CookieMon

The winning play is to make no changes that could get you back in the news, and wait for the news cycle to move on to the next outrage.

Possibly try to grease Rogan's hand to lay low on the vaccine topic/guests for a while.

Many 'rules' (like one request -> one file) create limitations in Gemini that prevent it from being capable of web-style corporate behaviour, so even if business isn't content with regular web users and doesn't leave Gemini users alone, their options and the damage they can do is hampered (unless co-opting the entire movement).

I think the protocol being designed around ensuring it's difficult for sites to exploit visitors is a core goal that gets lost in the blinding document minimalism that's hits you when first encountering Gemini, OP didn't seem to get it.

https://search.marginalia.nu/ made the interesting observation that a big chunk of that amateur OG internet never stopped or went away, Google etc. just stopped linking to it and it went invisible.

The list doesn't have ANØM

"Paltering" is another one, with an "Artful Paltering" psyc paper differentiating it as:

* Lying by omission - the passive omission of relevant information.

* Paltering - active use of truthful statements to convey a misleading impression.

But knowbody will know what you mean if you use the word paltering, so "by omission" would still be the go-to phrase.

The deal to be acquired by Muse Group was announced 30 April, and "Muse Group was formed just a few days prior to the Audacity announcement, on 26 April"

The latest release "Audacity-3.0.2" tag on github is 14th April, as is the date that the Windows 3.0.2 installer was signed. So the current latest release predates the announcement and formation of Muse Group.

The privacy notice was updated 2nd July. We don't know if that's when the new clause was added, however issue #1213 on github suggests that it was.

But I've not looked at the code, so don't know what telemetry was already in place before the project was acquired. Anyone?

I recall they provided multiple payment options back when crypto was too hard for victims to obtain / figure out.

e.g. this 2013 article from a quick web search, where the payment method dropdown contains Bitcoin and MoneyPak payment cards: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/10/youre...

though our companies will one day be competing with product manufacturers in China who get to use it to its fullest

I hope that GitHub is at least limiting any training data to a sensible whitelist of licenses (MIT, BSD, Apache, and similar)

Yes, and even those licences require preservation of the original copyright attribution and licence. MIT gives some wiggle room with the phrase "substantial portions", so it might just be MIT and WTFPL

The one thing it didn't have was longevity

Wikis would come and go like mushrooms and I too was burned once, so I figured Wikipedia's data will never be abandoned and so have been using mediawiki for over a decade. Even if mediawiki is one day abandoned the migration tools will be excellent.

history, syntax highlighting, inline images, tables etc. Markdown would be nice - and there's an extension which enables that, but who knows if that extension will have a lifespan/migration-path like Wikipedia will.

I'd go with reduced video call bandwidth, but I'd be thinking of a home assistant UI like Holly. -- https://www.google.com/search?q=red+dwarf+holly&tbm=isch

Wow, the PGI compiler becoming open-sourced is awesome.

How is Fortran coming along with GPUs? (last I looked it was being done with proprietary compiler language extensions, but that was a while ago)

Are modern supercomputers faster than a cluster of consumer-grade GPU cards?

Yeah, to create a good free speech site these days with the big sites expelling crud while keeping the rest, you may have to keep quite about the free speech aspect and instead concentrate on building a good userbase first.

You're railing against claims I didn't make.

Section 230 explicitly allows the tech industry to perform moderation. It was needed because ISPs were being sued for user-generated content and if the service had not moderated content they were found not at fault (Cubby, Inc. v. CompuServe Inc), but if they had moderated their user content they were found to have editorial control and thus be a publisher and legally liable (Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.), this is directly relevant to whimsicalism's analogy.

A Wikipedia summary: "The court held that although CompuServe did host defamatory content on its forums, CompuServe was merely a distributor, rather than a publisher, of the content. As a distributor, CompuServe could only be held liable for defamation if it knew, or had reason to know, of the defamatory nature of the content. As CompuServe had made no effort to review the large volume of content on its forums, it could not be held liable for the defamatory content."

Section 230 was Congress clarifying which of those ways internet services should be treated. My phrase "with the idea they acted more like" is descriptive of what ISPs are / how they are classified, not prescriptive or Congress demanding how they act. It does sound like I should have said the idea was they're "more like a distributor than a publisher", instead of "more like a common carrier than a publisher".

When in American history would all of the major book publishers refusing to print someone’s words mean the publishers should be made legally liable?

Major book publishers are legally liable, which is fine because they decide what they publish, e.g. they refuse to print some people’s words.

The tech industry was given immunity from that liability, with the idea they acted more like a common carrier than a publisher.

The Reverb G2 looks like the best of the current crop - it launches in a week, however it needs a high-end gaming PC to run, and costs twice as much as a Quest 2.

https://i.redd.it/r6idh33kitp51.png

I think facebook is going to own standalone headsets for a while.

yeah, from 10 years ago:

The laser detection is so precise that it can specify the species, and even the gender, of the mosquito being targeted. “The women are bigger. They beat at a lower frequencies,” Mr. Myhrvold said. Since it is only the female mosquitoes who bite humans, for the sake of efficiency, his system would leave the males alone.

-- https://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/using-lasers-to-za...

And if entrusting everything about your life to one company ever does backfire, you still won't get to call this out, because then it will be 'blaming the victims' ;)

I don't know the likelihood of this all going dystopian, but I did realise a while back that it isn't hard to pick a not-google option early when a thing is new. Rather than attempting to go cold-turkey you can just stop growing more locked in. After a few years you notice you're not stuck any more.

It costs 3 times as much and is tethered.

Price aside, tethered is a different market. I like powering VR with a gaming PC, but a standalone headset with inside-out tracking like the Quest is where the mass market / oasis will be.

While it's beside your [good] point - you can do VR with fifty cent lenses and early headsets did, but the lenses in headsets like Oculus are specialised and still evolving.

I wonder if there's a forum...

There was one https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/02/22/rip-culture-war-thread... <- a very interesting read.

Various satellite forums of slatestarcodex have grown and are around, and only the original Culture War thread is gone. That whole group seems to be politically mixed and at least partially vaccinated against the dangers of framing political disagreements in terms of tribes and dehumanising the outgroup/opponent.

FWIW NBC reported no sealed indictments, they're citing "a senior U.S. law enforcement official".

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/22/special-counsel-mueller-has-...

Apologies, I thought lynching was your choice of words and I was using your words, I did think it was rather extreme. I agree it's overdramatic and a poor choice, I had missed that you were calling it out.

Regarding the CoC, I had spared you the details. Opal didn't have a CoC when this happened, they were pressured into Ada's by the outrage mob from twitter - told it would help prevent problems like this. Upon success at getting it adopted the group from twitter realized the CoC didn't have the clause they needed, so they added it. Opal was spared by customizing their CoC. The CoC everyone else got means twitterers have a codified excuse to shift their harassment to smearing the maintainer if they don't side with the mob in censuring a target of a pile-on.

My example isn't that an attempt to use the CoC in bad faith actually failed (do you really think Elia was unaffected?), it's that the attempt nakedly exposed how the whole purpose of the CoC had been bad faith. That was the revelation to me - CoCs had appeared so positive and community-minded before.

Anyway, I mistook your call-out for a question, so I realize the intent/history of the CoC wasn't of interest here.

look at how you bring up the problem of "everybody else using the Contributor Covenant" that now includes the "Elia clause". Think about how absolutely absurd it would be if, in that argument, you replaced "Code of Conduct" with "[some library well-known to be broken/insecure]", and then used that line of reasoning to assert that open source software is "evil at its worst" or even, "kind of evil".

Lets leave evil and awkward analogies out of this. I meant literally the projects that adopted the Contributor Covenant now contain a clause that was written specifically to be bendable to to attack Elia. The clause isn't there to improve communities, it wasn't worded for that, it's in there to help facilitate attacks.

Who has been lynched because of a Contributor Covenant, or other similar open-source code of conduct?

The scope of the Contributor Covenant was widened in an attempt to l̶y̶n̶c̶h̶ harass and ban Elia Schito for an opinion he had expressed on his personal twitter[1].

Because Elia's twitter conversation wasn't connected with the project (beyond the project being listed in his bio), a new clause needed to be added to the Contributor Covenant in order to get him. To get it in, the new clause was presented to the Opal project as a pull request labelled "Update Contributor Covenant to include ethnicity"[2].

The Opal project noticed the extra change and guessed its real intent (that intent - needing it to go after Elia - was confirmed later by people arguing for the change[3]), so Opal edited that clause before accepting the change, but everybody else using a Contributor Covenant now has it, including Linux. (The Linux one has customized enforcement/judgement guidelines, so in its case the presence of the "Elia clause" might be less easily weaponizable by the twitter mobs it was written for)

The attack on Elia was instigated by the creator of the Contributor Covenant[4], who was unrelated to the Opal project but tagged in via twitter - it turned out this kind of drama was the Covenant's purpose.

After watching that I no longer see codes of conduct as community measures written in good faith. It hasn't just been the Contributor Covenant one that's bad faith either, however, projects that adopt them are changing and rewording them in good faith, so they can get better - it's just not the CoC intent.

Opal eventually got rid of their Contributor Covenant.

Links because of how unbelievable this stuff is:

[1] https://twitter.com/elia/status/611319469982527488 [2] https://github.com/opal/opal/pull/948/commits/817321e27eccff... [3] https://github.com/opal/opal/pull/948#issuecomment-113486020 [4] https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941

I'd like to see what happens if psychologists design a social media platform around encouraging positive healthy interactions.

I can think of many improvements:

* Boosting instead of retweeting can avoid viral outrage, explanation - https://www.codesections.com/blog/mastodon-elevator-pitch/

* Reduce the incentives & rewards for signalling and curating an online identity, e.g. avoid Like buttons and Share'd content. Snapchat shows it's possible for Like-less social media without curated identity to still be popular, despite lacking Like-button dopamine hits, and the vacuum left by viral content and image grooming might¹ be replaced with socializing with your friends and ability to be yourself (¹ see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11828280)

* Should "goes on your permanent record" always be the platform's default behavior for social interactions?

But I'm just a mere coder watching social media make my social circles ill, I wonder what systems real psychologists could come up with and test.

They could remove the Share content instead, so feeds empty down into what friends and family are doing instead of whatever Fwd:Fwd:Fwd: manages to press the most viral buttons.

/one can dream

Analogies only derail arguments into being about whether the analogy captures the issue. Alex3917's analogy was bad and unnecessary, you called that out, it's now ok to leave the analogies buried and discuss what facebook did and why, rather than hunt for another hypothetical different-website-doing-different-thing analogy to start the process over.

Is there a reason IRC couldn't look like slack to the user?

kiwiirc is an opensource webUI IRC client (demo at https://kiwiirc.com/). To my untrained eye it looks slack-ish, but not being a slack-native I'm not really sure what Slack's draw is and whether its something webUI clients for IRC can't do.

Or let any user offer moderation duties and give every user the ability to change/revoke who is moderating their feed.

/r/spez;always_good/politics, for example, could specify the politics feed minus anything spez or always_good marked as spam or off topic (rather than using whichever mods you've set for your account).