but I hope you understand that many people don't feel the same, and will consider you a callous, oppressive person if you try to enforce that opinion as the correct one by treating their sharing their problems as a personal attack. This isn't a criticism of your boringness for lack of a developmental disability, it's a criticism of your wanton disregard for others' experiences and unjustified, self-centered offense that they have the gall to talk about them.

> Customers actually like stable, responsive, and efficient tools, who would have thought?

_Existing_ customers like these things (and they aren't wrong for liking these things).

New business comes from the potential customers who weren't enticed by the existing feature set, robust or otherwise. You bring them in by adding new features. The retain/new business priority is often heavily weighted in favor of the latter.

Retaining existing customers stuck with a crappy product ain't that hard between sunk cost/lock-in effects and the evergreen insulation of people with purchasing authority from the day-to-day pain inflicted by their purchasing decisions. A couple fancy steak dinners for middle management effectively papers over the cost of driving a department of ops engineers to cirrhosis several times over.

Assuming blockchain (and OpenSea atop that) count as "no middleman, no overhead" and not a new middleman (but it's a good one, because Andreessen Horowitz will make bank if it succeeds) atop technology that requires more energy consumption than small countries, it still isn't some magical wand that creates more people that spend disposable income on art.

Commissioning art is one of _many_ ways you can do this. Non-commissioned works are readily available too! I also purchase those! Some of these are one of a limited set (common for photo prints), some of these aren't (Bandcamp albums). Point being, if you were someone who wanted to buy art before NFTs, you could do so. I'm skeptical of there being some large market segment that desperately wanted to buy art but only realized they could with the advent of NFTs.

The royalty business model also already existed, where it made sense. There's no contract governing me reselling the painting I bought from someone at the local farmer's market because there wasn't any expectation on either my or the artist's part that it'd be resold at all, much less for a sum vastly greater than its purchase price. It's going to hang on my wall until I die, at which point it'll likely get tossed in a bin.

That's in contrast to say, a film score, where the expectation is that it will be resold (as part of your theater ticket price, but whatever) many times over: ASCAP exists, and handles paying the IP lawyers on behalf of its members, because that's a business model that works for them. They've been managing this just fine for over a century.

Wait, so the purported royalty benefit of wrapping this in a contract can be circumvented, but the NFT tech is still good because people who circumvent this kindly send the artist the royalty anyway? Would they not be able to send the same courtesy royalty if no NFTs were involved?

This is a solved problem: you pay them for their work, which is how artists have made money since time immemorial. The degree to which artists can make a living off their art is a function of demand and discoverability, not whether they have a payment system (they do need this, but they already have them).

I'd be curious to know what fraction of NFT enthusiasts had previously commissioned a piece of art, and of those how many were truly aghast at the dire state of payment systems without NFTs or at their inability to assert ownership via a blockchain. I suspect both are quite small.

The former is ludicrous, because Paypal/Kofi/Patreon/what have you offer a wide array of easy-to-use, feature-rich payment systems.

The latter maybe less inconceivable, but IMO it's driven by a desire to use blockchain tech for _something_, find something that it can conceivably do, and then deciding that that thing is therefore important. Personally, proving ownership and providence hasn't ever been a concern for any of my art purchases because they, like the vast majority of art, isn't worth selling a forgery of--nobody is coming to steal the forum avatar I commissioned or selling unauthorized prints of the obscure photographer I like.

This is just round three (or whatever) of blockchain being a solution in search of a problem: having failed to evangelize its wide use as a consumer payments system in general, its adherents moved on to hyping it as a solution to Enterprise IT problems (where selling bullshit is the name of the game anyway), failed to find traction (because everyone discovered it didn't actually solve any problems), and so we've circled back round to a consumer market, but now with more celebrity endorsements. It's still an effort to convince people that the blockchain version of something is much better and therefore worthwhile so that the worth of the tokens is tied to something other than transactions illegal goods and wild speculation. It's about supporting the livelihoods of people hoarding GPUs and wasting electricity to mine the tokens, not artists.

This part of the Cloudflare ToS only applies to cached content. They're fine with simply proxying to your video files.

I'd challenge the idea that customer support is _expensive_. Generic customer support requires no specialized expertise: you need knowledge your company's business processes, tooling related to third parties they worked with (redirecting a courier's shipment via the courier or whatever), and general customer service skills, and that's about it.

_Specialized_ customer support, e.g. support for complicated software, is expensive, because it requires technical domain knowledge equivalent to or above many engineering employees, and employees that can perform it effectively could probably move to engineering and increase their salaries twofold because compensation isn't tied to expertise, it's tied to what the market will pay, and you can more easily get away with shit support than shit engineering, but ignore that--it's not the majority of customer support.

Customer support _is_, in the simplest view, a cost center. Customers contact support when something has gone wrong that they can't resolve otherwise. If nothing goes wrong, you don't need it. If you, as support management, can reduce the time it takes to resolve things that go wrong (by any means) and reduce the number of staff needed to handle cases, you win: your department doesn't directly generate revenue, so your goal is to reduce expenses.

Tying lost revenue to customers lost after poor support experiences is difficult and noisy: there are plenty of customers who have poor experiences because they're incompetent and wouldn't succeed with any amount of support, and because of this are more likely to request support, and the high-level categorization used to describe issues often obscures what actually went wrong (a generic "Account > Creation" category isn't going to capture issues like "users can't create an account if their address includes non-ASCII characters", but execs don't see anything more than the category).

These issues (and others) combine to promote an environment where support is more a buffer to getting support with limited ability to fix issues, and a perverse incentive to _not_ fix issues since metrics are focused towards reducing time to resolution (easy to measure) versus quality of resolution (hard to measure!). Poor support is furthermore easy to ignore because you can either often focus more on new business first and foremost (hello, every startup ever!) or rest comfortably on a monopoly position where customers can't drop you even if you provide terrible support (hello, the US ISP market!).

Cost is not strictly an disincentive to providing sufficient, capable, and effective support, but it's difficult to recognize the value it provides and there are more immediate cost savings from reducing support cost than long-term revenue from customer retention by providing good support.

This compounds into even poorer service in more specialized environments because talented people will leave, because working in a cost center sucks. The flipside of support is essentially sales engineering, AKA support while trying to court a customer. The technical skills needed aren't any different, but one brings in revenue in an easily quantifiable way, so it gets more political clout and more organizational investment.

it's insanely costly _to build bring a plant online initially_

once you're up and running, it's cheap as dirt, just takes decades to pay off the initial investment

This approach is inherently unclear. Intent is never completely recorded because doing so is fundamentally impossible--there's far too much minutiae and unwritten context to guarantee that jurists are following intent, and consistency is important in law (ideally, anyway--this ignores the real and present issues in US jurisprudence where consistency is thrown out the window for partisan benefit).

You can't have laws whose interpretation is "don't do things you shouldn't" because parties in legal disputes clearly disagree about what "shouldn't" means, else they wouldn't fucking be resolving them through expensive and lengthy legal action.

There's a meaningful distinction between clarification of and expansion of the law. Legislators are responsible for both. OP may not have phrased it precisely, but they're saying the CFAA needs to be _clarified_. This doesn't mean it expands in scope--if anything, its scope would be narrowed.

Nobody gives a flying fuck whether the terms are legally accurate. This distinction is entirely already covered in the existing terms of service.

People are annoyed that they can pay for something (sometimes an essential identity service), be arbitrarily denied it, and have no recourse other than maybe getting lucky by writing a complaint post that gets traction and read by some human who can tell the abuse department they've fricked it.

Companies shouldn't be able to shift the burden of the negative aspects of running an online service (dealing with abuse) entirely onto society by offering no meaningful appeal process. Regulation isn't an appealing option, but companies have full well demonstrated that they aren't going to handle these cases unless forced to.

Not OP, but when I tried Wayland way back when, I discovered that libinput didn't let you remap tap buttons, something Xorg does support. That feature is incredibly useful for me, since my touchpad has no physical buttons but does have a dedicated right-click zone, so it's useful to remap two-finger tap to middle-click, since I use that all the time for opening links in new tabs and pasting from the X buffer.

The libinput dev's response was a combination of incredulity that someone wouldn't have physical buttons (in like 2014) and a statement that the project would never add this feature. I haven't gone back to Wayland since.

Terms of Service are universally wishlists of things a legal department may wish to enforce if they are so inclined. In this case, they are not so inclined.

Github suggestion comments usually do this pretty easily. You can prompt the submitter to accept a diff. It does have two annoying problems though:

- You must use a browser editor, no attaching a diff you generated elsewhere. Anything more than 1 line is hell because Github's editor gives no fucks about running gofmt or whatever. - If you request a change, approve the PR, and then the submitter accepts your change, it dismisses your approval.

if Mozilla did lay out their rationale, it'd be a lot easier to get past lacking UI expertise or being unable to see upsides (while seeing clear downsides).

UI changes attract a lot of ire from current users in general--this isn't a Mozilla-specific thing--but Firefox is ostensibly an open, OSS project. there shouldn't be much organizational discretion to just keep UI research or data private: Mozilla should be more than happy to share data or UX research demonstrating why they're making changes, but they don't.

absent explanation from Mozilla or a helpful UX expert to pip up and say "the change is actually good, here's why", the changes often feel like they're either trend-chasing or change for change's sake to show that the UI designer's salary isn't going to waste.

> someone at Google is probably looking at the results of their A/B test and thinking “Wow, this new feature is great. Look at how many people are using related searches when they can’t find what they’re looking for!”

I was under the impression that the someone at Google knew full well what they were doing and had no misconceptions about the ratio of unintended to intended feature use, but were also savvy enough to know what their manager or whoever is reviewing their promotion packet would likely just see a high usage rate and not dig into why it existed.

The notion that people paying for digital assets means that people will pay for NFTs.

It's meaningless, though, since the same (massive) caveats apply as when cryptocoins tried to claim they were a viable and better alternative to traditional financial services: buying and owning digital assets is entirely possible to handle with existing, more efficient technology.

Nobody that sells digital assets has any reason to buy into whatever purported benefits a distributed system provides other than hype: you don't need a distributed system if you already control all the servers and everyone is fine with that. The subset of customers that will be _REALLY MAD_ that they can't use their Fortnite skins should Epic disappear is vanishingly small.

NFTs don't even have the edge case that they're useful for transactions for illegal goods. It's grifters boosting bullshit trying to make a profit through and through.

appreciation is a hard thing to come by. joke response, listen to Indiscipline on loop until you like it :D

King Crimson flowcharts are a fun source of amusement, if nothing else: http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/4chanmusic/images/2/2d/K...

Modern MIDI controllers are quite flexible in that regard. Stuff like

https://roli.com/products/blocks/seaboard-block-studio-editi... https://artiphon.com/pages/instrument1

are designed such that you can easily assign fine-grained inputs on the controller to whatever software parameter you like. Traditional modular required you build a lot of things you'd expect from a physical instrument incrementally, and there's some interesting music that comes from that alone, but it's a real joy to have something you can use to construct, say, lifelike vibrato that responds to multidimensional inputs, without a shitton of work.

much more cost-effective too. you can use a single $300 controller and software to make the same shit that'd require several discrete multi-grand dollar setups if fully implemented in hardware

damn, the audio wave visualization on the wires in the thing that's like the Bitwig grid editor is just BRILLIANT.

probably would be a bit much in a complex finished instrument but that's amazingly intuitive for the building phase, or for reading someone else's instrument.

i wish there a way to translate old Reaktor library stuff into more modern synth GUIs. there's some amazing gold in there but it is nigh impossible to understand between Reaktor's uh... challenging UI and the total lack of documentation for the signal paths to try and explain them to a relative novice. you can very easily see _what's_ built, but god help you try to understand why on your own without adding a ton of scopes everywhere manually