bensecure

In that case "make your profile private if you don't want to be harassed/stalked" is not really that palatable.

If someone is harassing you on twitter, then blocking them still stops that, modulo them making a new account. Stalking, in the sense of looking at your public posts, can't be stopped, because it's trivial for them to open your posts in a private window, or create a new account just for stalking (which of course they wouldn't tell you about, hence you couldn't block it). So in fact the only option you have to avoid such stalking is to make your account private, period.

"Can be seen by anyone in the world except for tom because fuck tom" isn't a different "level of public", it's just caprice. As the GP mentioned, if you want to restrict who can see your tweets, set your account to private.

There are two >100 comment/vote stories from them in the past two weeks, according to algolia. Maybe the others are being unfairly treated, but that seems pretty good to me.

Natural language syntaxes universally suck. A faux english syntax isn't easier to use if you don't know which english in particular will be accepted. A complex cli interface fundamentally can't be easy to use. A GUI can fix that by making things discoverable and by integrating the documentation into the UI, but the ffmpeg devs presumably see that as someone else job (and there have been people to step up).

addressed in the article

the first amendment protects us citizens or those on us soil. The chinese government meets neither of those standards.

Guardrails are intended to keep cars from careening off the road at critical areas, such as over bridges and waterways, near the edges of cliffs and ravines and over rocky terrain, where injury and death in an off-the-road crash are much more likely. ... “Guardrails are kind of a safety feature of last resort,” Brooks said.

From what I've observed this is wrong. Guardrails seem to be used semi haphazardly along roads in places where it wouldn't be the end of the world to go into the ditch. On a bridge, or a median, or elsewhere where going outside the road boundary could be particularly dangerous, they use much better reinforced walls.

Is it a head on collision? The first angle in the video makes it look like it is, but the second angle makes it clearer that its actually hitting from an angle. It seems to be close to a 45 degree angle, which is slightly closer to a real world scenario.

These people are customers of both beeper and apple. Both beeper and apple made a set of decision that led to their own customers being hurt. Somehow the resolution is that beeper is uniquely responsible for course correcting. Maybe they should have put language in their ToS to the effect that if your device id is banned, they disclaim all responsibility. Surely that would have smoothed things over?

The difference is in trying to highlight the "policy" as being fundamentally just and fair, versus arbitrary and capricious. If I have a "policy" of beating up anybody who looks at me funny, that doesn't make it any less retaliatory. On the other hand, the justice system has a habit of avoiding the term "punishment" because they don't like the connotation.

The company isn't "retaliating" against you, or even "punishing" you

yes they are

You broke the rules and that's what happens.

And when it happens its called a "punishment", which is a kind of "retaliation". Words don't stop applying because you don't like their connotation.

Beeper would have to have agreed to the ToS for them to have broken it. It's apple's users who agreed to a ToS, and apple users who got the boot. The lesson is that apple doesn't treat their users very well, not that some no name company who's fifteen minutes of fame are done isn't responsible enough.

The only relevant browsers on mobile are google's and apple's, and (modern) web standards are created by enough popular browsers implementing them. Literally all it would take for this to be a reliable web standard would be apple choosing to implement it.

So they didn't find him guilty of those counts, but they still sentenced him as if he had been convicted? That's quite odd.

i only visit twitter because somebody's linked to it. i'm not interested in opting out of a large number of discussions just because they take place in part on twitter.

It basically just says that version numbers are meaningless and purely marketing. "Pragmatic" yes, but in need of standardization, no. The project comes across almost as a satire, so its odd for you to treat it as serious here.

The odd thesis here seems to be that the lufthansa flight has to bear the entire burden of the delay. Eventually there will be a gap when you have runway space free. Rather than shove the lufthansa flight in right away, then cause every further flight to be delayed until that gap appears, lufthansa has to wait for the gap themselves. "No visual approaches" is treated as a sort of deviance which the ATC won't allow the effects of it to cascade to anyone but lufthansa. This added context makes it clearer exactly what the OP article is criticizing: the ATC had the complete ability to let the lufthansa flight land whenever they liked, but was choosing not to, and there are certain negative effects which that choice could have.

Isn't reciprocity usually applied to tariffs? Hence why bilateral free trade deals need to be struck.

replica means that its fake. Yes its a copy, of monasteries generally, not of a particular monastery.

the go type has the implicit restriction that if error is true, then the result is meaningless. So really it has 3 meaningfully distinct values.

It's carriage drivers making the automobile industry pay them a fine for the crime of making them obsolete.

That's utter nonsense. If google is sending traffic to a site, then naturally they consider that site valuable in some way. Nothing about google makes news "obsolete", and in fact google is basically just a website for finding news articles (and other content). The Canadian implementation of this law, unlike the Australian one for example, gives google the option of excluding these news sites from search results entirely if they consider them unnecessary. That google has chosen to negotiate a deal instead demonstrates that google recognizes the value these sites provide.

If you're doing business in a country, naturally you need to deal with the regulatory environment of that country. Its surprising to see such explicit american chauvinism when discussing this issue.

there is a chance other players could maintain patches to modify Mv3 but the effort of designing and implementing a new spec around the Mv3 spec and convincing extensions to maintain yet another platform means this is unlikely to happen in practice.

The design has already been completed, in that mozilla has already done this in their implementation of manifest v3. The difficulty of convincing extension developers to support it should thus be no more difficult than convincing them to ship a firefox version of their extension.

Keeping Mv2 around is a more reasonable approach (and one that is compatible with Firefox, as well).

This isn't a long term solution. Brave for example has only committed to maintaining mv2 support as long as chrome continues to support it internally. If chrome removes it, the work of continuing to support it would become untenable.

https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/extensions-addo...

https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/1684654531723026434

Use ublock:

  www.tumblr.com###glass-container
  www.tumblr.com##body:style(overflow:auto !important)

The vast majority of that video will never again be watched. If its just google footing the bill for it than I don't particularly care about it, but as soon as they start demanding that I pay out of pocket for it I would say they should first aggressively cull anything that is unlikely to be viewed. To the GPs point, I also don't care about the money they wasted growing their market share, and I'm certainly not interested in rewarding them for behaviour that destroyed their competition.

atomic ordering is very easy if you don't care about performance. So on the other hand we could ask why get/put/setenv have such a terrible need for performance that we can't afford to put a simple lock around them.

Does sms auth not work with prepaid sim cards? I think the real benefit is that a sim card is basically a trusted computing device, but with a system in place at the carrier to give you back your number if you lose it. In effect, its a digital proof of identity. Since identity is fundamentally the job of the government, the real solution should be id cards with trusted computing chips in them. Though that will open up a can of worms with regards to privacy and government overreach.

Not really, no. There will usually be allegations of malfeasance floating around a person for a while before any of them are brought to the wider public. To a complete outsider, it looks like these things come out of nowhere, but to someone who's relatively close to the person it seems like it was building up for years. I've also noticed in cases of false accusations that there will often be a number of other accusations made shortly after, all of which look relatively weak or unimportant; eg someone accused of sexual harassment will separately be accused of making a sexual advancement then backing off when turned down. By evaluating the sorts of other allegations about a person when some accusation is made against them, we can attempt to guess the legitimacy of those allegations collectively.

I've thought about doing this where the money is escrowed, and the recipient can optionally take it if they think the email is spam or otherwise unsavoury. You of course wouldn't take money from friends or family. Email marketing that you never asked for you would of course accept their money. Random spam phishing emails you would readily take the fee from.

The LW version of the phrase is the idea that oftentimes a seeming solution fails because it hasn't been tried hard enough; by doing it even harder it becomes effective.