bduerst

But that's just it though - if bad actors gain control, you lose the ability to reject OAuth creds (which is what OpenID is). Things like social engineering or phishing of credentials, which happens at scale today.

They need a way to handle situations when bad actors take over, because other solutions handle this with centralized authorities who step in and rectify the issue.

I haven't dived into the specs, but how does solid solve bad actors getting access to your pod?

Usually today your data is fragmented across platforms (so damage is reduced) which have centralized authorities who can step in and fix bad actor issues.

If ethereum ever achieved adoption even close to a fraction of what stock trading has, then you'd have the same problems and overhead.

As it stands, the apples to apples comparison has any centralized, trusted network being more efficient than [attempted] trustless, proof of work like ethereum.

wuhan lab theory... calling for increased land/property taxes

I feel like these are probably on two different levels, but given that you called it a theory and not a conspiracy, I think you'll also probably disagree.

It used to be Reddit would let users block trolls, and then the user would never have to deal with seeing the troll posts ever again, even if they continued to reply.

The new way - blocking someone and restricting that person's ability to reply - is an aggressive UX.

That article is about a tech-illiterate governor using his station to threaten prosecution of the press... for discussing a 10-yr old bug that's already well known publicly.

If anything, that's more to the discussion of giving social security numbers to inept IT departments.

What makes you think you were banned from Adsense for saying something that common?

Eh, if only people were never bad actors and only used drones for that.

I was at a soap box derby a couple weeks back and they had to pause the entire event for fifteen minutes because someone was flying a drone down by the course area.

A couple hundred people were waiting on one person to remove their drone. Even after the announcers were asking the person to remove the drone they continued to keep it there.

Would there be an audible hum in the video it records from the 4x propellers?

In the post-tiktok era, it's not that big of an issue.

Most videos will have easily added audio overlays.

I still think Metaverse was a branding/distraction strategy from taking a bath financially. The lack of substance is telling.

Nepotism too. Anecdotally, I know someone who is skilled and became a top creator on one of those early audio-focused platforms, but she ran into a couple toxic members of the community who knew the FB PMs, and managed to get her and others they didn't like removed through moderation.

Shrinking float and lowering the cost of capital is still better than sitting on a pile of excess cash.

Buybacks are a valid tactic in corporate finance.

Please cite how you can't criticize Saudi families on Twitter.

Isn't that the problem though?

That someone in a mall kiosk is more skilled and authorized to fix a phone than an entire Apple store full of Apple geniuses?

Edit: Apple Authorized Service Providers (AASP) have mall kiosks, for those doubting authorization.

Right, it's not limited to being offensive, and even if it were, you can limit exposure.

Also, testing if a billionaire (who has offended many people on Twitter) is lying is not deranged behavior, which is the point you keep avoiding.

It's a test of the word and motivation of not just a billionaire, but one of the world's wealthiest individuals - one who has publicly insulted and offended many people already.

I think it's more deranged to see such a test as abnormal.

(Also grotesque does not necessarily mean offensive, and you can limit the scope of the content's exposure)

Third. NVidia drivers were the bane of my existence for a while, and became such a time suck when I wanted to be doing other things.

So because a couple people you worked happened to be wealthy and you didn't like them, we should throw out protecting IP with copyright law everywhere?

Short of anyone here working at Nintendo, we have no insight into what the bar is for release, the LOE to fix graphical bugs, or any of the challenges they face between platforms.

Which is pretty typical of a release process that requires updating and testing software on platforms that are ~30 years apart.

Right, and your lack of empathy is likely due to survivor bias, having never seen or put significant resources into developing IP yourself.

That's the world we all live in, you alone are not entitled to be the only rational, self-interested person.

No you're right, but a lifetime license to software on all platforms is a losing proposition for any company, since there are non-trivial costs to re-releasing on new technology.

Also it may be easy to link digital purchases right now, but proving past cartridge purchases would be very difficult.

Which is pretty typical of a release process that requires updating and testing software on platforms that are ~30 years apart.

This is survivor bias.

Investment into information property (IP) goes unseen because you only ever publicly see what happens after the success. Without a legally guaranteed return on investment on IP, investment into developing it would be stunted.

Now is usually when someone counters with open-sourced initiatives, but they themselves still have copyrights legally protecting how they are used after being developed.

Pricing is a different complaint from hoarding copyrighted classics though.

Sure, Nintendo isn't pricing their franchises at the price point you want, but in context to the discussion they're at least re-releasing what they can and making them accessible.

(And if it was really about letting your son play Super Mario World, you can pay $8 and he can play it for three months)

It's been exactly a year since Google announced they are no longer prioritizing AMP content in the carousel, or as SEO in general, so they probably would put self-hosted AMP there (if it passed the SEO bar):

Besides algorithm changes, there will be several user-facing changes. For starters, the Top Stories carousel in Search will no longer be limited to AMP content. The Google News website and mobile apps will similarly surface more non-AMP content. Lastly, the AMP lightning bolt icon will no longer be used to badge eligible content:

https://9to5google.com/2021/04/19/google-search-page-experie...

Isn't this what Nintendo is already doing with hundreds of games?

https://www.nintendo.com/whatsnew/detail/2021/the-classic-ga...

The Amp javascript can be self-hosted [1] away from Amp's servers, there's even a framework demonstrating how to do it [2].

The only difference is that it doesn't pass Amp validator, which is necessary for the Bing search result icon. Developers have requested the feature for the Amp validator to include self hosting but it hasn't been added yet (or have any plans to AFAIK).

[1] https://gist.github.com/mdmower/b56e94f0dc36beafb825b0c5e31f...

[2] https://github.com/mdmower/amp-self-host-demo

Which is how instant search works, right?

Describing the cost without explaining the why is really putting a spin on things.

Search engines rely on trust. Dark patterns that include shady things like exploitative URL insertions on clicking links are highly relevant.