There’s a lot of insider talk in tech about moving back to colo or to hybrid cloud, away from cloud-native.

The lock-in, the bloat, the over-complexity… convincing companies that they needed to be prepared to “hyperscale” because they totally absolutely definitely were about to go unicorn overnight was just a scam.

I wouldn’t do this, but I also don’t care if someone does. We already have laws that cover harassment or assault or property damage if someone misuses this information, and we also have phone books and Internet people search tools that will surface this information already.

OSINT should never be (and almost never is) illegal.

There are difficult choices that have to be made. Choices about who we are and who we want to be when the world is in crisis and people’s lives and freedoms are at risk.

It’s easy to laugh at people who “choose the mountain” - deliberately making their lives harder and more complicated to pursue their values. We laugh because we’ve been taught, we’ve been convinced that sincerity and idealism are cringeworthy, embarrassing to the point of pornographic discomfort.

But that cynicism didn’t help us stave off the last gasps of bigoted, white supremacist power, and it won’t help us fight against it.

We need the idealism that pushes ordinary people to make better decisions and stick to them.

Yes, even if that looks like switching email providers.

No notes!

Yeah, for sure, but I don’t want to be Brin, I want a llama farm. 🦙

Give me a salary that guarantees $1 million a year post-tax, and I’ll do it for a couple of years until I’ve saved up for a seaside llama farm I can fuck off to. But even at Google, almost no one is making that as an “IC”.

100%. Even them saying “But (using a cert to unlock the device) is crossing the line.” is the sort of arbitrary moral line-drawing that tech bros are prone to, where they think they deserve to dictate what people can do with their products/ code. The same as LLM companies saying it’s wrong to train on their output, while training on everyone else’s.

I’ve tried this route before, but honestly I don’t think the juice is worth the squeeze for the average person. There’s also almost no way to assess its effectiveness.

You know, at least it’s not Brave, throwing in cryptomining bs, getting caught selling data without telling anyone, or using the profits to push COVID conspiracy theories and anti-LGBT activism, or getting their funding directly from Founders Fund (Peter Thiel).

deleted by creator

I tend to trust Mozilla (more than other browser-owning companies), but they really should just clarify exactly what they do that would be considered as sale of data in any jurisdictions.

They seem to be implying that the data is just metadata that has been abstracted for (presumably ad-targeting) commercial purposes, and there are jurisdictions that consider derived metadata as still being “user data”, but in that case just make a blog post laying out what and where you are sharing. If your “partners” are opposed to people knowing about them, or you are scared that people would not like who you’re in bed with, that is a problem.

Russia bombards all the civilian infra immediately anyways, because it creates a crisis that the defenders have to manage. It’s better to have a your defensive forces close to your civilian populace, than having to fly over to them once the attack has already started.

Remember, day 1 of the current Russian invasion, they tried to seize Kyiv airport, to bring in transport planes. The civilian airports are strategic targets even without any military presence.

This is what Switzerland does. Saves a ton of money on infra and maintenance costs, and keeps your defensive forces closer to the cities that enemies will be attacking.

Also, it’s dead simple to send someone else (or tell them over the phone) 6 numbers, when you’re being phished. Much harder for people to send someone a QR code.

MLK never stops being relevant and right to a ‘T’.

You may well ask: “Why direct action? Why sit ins, marches and so forth? Isn’t negotiation a better path?” You are quite right in calling for negotiation. Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action. Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood. The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation.

We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed. Frankly, I have yet to engage in a direct action campaign that was “well timed” in the view of those who have not suffered unduly from the disease of segregation. For years now I have heard the word “Wait!” It rings in the ear of every Negro with piercing familiarity. This “Wait” has almost always meant “Never.” We must come to see, with one of our distinguished jurists, that “justice too long delayed is justice denied.”

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”

I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that law and order exist for the purpose of establishing justice and that when they fail in this purpose they become the dangerously structured dams that block the flow of social progress.

Plus, Trump likes the dictator club. He’d rather he, Putin, and Xi spent those dollars on presidential yaughts and focused on locking up dissidents than having an arms race among buddies.

This is my read too.

The part about not wanting this to become Reddit is more about content and site ethos, not size.

And sure, there are some ex-redditors whose views may not be welcome here, but there’s no need to put disclaimers in every comment.

I get called a Luddite (which honestly makes me preen) at work because I am very skeptical of new technology ever being fundamentally different than some already-extant tool. Almost everything billed as new is just an iteration on something you already have, or if you don’t have, don’t need.

SaaS and I/PaaS has been a horrible shift in the industry, because it takes a truth (that most orgs don’t have the people or expertise needed to run large-scale environments and the tools needed to support and secure them), and entrenches that in policy by handing the money you could be spending training people to do it, to another org, further shrinking that knowledgebase in the industry. It was bad enough when that signing-over of core responsibilities was happening with small IT companies via MSPs (who were only ever supposed to be “IT for non-IT companies”), but *aaS has pushed that to mid and even large companies.

It was supposed to help IT professionals do their jobs, but the reality is that it’s just another money extraction tool, and job-destroyer.

I just got a Framework 16 about a year ago, and I’m not worried. I LOVE my fw, and I don’t think you’ll be disappointed. But I think the other commenters have the right of it, they’re probably leaning into either a tablet or a handheld game console.

This instance doesn’t have downvotes, and a lot of people upvote the article to boost visibility, not necessarily because they agree with whatever or whoever the article is about.

ShallowReveal