public_defender

This can and will be used by criminals to target communities that have less tech or tech that is exploitable/circumventable.

No it won't!

I don't believe you, but I also can't unsee it.

We will soon BREACH the ability of users to use certain KEYs to activate windows. Use of these KEYs is a BREACH of our terms of service which we consider KEY to user SECURITY.

Yes, correct. If you can deal with almost any operating system that runs on general purpose hardware, and if you can stomach having the choice of which one to run.

This whole analysis reads like the economic version of flat earth theory to me, but I thank you both in advance because I am about to go down a research rabbit hole on "corporate communism."

Maybe I'm an optimist, but I'd like to think the downvotes are because the user showed in the space of a haiku that they understand neither capitalism nor communism.

This is based on the false assumption that if someone finds a "perfect match" they will stop using tinder.

What if finding the perfect match made you _more addicted_ to the app?

I had to walk back pretty quickly and save the credibility I had. So I pivoted to something like "There is no 'or else,' you'd just better not--as in it would really be better if you did not. I think you'll be pretty sad and miserable if you do that."

This turned out to be a step down the correct path, even if pretty embarrassing in the moment. Someone with a better relationship with the kid stepped in and used that relationship to de-escalate, á la "please don't do that because it will hurt you and I wouldn't like that because I care about you."

What I found to be key in a situation like this was: (1) focus on the person, not the behavior; (2) Have full attention on the situation; (3) try to determine/address root causes. It's obviously impossible to do all that stuff in real life sometimes, but I can try.

I'm not an academic, but I don't really think there is a correct choice. I think there are strategies that work in the moment to de-escalate. From among those, we often have a choice of damnations regarding long-term goals (e.g. "what will she learn from this if I..."). I think we are often poor estimators of long-term impact, though.

fewer than 30 kids.

I agree. And I'll go you one further. I have kids. I also used to work in a psychiatric hospital for kids, so I frequently had 30 and most of them were in the bottom quartile on common "easy to parent" metrics. On my first day a kid had found a lightbulb and broken it. She was threatening to eat it. I was shadowing someone and they sort of nudged me forward to see what I would do. I said, "you'd better not eat that" in a pretty authoritative tone. The kid responded, "or what?"

This was sort of a lightbulb moment for me. It's your first hour on the job, and you've been presented with an "imposing of consequences" dilemma. Your dilemma partner has threatened to eat some broken glass. What result?

Anyway, I obviously didn't escalate with threats of consequences, right? Or my username would be prosecutor. The action:reaction, misbehavior:punishment model operates as violence for some kids. Parenting has to be adaptive and parents have to sort of ride the bronco and parent the kid who shows up that day.

Unfortunately for you, nobody would probably publish a book titled "sometimes you just have to clean the kid's room and still read to them and there are different rules for the older brother but that's all fine and good," but anecdotally that's the truth.

Anyway your parenting experience sounds normal (in the sense that it's normal for a parent to have an uncommonly oppositional kid), so don't feel like you're doing anything wrong. Good luck.

Probably because it's not a very useful exit. The most successful law school applicants have degrees like history, classics, or math. A degree in legal studies (1) doesn't rank for getting into law school (or if it does, it's clearly not the what law schools want), (2) Looks a little useless/incomplete if you stop after the bachelor and don't go to law school.

FWIW people with 2 or 4 year degrees in law or justice and no other education seem to become probation officers in my experience, so I'm all for WVU sending that one into the ocean.

At least five years ago, it was possible to just apt install firefox on arm. It was a little iffy to get any version other than LTS, though.

I love this comment because it exposes several cultural assumptions in the parent which were not obvious to me on first reading.

Hey, this is great advice. Maybe it is as simple as "just lie about your destination and don't give up any additional information." I don't think that's as easy as you make it sound, but at least it's a clear strategy.

On the other hand, I think a lot of the difficulty in situations like this comes from not knowing that this is about the "skiplag" issue (or not knowing if it's only about that issue). I think there's also a likely scenario where the airline starts investigating you for one thing and just sort of throws the book of accusations at you when they don't like how the skiplag interrogation is going.

My first comment was more about that: the private actor interrogating people without clear rules or limits.

https://xkcd.com/538/

Ha. Ha. Suddenly everyone's an expert in what constitutes detention. There's actually a big difference between "literally not detaining" someone and not detaining someone.

I think the detention naysayers in this thread have failed to consider that the people who practice this type of behavior are experts. Frequently the whole business of these interrogators is to make sure that someone is "not literally" detained, but that they are in fact detained, in the sense that they do not feel free to leave. In this way, the interrogator has not committed a crime or malfeasance by falsely detaining a person, but they isolate them and make them feel as though they need to answer questions.

The worst part is that there is almost no clear coaching for how a person is supposed to get through this type of situation. With the police, we can give clear advice: (1) ask "am I being detained or am I free to leave?" (2) Refuse to engage in conversation; (3) Ask for a lawyer. But these aren't police. They will tell you that you are not being detained. They have a few hundred dollars of your money and maybe a bunch of your clothes, and they just need you to answer a few questions before you get on the plane.

What are you going to say? "I refuse to answer questions without a lawyer"? "I refuse to remain in this tiny office answering questions"? Ok. Great. You're banned, and maybe turned over to TSA for a real custodial interrogation for acting so suspiciously at an airport.

Anyway, all this to say that your word games with "literally" this and that are not clever because this is actually much worse than a real custodial interrogation because the rights and obligations are much less clear and that lack of clarity accrues to the corporation's advantage.

This seems correct regarding this person and this conduct, but I disagree that this type of penalty is "the standard for most first time, non-violent offenses."

Federal cases are a small percentage of total criminal prosecutions, and penalties vary widely across the country.

That's the standard for most first time, non-violent offenses

In what country?

So you understand the difference between the two definitions and you are falsely equating them in your first comment on purpose? In order to derail the conversation? That's disappointing.

It would. Imagine being pecked to death by a bird, all the while yelling, "Help! Egg attack!"

I can't tell if you understand or not, but your "first definition" is a grammatically correct pejorative. The second is a reference to a political philosophy.

What's happening in this comment thread is that people are "confusing" a mastodon instance dedicated to the political philosophy with a group dedicated to being in a state of disorder. It's neither productive to the discussion nor witty.

I think you're confusing anarchy with disorder.

Not only did it completely ruin my SMS experience when this happened, it cratered my signal use as well. From my perspective, it was a really misguided choice.

It sure looks unmaintained!

Here are my problems with Simple SMS that are fixed in QKSMS:

1) Long delay updating conversation after receiving a message (>5s).

2) Date sorting broken (old messages appearing at top of queue for no reason).

3) "Failed to send" sms users experience is bad (still testing on qk).

4) MMS sender ID almost always wrong (all messages in group MMS appear to be from the same person until you examine details).

5) Sending MMS with attachment/image always fails without verbose error (still testing qk)

This is pretty abysmal. Do I use the unmaintained app that fixes 3-5 of these issues, or the apparently actively developed one with all the warts? I guess this is the state of basic phone functionality in vendor-free, google-free android.

Wow, thanks a million for that link. My banking app was not working but I found "Exploit protection compatibility mode" in the relevant thread, and now it works again.

I admit I passed over trying this for whatever reason. I'll try it now and report back.

I think there are enough American SMS users that the issue is worth discussing. We can also have a thread about how there is no FOSS Whatsapp client. I'd enjoy that discussion as well.

I agree with the many siblings that say this news is pretty irrelevant to people who use custom ROMs, but I don't think it's realistic to say that FOSS alternatives exist, at least for SMS. There are multiple references in this thread to Simple SMS, but that app is not at all ready for prime time. If your carrier/ROM didn't bundle an SMS app you can live with, I think you are out of luck. I'm glad to be proved wrong though, if anyone knows of a good SMS app.

I agree with this, and I think it's analogous to the 2021 Catholic Grindr tracking saga [0].

It would be difficult to keep this type of data safe (in the sense of not allowing someone to use it to exploit a private person) without all the exigencies of "running a business" in 2023. Once you add those considerations, it seems impossible.

Even if GP is correct and companies all anonymize the data before analysis (which I absolutely do not believe), I am still concerned with:

1) Sale to outside parties including government, 2) Rogue employee with a grudge or a side business, 3) Data breach, 4) Internal policy change (juice revenue with DTC marketing?)

[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/07/22/data-ph...

This is a false choice. There is no reason that safety would require commercial surveillance. Also, why did you put the word tracking in quotation marks?

My take on this is that nobody sees themself as being responsible for developing or cultivating a "manager" as such. Company culture is usually something like "we build widgets, not managers. Let's focus on making everyone the best widget builder possible." Take my field as an example. The executive public defender absolutely does manage managers: her direct reports are supervising attorneys or bureau chiefs or whatever. But she sees her job as managing public defenders.

For that reason, training for public defender managers is usually legal training and subject-matter-specific leadership training. For example, we get a lot of training time on how to support lawyers through burnout. It is almost unheard of that we would get training on abstract or generalist management practices. Executives see it as off-mission and managers think it's a waste of time.

This problem is exacerbated by being a correct strategy at a certain (small) organizational scale, but the paradigm falls out of alignment as the organization grows. It's hard to build an intentional culture of management in an already-existing organization.

Forgive me if this is addressed later in the article, but I stopped at the paywall.

There is a problem here with perverse incentives. I don't know about this specific project's funding trajectory, but it could arise from (1) The city wanting bus shelters and drawing in unrelated priorities like gender equity, or (2) a city project manager trying to kill two birds with one stone and grant funding to a gender equity project that also advances another city priority. Maybe neither one is happening here, but imagine that the nonprofit ecosystem is saturated with bad decisionmaking and mixed priorities on both axes. This gives rise to a cadre of nonprofits who can pitch any angle to get their project/office funded.

I have personally represented a nonprofit in meetings where a potential donor has added some sort of priority (e.g. "but how will this advance economic mobility?"), and you cannot fail to answer the question if you want to get funded.

In the funding process, you might assume that the donor is checking off a criteria pro forma (and that might even be the original intention). For example there are government donors that require all nonprofits or contractors do some level of gender equity analysis. The problem is that you can't control how you are held to this promise later. Sometimes the government donor is satisfied with the original gender equity analysis, sometimes the political exigencies have changed or the donor's project team has turned over and suddenly you are holding a women's rights press conference at a lamp post.

Here is a cartoon on point: https://nonprofitaf.com/2017/06/imagine-if-apple-had-to-run-...