pgeorgi

Matrix only recently started adopting an (as of now) experimental protocol that allows purging older parts of the append-only data set that constitutes a channel.

There precedence: https://www.powermapper.com/blog/web-standards-implementatio... says draft spec, then candidate recommendation (unstable), then 2 independent implementations, then recommendation (== spec in w3c terms)

It's still in their docs, too: https://www.w3.org/2023/Process-20231103/#implementation-exp... "are implementations publicly deployed?"

correction: 25% of the yearly profit

and good luck getting an appointment in Berlin

It's our failed state, so what do you expect?

Some of its design decisions are showing its age. I'm (low-prio) trying to figure out how to hoist it into the present.

https://aegis.ifkee.de at least has a copy that builds on contemporary Linux.

The failure has yet to propagate to Germany, given how slow internet is here.

There are a bunch of ideas, like giving different unicode codepoints groups different background colors. That way, а and a show up differently colored.

It's more a UX problem than a technical one, so simple "why not X?" technical proposals tend to be incomplete.

yes, ü requires punycode encoding. The xn-- prefix indicates that.

And because there are way too many ways to confuse people with similar looking characters, the domains can be typed in and converted appropriately, but some webbrowsers ensure that you notice if something is off with www.bаnkofamerica. com (www.xn--bnkofamerica-x9j. com)

The Linux Foundation is a 501(c)(6) non-profit trade organization. As such it's normal to look like an industry body of large Linux (and related software) using companies - and in the current tech ecosystem, those are predominantly cloud companies.

The format is fine, except for https://www.nongnu.org/lzip/xz_inadequate.html

She still doesn't say that the photo is a big deal.

"presumably paid for her time" is an interesting insinuation, as it disenfranchises her of her voice just because somebody put a camera in front of her. Do you think she wasn't paid some consultancy fee for dealing with that Wired journo? Do we have to figure out now who paid more?

One of the reasons IEEE mentioned is that it's a bad representative for contemporary digital imagery (resolution, color range, etc), so that alone is reason enough to look for alternatives. The most recent statement of the model is "let's retire [it]," even before she didn't seem to care much.

I suppose the interesting question is why you're so hung up on having that photo in new scientific publications.

There have been issues with git's master->main transition as well, once automated systems came into play that expected to find a master branch. This is also my main complaint about that particular episode: Too much "somebody needs to do something" mandates, and too little "how to do it properly" (which would provide benefits for other situations as well.) When the two parts of the activity are split between two different groups, there's no incentive, either: The mandate group checks a box and walks away happily, having reached their OKR. The implementation group doesn't get the devops time to implement proper aliasing and what-have-you, so they just wing it until everything works again.

That said, it's mostly water under the bridge right now, and it isn't applicable at all for the "reference image for computer graphics papers" situation unless somebody starts rewriting all the old papers to reference a different image:

A "somebody needs to do something" mandate would likely lead to new versions of the old papers in which the image is removed without replacement. The "do it right" solution would lead to people replicating the research with different material, which might not even be for the worst - but I see no chance that will happen at scale.

She's a lady who asked that this image is taken out of circulation.

GPL with CLA still allows such stunts.

If everybody went for vinyl, they'd bring the loudness war over as far as it's possible (the medium is more limited).

Right now, sound engineers, not incompetent at all, optimize CDs for the CD audience (and for the most part, they preferentially buy "louder," even if they'd deny it if you ask) and vinyl for those freaks who maintain their diamond needle.

So vinyl sounds better _because_ it's a hipster medium.

Three posts above the goal post stood at "inaccurate" and "overly-simplistic," now we're at irrelevant. Okay.

Dividing the world into "Pagan countries" and "Christian countries" is both inaccurate

That's not what the post said. Just that, before Islam was even a thing, those countries that Jews lived in which these days are considered "Muslim countries" were broadly "pagan" and/or "christian", depending on time and location.

As for your assertion of no christian countries thousands of years ago, where you state yourself "Armenia converting about 1715-ish years ago": That's thousands of years (as in: more than 1000)

How about the "Bankers awarding Bankers award, inspired by Nobel"?

Most consent banners are produced by a relatively small set of providers. As such, https://consentomatic.au.dk/ does a decent job of submitting your preferences and pushing them out of sight.

The EU doesn't tend to require specific implementations - the banners aren't a required implementation, either. It's just what the advertisers thought works best to get their desired outcome.

There was the DNT header. Few sites acknowledge it (and thanks to those who do!), and when Microsoft went against spec by setting it default-on in their browser, advertisers whined that they can't see informed consent anymore and just shut down the whole initiative. Note: Microsoft is also in the advertising business, so if you're into that, that might be another angle for your favorite conspiracy theories.

Finally, there's consent-o-matic, available as browser extension for various browsers, and it lets you state your preferences. https://consentomatic.au.dk/ Would it have been better to integrate that into browsers properly? Sure. But the social and economical dynamics being what they are, this is probably the best we can get.

Haven't you heard about the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studio_for_Electronic_Music_(W..., America's finest place of avantgardist music and sound experimentation? (/s)

The idea of federating wikis is pretty old: https://www.dokuwiki.org/interwiki

A German charity whose operations I know publishes their bank account information pretty much everywhere: on their website, on sides of their car.

It was a bit of a nuisance at times to roll back a few fraudulent transactions but apart from calling up the bank and making it their problem (maybe 1h of life time lost to that, in total), the damage to the charity created by publishing the bank account information has been 0€ in well over 10 years.

Those are regular accounts, neither bank offers some kind of "ingress only" bank account number (that automatically clears to the real account, or something like that), even though that would save _them_ time.

Panoramafreiheit also covers picture containing people as long as they aren't the focus or reason of the image, but things get more complicated there (and individual cases could override things). The blurring of people, name plates, license plates and the like (which already existed, that wasn't driven by German concerns) helps a lot in that regard.

Blurring entire buildings was the compromise made specifically for Germany[1], but that was used so much that further bring-up of Street View probably wasn't worth their while. And that was to some degree due to the media frenzy back in the day. I mean, some people actually thought it would be live video of every location! (yes, Germany has its share of tech-illiterate hillbillies, and wow, are they vocal...)

So now Google tries again and crossed all the t's and dotted all the i's and this article has the following to say about this: "In a somewhat transparent attempt to avoid the same issues as in 2010 and 2011, Google is working alongside a German privacy commission this time", as if working with the DPAs is something sinister. "somewhat transparent attempt", really?

You just can't please some people...

[1] Side note: France doesn't have an equivalent to the freedom of panorama, and stuff like the illumination pattern of the Eiffel tower falls under copyright, with cases prosecuted for that. Yet it was pretty much fully visible on Street View from early on.

It never was a privacy battle. Germany has the "Panoramafreiheit" (freedom of panorama) defined in https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/urhg/__59.html, and that allows to do just what Street View does.

Other services offer very similar images (e.g. https://www.mapillary.com/app/?pKey=305780994287217, also Apple Maps as shown in https://www.androidpolice.com/apple-google-street-view-germa...) and nobody cared.

This was about Google, and it was at a time where the large German publishers tried to monetize Google Search linking to them (again not caring much about anybody else doing the same kind of indexing and linking), and the Street View frenzy was to a large part a media campaign. My pet theory is that they tried to reign in on the advertising competition.

Europe sometimes opts for not providing seriously harmful products - like the pharmaceuticals used for executions in the US.

But I think that's pressure group driven, and so might see a change in handling chlorpyrifos eventually.

People like to buy cheap stuff. And if that fails, there's always Ceuta and Melilla.

Which is my point: "JPEG XL" is "too little too late" after JPEG tried to monetize its brand with various other, pretty much failed initiatives:

- JPEG 2000 is popular in the medical imaging space but everywhere else shunned like the patented abomination it is until the patents fizzled out.

- JPEG XR is covered by Microsoft's patents that are supposedly defused under a "covenant not to sue" (but not really).

- JPEG XT builds on JPEG 2000 with all its money-grubbing problems.

- JPEG XS is a pretty particular beast regarding its use cases, but nevermind, there's a patent pool. As such it won't become popular before 2040.

Only with JPEG XL (2017) did they _finally_ acknowledge that they're working on standards that everybody avoids to the best of their abilities due to the licensing situations JPEG optimized for. 20 years for naught.

At that point WebP (whose ancestry makes it explicitly a part of the "avoid the patent mess" movement) was already out for 7 years.

The point isn't to sell a settlement. It's to publish "oh, we're totally serious that there are patents in our control. We won't tell you which ones, we don't tell you what we want from you. If you're interested, reach out to us."

Few people will even bother to try, and if so, you keep them at a distance with some random bullshit (communication can break down _sooo_ easily), but it certainly poisons the well by adding a layer of FUD to the tech you're targeting with your claims.

Standard fare of patent pool operators, and it's high time to reciprocate.

eXtremely Late to the party: JPEG was so preoccupied with trying to generate revenue streams that they were totally blindsided by WebP/AVIF which made "generate revenue streams" an explicit non-goal.