HN user
Do we need 40 people saying the same thing about how they don't feel bad and it serves them right and all that surface level stuff on every single one of these?
Apparently we do, given that we've got govt officials wasting time, money, and effort on whining about this now.
This is interesting and all but is ultimately just an aside. Are the law enforcement actions on display here legal in Denmark? If not, surely there's prison sentences in store for anyone involved. Right?
I'm sure the actual management interface is a separate thing but still, this website is unreal. Feels like a repurposed, half baked WordPress theme.
I actually wrote this piece myself on my phone while I was out for a walk this morning.
Apropos of nothing, this is astonishing me to no end. The ergonomics of 1) using a phone keyboard for anything but a word or two and 2) doing so while walking pretty much guarantee that I'd probably need a half a day to recover if I attempted the same.
This is technically true I guess but assuming the YT comment I just read represented it truthfully, it was an LLM that wrote it.
Hah! I don't believe this for a second. No, you need the 8k, a business entity (at the very least), five different licenses of some sort, and then some form of accreditation.
It is so elegant and common that even though it is not part of a standard ...
YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm:ss seems valid ISO 8601 to me, isn't it? Neither the "T" nor the timezone are required as far as I recall.
EDIT: The site says ISO 8601-1:2019 requires a T for datetimes, and that even though previous editions allowed for no T, a space was never allowed. This is shocking news to me.
Funnily enough, the linked page shows The Lounge IRC channel among the ten most populous on Libera. (The Lounge is similar to IRCCloud but self-hosted.)
You are missing the point. Nothing in Gimp I haven't managed to do when I've decided it's important enough to put up with it but not so important I'd renew an Adobe subscription and boot Windows. The UX is simply so bad I'd rather avoid it at all costs if possible, and I get zero enjoyment from using it.
Blender being harder to learn has pretty much zero to do with how great or poor the experience of using it is. On top of missing the point, you're also missing the connection between the lack "troll posts" and what the user experience is like.
But since you're muttering to yourself about troll posts and how it's really just a skills issue, I might as well go and mutter to myself about how great Gimp could be if it had users who had standards instead of being chronic enablers who just cheerfully whistle through the wart fair it is.
I've had my yearly share of discussing Gimp I think. I'll just keep to my routine: see an update, install it in hopes of finding it has changed, and quit it ten minutes later kicking myself for being dumb enough to allow myself to hope.
Sounds like a you problem.
It's a me problem alright, but I'm in no way unique in refusing to put up with the mountain of grief that the Gimp UX is.
> I've been using it productively for photo editing and web design for two decades+.
I know Gimp must have its share of long term users but they're a miracle to me and I don't know what to say to that. I suppose it's good people reading these threads who are open to giving Gimp a go see there are users for whom it's working out.
Even the features it does have are behind UX so bad you'd rather cram scattered glass down your urethra than use it. Just yesterday I gave Gimp a go again to do some very basic exposure blending and rage quit 10 minutes later. It's impossible to work with comfortably or with any sort of fluidity, everything is either a fight or a drag.
A way less marketed version of this is htmx
Can I come live in whatever bizarro world you're in? I've never heard of Hotwire before but I'm up to my ears with htmx this and htmx that. It's impossible to spend a minute on Youtube without seeing programmer influencers with their moronic thumbnails featuring their face twerks next to htmx.
The article doesn't have enough details to form an opinion!
It does, unless your interest is in justifying the breaking of law and abuse of powers.
These people were granted amazing powers, are paid from taxes, and yet somehow it's too much to expect that they'd have an ounce of respect for the law and the privacy of their supposed fellow citizens. Unscrupulous individuals who work overtime to figure out ways to abuse their powers.
And it really is unfathomable to me how it's possible for someone to be an agent of government, knowing you're responsible for being that for which no one nowhere should trust their government with any powers, and somehow still being able to go about your daily activities without your conscience tearing you into pieces. Impossible to say enough bad things about these specimens.
...past releases and alternate SSH implementations...
Absolutely not faulting the devs in any way for wanting to rid themselves of having to maintain the DSA bits, but this idea of "just" using past releases seems theoretical. I'd be surprised if I managed to compile an OpenSSH release from even just a couple of years ago. There'd be some glibc incompatibility or something equally gnarly.
... the return to torrents is inevitable.
The only reason I ever paid for Netflix, HBO and Prime was because I felt less bad about never leaving in the first place.
The UIs are atrocious, yes, but the absolute worst part of them all is that you have zero control. Content is there one day, gone the next.
I don't know about you but ruin your life brings to mind something like what almost happened to Steven Donziger. No corporation is able to do that to you without the help of governments.
Not being able to interact with a business on Facebook or on any of the other equally insignificant platforms simply does not rate.
And if a governmental agency requires you to use Facebook to interact with them, without any stipulations to bind Meta to serve you, well it's alarming that anyone would have time to say a single thing about Meta instead of address the real issue of the agency having the power to in effect force you to interact with facebook.com.
As long as they manage to somehow manipulate the government to help them do it.
Sometimes you just wanna share your unhinged thoughts with a friend
Oh my, meanwhile I'm too scared to type even the most generic of questions to ChatGPT. Keep in mind that your "friend" in this instance ends up being OpenAI, the company, made of bunch of people, people other than your friend.
Can't believe I missed that, especially for how off it seemed in the latter form. Thank you.
Thank you for the told you so, Netgate. And they knew they were going to do this the very moment they conceived of the idea of Plus but sure, if you must accompany this with a multiparagraph BS ridden sob story, go ahead. Expect nothing less from you lot.
This weakens your privacy with regards to sharp governmental powers, something the GDPR never strengthened or addressed to begin with due to its categorical exemption of law enforcement. Well, competent law enforcement (if you needed a laugh).
And to all the EU cheerleaders about to educate me how, thanks to the GDPR, my local municipality has to treat my email with care when I go ask for a building permit: go gaslight your grandma instead.
I wonder how far off we are from a time where functionality like this will not require you to announce your daily activities to OpenAI or any other third party.
This looks so useful to me but at the same time I could never use this, or the hundred other insanely useful things like this that all rely on OpenAI or some other equally dubious party. (Dubious meaning the party being someone other than me.)
Now now, millionaires need hobbies too. They can't swing for the outer edges of the atmosphere so decimating privacy on the Internet will have to do I guess. Ashton's urge to protect the children apparently trumps the privacy of 450 million EU citizens and you would think he'd be able to extend some of that zeal to adult victims of abuse as well but going by his letter to the jury on behalf of Danny Masterson, you'd be wrong.
From my understanding, Johansson is also the Commissioner who, after it coming to light that the Europol had had a little too much fun mass collecting data and gleefully violating EU citizens' privacy rights, stepped into action that resulted in an effort to pass a new law that retroactively made everything the Europol did legal.
There's many great things in these laws that, in a vacuum, I'd love to have. Outside of the vacuum, I couldn't care less. The benefits absolutely pale in comparison to letting ghouls whom the mere existence of the Internet offends have any sort of say on anything remotely connected to anything that has even tangential proximity to the Internet. The greater the year and number of laws passed, the clearer it is that the only correct position on this is an absolute one.
If there is a discrepancy between what is legal offline vs. online, and you feel you must correct it, then you can strip down the laws that govern the offline. There, solved. The threshold between governments and privacy on, and control of the Internet has been worn down low enough, and has been for over a decade. The only laws we need that have to do with the Internet are to curtail the power of law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Anything other than that betrays all the things the EU says about privacy and fundamental rights as the marketing bauble it is.
And an EU Commissioner saying "we're bringing our European values into the digital world" should scare people. It's a good time to remind everyone that part of these values is letting the Europol do whatever and then rewriting laws to reatroaticely protect them when they've found to be systematically violating them. And for Ursula specifically, those values are what drove her to try over and over again to curtail online freedoms regardless of having it made clear to her that her ideas are unwanted. The Commissioners might be democratically elected -- if you're willing to take the concept of representative democracy to its 100000000th degree -- but they're undemocratic in spirit.
But sure, lets all focus on protecting ourselves from the fucking ads again.
Let's rein in Big Tech. Now what? Law enforcement and intelligence agencies are going to leave it at that and not seek alternative paths? I do not understand how anyone is more eager to address something that merely facilitates the problem than the actual problem itself.
They're not even close to comparable. Worrying about privacy and then focusing on Big Tech is like trying to swat away a mosquito while you're being devoured alive by three bears.
Reminds me of MINEC 1000, which came out in the early 90s (I think), had a decent enough mechanical kb, came with a built in modem (and serial ports ofc), and could be used as a generic terminal thanks to its VT100 emulation.
https://flickr.com/photos/zachetus/535850505/in/photolist-Pm...
https://flickr.com/photos/zachetus/535850501/in/photolist-Pm...
GDPR was passed not that long ago.
Sorry, I should have been more careful. It's a citizen versus a consumer thing; GDPR is about the latter and does not give you any real privacy gains in regards to your government except in areas where your relationship is business like.
Some Menial Low-Stakes Agency is required to handle your email and address details appropriately, sure, but meanwhile Europol was still able to mass collect data and have the Commission cover for them after they were found out.
EU commissioners propose laws, they don't vote for them.
The distinction isn't meaningless but it's certainly a generous one when left to stand on its own.
The commissioners hold little allegiance to the spirit of democracy and these proposals are either career boosters or pet projects for them. They're not just going to pass it on to the parliament and leave it at that. They're going to do their best to finagle behind the scenes, horse trade, intimidate and pull from their endless infatuation with coddling the children the most fantastical justifications that, by pure chance I guess, smear any opponents.
As a brit, let me tell you that leaving the EU will not solve this problem. Your local politicians will just do that anyway.
But it will help. No modern government will pass a law that grants its citizens more privacy. It's better to have a many smaller ones, each with different rates of deterioration (re privacy) than a super government where every little nudge towards the eventual zero-privacy Internet affects us all at once.
Sadly, residing in a region formerly part of the Russian Empire, together with last year's events, kind of kills the glee I felt in the past whenever I fantasized about the EU disintegrating, which is to say voting to leave the EU would only makes sense if online privacy was the only thing you cared about.
"So how much longer will we look away from this threat to the future of the internet? How many more consumers will be denied choice? There's been a lot of talk. Talk is helpful but we need action
Jesus, laying it on a bit thick, don't you think? Spotify, Twitter, Facebook, Epic, Apple and their asshat CEOs could all disappear tomorrow and the future of the Internet would not suffer one single iota.
Musk is expected to talk with European Commissioner Thierry Breton via videocall on Wednesday afternoon, though the agenda was unknown.
And why is an EU Commissioner having one-on-ones with Musk? Last time I heard of this it was another Commissioner talking with Ashton Kutcher about his pet project of saving the children by eradicating online privacy.