Have you ever looked at what’s in that thing? It’s not exactly transparent. There’s heap of data that’s is not clearly labelled or easily readable. Also, again, what data is sent can changes from update to update - without any any control from the owner of the computer; and without so much as a notification or even an update log.
Now with AI! So Windows can use your processing power to record and analyze every use of your computer, and report back useful findings to MS. What data is sent back? Who knows? You certainly won’t be told what ‘core telemetry’ is required at any point in time.
Well kind of yes and kind of no. I never closed my R account, and I still check there maybe once a week. So in that since “yes”. But on the other hand, the quality of posts and discussion is pretty low. It feels like a lot of the content there is posted to meet some goal, such as selling a product or influencing opinions - rather than just sharing thoughts and ideas. I find that pretty off-putting. Despite the very high comment counts, genuine discussion there is almost non-existent. But the one bit of value I do sometimes get is it often has some piece of niche news that I’m mildly interested in.
My understanding is in the case of lemm.ee they were getting enough donations to cover the technical operating costs, but they did not have enough high-quality volunteers for admins (and presumably not enough money to pay admins. It would require a lot of money to pay fairly for that work).
In 10 days my account will be 2 years old.
I’ve enjoyed it, and this has been one of my most visited websites during that time. But I’m still not sure I’ll stick around after lemm.ee shuts down at the end of this month.
On the early days of the internet, I found a website about a comic I like. I emailed the person who made the website. I told them that I liked the site, and I sent them a game that I’d made (which had nothing whatsoever to do with the comic or their site). They tried the game and said it was fun…
That kind of interaction can never happen any more. Money has ruined it. Scams and monetization, everywhere, making everything into manipulative toxic sludge.
I didn’t get technical on you - that’s kind of the point. But whatever; I was just trying to help with some context. Ignore if you like.
Look man, from a technical language point of view there is nothing whatsoever wrong with calling people ‘females’. However, by speaking to such people face-to-face you quickly learn that basically not one likes to be called that. The reasons are subtle, and frankly not very important. But the fact remains that calling people ‘females’ is now seen as a sign that you don’t understand or respect them - on the grounds that you are using a phrase that you’ve been asked not to use. Just say ‘women’ instead.
That’s true on face value. The issue is that accusations of misandry are almost always unfounded, and only made as a way to deflect and to attack women. So when people start talking about misandry, that’s generally a red flag.
It’s similar to how “all lives matter” is definitely a true and good value - but yet it is almost always said as a way to divert support away from vulnerable groups. So although the literal meaning is good, it is fair to assume that people saying it do not have good intentions.
It’s pretty harsh to just casually suggest that a person be a TERF without any specific evidence.
Sure. I agree that’s the problem; and none of these analogies really help make that any easier to understanding. Certainly they don’t have a “murder as much as you like” policy! (I find that analogies are rarely useful - except for manipulating how you want people to feel.)
Perhaps murder is a bit extreme. It’s more like “we’ve noticed you’re taking woodchips from the playground. That’s not allowed. We wouldn’t mind if you were just taking a few chips, but you’ve taken 2 tons.”
[edit] But putting analogies aside, the service really should make rules and restrictions like this clear in advance. That seems like the real failing here, rather than the rule itself.
I was expecting to see a hex-editor or something as one of the options.
One could argue that they have converted it, but it was done poorly.
In a similar sense, the screenshots and phone photos are not conversions. They are entirely new images.
split personality
Have you read A City On Mars? It has quite a detailed look at many of the challenges. You’ve pointed to some research relevant to the possible availability of water - which is great, but I think it would be better to say “a major constraint” rather than “the major constraint.”
I haven’t read the books, but I did watch the show… I enjoyed the first half, but the second half had so much implausible bullshit that I couldn’t really recommend it. I mean, the first half also had crazy impossible tech - but I feel that’s ok because its part of the setup premise. The stuff I didn’t like in the second half was more implausible decision making and strategising (and also implausible uses for impossible tech).
In any case, I really feel like they wasted a strong setup. I was disappointed at the end, and I’m not intending to watch the next session.
I don’t know what you mean by favouritism. The reasoning for the phone ban goes something like this:
If you’re talking again about the fact that teachers are allowed phones but students are not, then I’m disappointed. I’ve put in quite a bit of good faith effort into talking about this stuff. At the start of our conversation I felt that I was answering genuine questions, and perhaps helping clarify why someone might want a law like this. But now I’m starting to feel like that was entirely wasted, because you never wanted to think about it anyway - you only wanted to fight it. That’s how I’m starting to feel. Maybe I’m wrong, but this ‘how does the law prevent favoritism’ seems like a totally bullshit line to reasoning to me.
Different laws and rules target different groups of people for different reasons. There’s a huge list of rules and responsibilities that apply exclusively to teachers and not other professions. And there’s a heap of rules that apply to children and not adults. There can be different rules for different reasons. As for phone usage, I’d personally be totally fine if all smart phones were phased out for everyone for all purposes across the entire world. But I do think it’s a false equivalence to say that if phones are banned for students they should also be banned for everyone else. It a totally separate argument. And note: I’m not introducing this law. I didn’t ask for it. I didn’t design it. I don’t even live in the country that the article is from. I’m only try to outline what I understand to be the motivation. If you think something negative is going to result from this law, you should try to outline what that is. What-aboutisms are not helpful.
The primary purpose of making it a government policy is to defuse the endless arguments and pushback that schools were fighting to stop students using phones.
If the rule is a case-by-case thing implemented by individual classroom teachers, it doesn’t work at all - because students will quickly see and exploit differences in how the rule is enforced by different teachers. It means the phones still get used, and any attempt to remove that distraction becomes a massive battle of “why are you targeting me. That other student is allowed to use theirs. The other teachers don’t mind.” etc etc.
Having a clear school-wide policy mostly fixes that; but it still gets a very similar effect from the parents. “I give my child permission, because they need it for such-and-such reason”. It can be dealt with, but it is genuinely a large burden on the school. But having a clear government policy removes that battle for the school. The answer is always clear “it’s a government policy, it is not our decision to make”. (By the way, there are still some exemptions for medial reasons; but again, there are no case-by-case arguments, because the policy is the same for all schools.)
So in short its about consistency; to reduce conflict between teachers and students, and between schools and parents.
This is quite possibly the best maths joke I’ve ever seen.
[edit] I guess it still can’t beat the ‘be rational’ / ‘get real’ one.