The OP talks a lot about volunteers, but doesn't clearly state they are part of the union.
6,500 karma · joined August 9, 2024
https://www.wired.com/story/wikipedia-workers-vote-on-whethe...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49143414
https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/wikitech-l@lists...
Wow. Kevin Kelly is obviously an intellectually capable, well-educated person. Shakespeare isn't that hard - people have been enjoying the benefits of the Bard's writing for over 400 years. Like those many generations of people and many contemporaries, you'll get used to the Elizabethan verse and it will become second nature - to me it's now just another style of English now (which also opens the door to other early modern writers).
Many computer geeks sell themselves short and miss out on a lot. Make the effort - the more you put in, the more you get out. It's from that effort that we benefit, like the way a physical workout both strengthens you and releases those endorphins. Like the way love is only truly experienced with deep engagement, but the rewards are immense, everlasting, and they grow the deeper you go. I'm not exaggerating about great art.
'Great art' is a term that people object to. The term is simplistic; I'm using it for efficiency. Its usefulness is to indicate what art really does benefit from all that depth and engagement. Otherwise it's hard to know until you try something: because engaging with art involves starting from a place of not understanding and learning something new - radically new, if you're lucky, something you never imagined - you don't know ahead of time. Shakespeare's writing has incredible insight, beauty and depth, and I've still not grasped it completely; I doubt I ever will.
Shakespeare is a real person, and no real person has done everything at a high level, or an all-time great level. Shakespeare's name is on some duds. But the famous great plays - Richard III (especially topical), King Lear, Hamlet, etc. - are monuments to humanity's genius.
> After I read each poem, I ran it through Claude AI for an interpretation and an explanation of the obscure references. The explanations were helpful. Was it cheating to use AI this way? I don’t think so. I enjoyed reading each poem once or twice before asking Claude to supply its take.
Don't do this. The point is the exploration, the personal journey, not the 'answer' - and the point is your journey, not someone else's. (And looking up references is part of that, IME.) It's like reading a story about travel instead of going there yourself.
It takes much more time and a different level of engagement than what we're used to consuming - a 4 minute song, a news article, etc. Poems are short but information/word, so to speak, is very high. Break the habit of moving your eyes at a certain pace, of 4 minutes of engagement, and stop and stare. Don't plan on reading many poems in a sitting - maybe one.
You've shared so much with the world Kevin that I want to tell you: Don't sell yourself short. You're missing out on some of the most very beautiful things.
and
> A world order enforced by the United States was morally unpalatable for many people on the American left. But when isolationists imagined a world without U.S. hegemony ...
Here's someone else trying to draw a bizarre equivelency between the current (far) right, which runs the US goverment and many others, and are the most popular parties in major European countries, and leads world affairs, and the (far) left, which is politically pathetic, demoralized, has capitulated ('woke 1 was crazy!'), and runs no government, holds no significant national or international power anywhere, and is no threat to.
Comparing them is a lie, an untruth, obviously absurd. What is the author's purpose? Try to look even-handed? Cower from criticism from the right and preemtively self-censor? The latter shows who indeed has the power.
The U.S.-led, rights-based, rules-based international order was the most free, most prosperous, and most safe in human history, with really no second place, and it was enormously beneficial to the U.S.
No matter the status quo's success, there are always people who want to challenge it simply for revolution sake - it has an appeal of power for those who don't have much in the status quo. It amazes me how much people are willing to destroy based only on appeals to those instincts.
And the status quo was very imperfect, beyond a doubt. Any serious critique, reform, or revolution needs to offer a better solution. The aim of the current revolution is to return to the way it was before, which was manifestly awful - really it's to seize power, over a burning world.
From TFA:
> when isolationists imagined a world without U.S. hegemony, they envisioned a world order characterized by mutual restraint without considering who might enforce this situation. As we are now seeing, the alternative to some kind of enforcement of a consistent world order is not an acephalic, mutually respectful world, but recurrent, destructive wars.
> Within this more bellicose world, every single power bordering an important shipping channel is likely to remember it has a potential throat hold on the world economy, and eventually they will act accordingly.
I don't agree with the characterization of current 'isolationists', who IMHO really want to seize power from the former order, and - using a basic revolutionary tactic - seek to destroy the old order, create chaos, then seize power themselves (including by offering an authoritarian or totalitarian solution to chaos).
It's interesting and I clicked on the OP, but why? The variable ambient light conditions, refresh rate, etc would seem to favor standard LCD/etc.
Battery capacity isn't much of an issue for a small screen, and weight carried by the bicycle.
For example, I was reading Apple's Platform Security guide, a technical, detailed manual: There are so many identifiers, before any applications are installed - really, before the OS is fully loaded - that it's hard to keep track of them, manage them, or even form a mental picture of what's going on. Apple in many ways requires you to send those identifiers to them in order to use the device.
Apple is trying to protect consumers by operating the Root of Trust for the consumer devices, something consumers can't do effectively for themselves. And maybe Apple provides large customers with means to become their own root of trust; some of Apple's keys are embedded during manufacturing but other vendors allow large customers to substitute their own keys at that stage.
Regardless, it makes Apple an incredibly valuable target for highly resourced attackers, like the kind targeting the US military: Gain the right authority at Apple and you can monitor and control Apple devices worldwide. I'm not sure how the US military protects themselves without highly managed, locked down, customized devices.
It's not nature, it's the strategic actions of members of those parties to create and protect that system. For example, look at laws in states that make it very difficult for 3rd parties to get on ballots, participate in debates, and then the expensive lawfare against them if they show any signs of life.
> getting rid of the two party system is a pipe dream
It certainly won't happen tomorrow, but the best time to start such things is today.
You're right that Reagan did a lot that was negative, but it's a significant difference from current leaders who openly disdain positive things and encourage people to embrace hatred, violence, warfare, corruption, oppression, etc.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.11266
"We're getting the language into its final shape- the shape it's going to have when nobody speaks anything else." These words come from George Orwell's 1984 [1, p.69], a novel in which a government gradually constrains the language of its people, narrow-ing vocabulary and stripping away the nuances and variations through which different individuals express themselves until what remains is a single uniform language shared by all, a deliberate effort to narrow the range of thought itself. The setting is fictional, but the underlying intuition that the variety in our language carries something of real consequence is not. The words we speak tell a story, of our individual identities [2- 6], the diverse communities we inhabit [7-10], and the vibrant societies that shape us [11-13]. They offer a unique lens through which we can explore the intricate tapestry of human thought, culture, and social dynamics. From the regional dialects that span a nation [13, 14] to the subtle markers of gender and power in our daily interactions [10, 15], language serves as a fingerprint for both individuals and groups [16, 17]. This rich variation allows researchers to trace the formation of cultural norms [18, 19], reveal moral values and social biases [20-22], and even diagnose and track cognitive and mental health conditions [23-27]. As these linguistic systems structure the "kalei-doscopic flux of impressions" [28] that constitutes our perception of the world, they are fundamental to understanding the human experience.
The "eight non-consensus views" matches a pattern in public communication in China, and I wonder if it is a technique that's taught, a style, or something with a history? Is there a word for it? I'm hoping someone here might know.
For example, Xi Jinping's English Wikipedia page includes:
* Four Comprehensives, Four Confidences, Four Consciousnesses, Three red lines, Three Stricts and Three Honests, Two Centenaries, Two Establishments, Two Upholds, Eight Musts, Eight-point Regulation
Deng Xiaopeng:
* Four Modernizations, Six Conceptions, Four Cardinal Principles, Four Modernizations
Mao and the Cultural Revolution:
* Three-anti and Five-anti Campaigns, Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, Four Olds, Five Black Categories, Five Red Categories, Four Greats, Three Loyalties and Four Limitlessnesses
Good security engineering isn't sufficient: GOS could accomplish the security engineering by making an OS for themselves on a private git server and never distributing it.
But if we want to help the public with security and privacy, then the outcome depends on GOS's brand image - perception drives public adoption, who will never read long posts on arcane engineering matters. It depends on GOS's relationship with Google and its individual engineers, a relationship in which Google and the engineers hold all the cards - they could choose to cut off GOS completely tomorrow at no cost to themselves.
It's an engineer's fantasy that you can ignore those things and just do engineering; life just isn't like that. Doing that would imperil or greatly limit GOS, which hurts everyone.
The NYC government can't change the national economy. But it can make contributions to the general welfare (taxes) equitable, and use that and other means to make services such as transportation, education, health, housing, and food accessible and affordable in a way that gives everyone opportunity to thrive. NYC, of all places in the US today, could be the land of the American Dream - it has so many resources; they just need to be made available.
Generally, do not to invest in features that the upstream vendor isn't fully committed to. It might work today, but tomorrow or next year, etc., it might not. They might even deploy other things that are incompatible or do other things that assume the feature is disabled. In fact, plans to do those things might be the reason they disabled MTE.
Also, never support products or projects that won't work well. When someone's Pixel 11 is slow, they will think and post that 'GrapheneOS is slow'. Blaming Google will not be very credible and will look like you're just trying to duck responsibility. Your brand's name goes whatever you release; people will associate their experience with GrapheneOS (also because GOS is the new, unconventional thing; Google is the established norm); if their experience is bad, they will associate it with GOS.
I'm not doubting it, but I wonder what costs have changed for them?
I think that matters quite a bit. Otherwise, if you've got a spare $1,000, build us a browser. Maybe vibe code it?
A bit tangential, but that's not a meaningful analysis (depending on how you tested):
FF CHR
Site 1 n Y
Site 2 Y n
It's like what I've seen some DuckDuckGo users say about search engines: 'Google is better because when I can't find something on DDG I do find it on Google'. (I think there's also some confirmation bias with Chrome and Google.)
It's like the old sales technique of comparing your product's features with the other product:
MyProduct YourProduct
Feature A X X
Feature B X
Feature C X X
Feature D X X
Feature E X
Feature F X
Feature G X X
Feature H X X
Feature I X
Feature J X
Feature K X
Feature L X
Feature M X
Feature N X
Feature ONope. If input is 100W, loss is 60%, and resulting in output of 40W, then to increase output to 100W you don't need 60% more input (which would output 64W) you need 150% more input.
> Bay Area high school grad rejected by 16 colleges hired by Google -- Zhong had a 3.97 unweighted and 4.42 weighted GPA, scored 1590 out of 1600 on the SAT's
How does that relate to Berkeley?
> Bay Area high school grad rejected by 16 colleges hired by Google -- Zhong had a 3.97 unweighted and 4.42 weighted GPA, scored 1590 out of 1600 on the SAT's
What's the point here? Whatever happened with that person, there are many more Berkeley applicants who have exceptional records.
(There must be more to the story - neither citation says why he was rejected. To the degree there is discrimination, I expect it would be against borderline applicants and not exceptional ones.)
As I said in the GP, Apple's engineering investment in privacy is far beyond what customers understand and what helps sales. Lots of companies simply add the word 'privacy' to their marketing and do nothing about it that has an impact ('we use 256-bit encryption to protect your data!' seems popular on websites).
> And how much difference did they actually make? Studies show not much.
Which studies?
It's well known, and it was the point of the OP, that we don't have that power. If you know a solution, please share it - the world would love to hear it.
For some reason, like with fraud via email, text, and phone, we don't do anything about it. All this brazen crime and government does nothing; we don't even imagine government doing anything.
What is that based on? I'd say there are certainly obligations for both.
The fact that some ignore those obligations - either obligation, for example when corrupt management stuffs its own pockets - doesn't make them less.