stormbrew

If you don't own the key exchange (and you don't, even on the services most people consider secure), you're still, on some level or another, just relying on trust that this is the case.

At any rate, mastodon is a web app, not an IM client. No one who's ever raised this has even begun to explain how you could work e2e into something like it. Certainly no other microblogging platform has e2e anything, because that's not actually a thing that makes sense.

This has nothing to do with federation. It's just a fact of life on any hosted internet service.

> Instance owners can read DMs.

"Admins of <website> can read data on <website>" is just a tautology. It's true of everything you use on the internet where you don't own the server, and even then it's dubious.

If people don't get that about mastodon they probably don't get it about everything else they use either, so this recurring argument just seems like FUD...

[note: Edited <service> to <website> above because people keep coming at this from the angle of chat clients that run on your phone, and we're talking about websites here - a website can't have "e2e" encryption because it is both ends. That said, some of y'all believe way too hard in the perfectness of e2e in general and I addressed that in some of my replies]

> That breaks the idea of having a federated network

What fresh nonsense is this? There's never been a federated system with anything like a perfect guarantee of connectivity to literally anything. There are always limits, both social and technical.

Where do people get these ideas?

I feel the same way about accounts of working with most (if not all) modern arch-capitalists, trust me.

> Yes, the issues the blog mentioned were real human rights issues, but selective coverage of human rights is propaganda.

This is not a good argument, it's just an appeal to nihilism.

That's not even remotely what propaganda is, and if you accept that that's what propaganda is then literally all human rights discussion is propaganda because it is nearly impossible to enumerate all of it.

This article reads like an abused partner defending their abuser. This kind of double-sidedness is extremely common in abusive relationships, in large part because it's a really effective method of exerting control over someone while encouraging them to blame themselves for being abused.

> If there are employees not aligned with that vision, he will chew them out and he will do it in a vicious way, which is his right as owner.

Is it?

Once upon a time I knew the c++ standard like the back of my hand. I was excited about the first few standard revisions, and read proposals as they came out.

Now I think it's a dead end and would sooner start a new project in C than C++ (but would prefer neither). The language that exists now is spending all its efforts fighting yesterday's battles, and it's rapidly losing relevance.

It used to be my bread and butter, but the only way I'd take a job that was for c++ programmers now is if it was to help migrate it to a language that lives in 2022 instead of endlessly relitigating the PL battles of 2008.

As with sibling, it's possible but it hasn't happened in any way that bothers me. Seems like it's just CAP theory in action. I don't think consistency is the corner of that triangle to optimize for in this case.

The nice thing about it is that since I'm on a different server it still works fine for me even when mastodon.social is falling over.

All I really want is to get off the "the user is the product" rollercoaster. It's been nothing but a disaster for everyone and I don't think it's necessary.

"One big social network to rule them all" is an induced need. When you let go of the idea that everyone needs to be in the same room screaming at the top of their lungs to be heard you can let go of a lot of other toxic bullshit we've all let ourselves get accustomed to.

I think this is now widely considered to be a false anthropomorphization of what's really going on in a hive.

I think it's a little more complicated than that. Trolls are often very fixated on their targets but they also tend to be impulsive and looking for quick fixes of glory. This is why things like shadow banning and slow modes and signup waiting periods work pretty well on them. Very few have the patience to wait for a fresh sock account that's limited to be useful.

Yes. My point was that when people read these articles they think of a much more casual definition of productivity that has more to do with a sense of "getting things done," but the word is jargon for something that has little to do with that.

I was playing loose with the jargon meaning for sure, but I'm pulling out to what articles in the Washington Post or other economics-focused media really care about: the impact to corporate bottom line.

This just seems really paranoid to me? They can't see what you're entering and sure they can scan the receipt for what you put in after if they want but I've almost never seen them do more than shove the receipt in their pocket and quickly move on. If it's not busy half the time they just leave the machine and come back to get it after taking someone else's order or something.

I'm abstracting a bit more than I should really, because yeah the way I put it comes off as too close to just profit.

But there are a bunch of ways to measure it, that generally comes down to some comparison of inputs vs outputs and those inputs and outputs have to be measurable in some way in aggregate.

If you Google for "economic productivity" or "labor productivity" you can find better explanations of the details than I'm likely to give.

I'm really curious how you think it's defined or measured then. I'm obviously abstracting a bit, but a lot of people in the replies here seem to think it's related to how much time you spend watching cat videos on company time and it's definitely not that.

The economic concept of productivity has nothing to do with anything you can measure about a single employee (or kind of employee), the article is just conflating two very different meanings of the same word.

In aggregate you measure it based on how much the company spends vs how much it makes off sold product. It's a measure of the efficiency of the company to its holders of capital.

These things always really need a giant flashing neon note that "productivity" doesn't mean how much workers get done but how much money is made off of what workers get done. They're only loosely connected, and most productivity gains have come from workers having to "do less" to "make more".

The annoying thing about moca is it's still really expensive and the boxes are huge. It would be nice if you could get them in a form factor where they replaced the coax plate/box, even if they stuck out of the wall more.

Canada has the same tipping culture as the US and we've had portable PoS systems in restaurants for like 10-15 years now (and I feel like I'm being conservative there).

The machine just asks for a tip and lets you put a % or $ amount in, usually with a suggested amount. I'm not sure what difference you perceive here between writing it on a piece of paper and entering it on a terminal.

Git isn't either/or: GitHub is because it has extremely poor support for nonlinear history. It's not alone in that but git itself has the fundamental tools to support it.

It would be nice if this were the universal meaning of this phrasing but people do use it to mean both "twice as fast" (2x) and "faster by double the original speed" (3x).

People will rail about them using it wrong but it's pretty useless when you have to basically guess whether people subscribe to your definition of "right" before you can understand something.

You definitely can and things like that are precisely why bind mounts (usually) require root, because POSIX is built very much on the premise of one filesystem tree seen by both privileged and unprivileged users.

Other systems do better by not depending on that.

To me having a phone that actually fits in my pocket is a luxury and I have no interest in having "a tablet in my pocket" so I feel exactly the opposite.

Endlessly bending the structures of law just makes them snap that much harder when they break under the pressure. It's not a good thing.

When one side wants things to change and the other side wants things to "stay the same" (in order to deconstruct them), the current state of affairs is one side having the upper hand.

The US founding fathers were so worried about a tyranny of the majority they built a system where a tyranny of the minority was likely to come to pass.

Disappointing there's no explicit mention of shipping here, which is almost certainly a huge part of things and an area where a big mover could make a big difference for an entire industry.

My read of the protocol docs from when they came out a few days ago is that they're using Blockchain in the distributed merkel-tree ledger sense and not (explicitly?) in the sense of a cryptocurrency.

It seems like it models your data as a Merkel tree log, signed by an identity key that can be obtained through DNS. Unless they plan to add a namecoinish thing for identities you shouldn't really need Po* to "secure" that.

Nether llvm nor clang are GPL, dual licensed or otherwise. They're Apache 2.0[1] (or formerly a quasi-MIT/X11 license[2]), as is swift[3].

The binaries of the compilers they release with the platform are also built with internal forks that have some differences with the public llvm/clang/swift trees and that wouldn't be possible with gpl.

[1] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/main/llvm/LICENSE....

[2] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/7555c589af006c9c4d...

[3] https://github.com/apple/swift/blob/main/LICENSE.txt