🇰 🌀 🇱 🌀 🇳 🇦 🇸 🇰 🇦 🇵 🇮

Commenting to boost this.

Good for MapQuest for making statements about these things, but don’t people know about Waze already?

I was impressed by how many categories I made about cheese.

👉👌

Hmm, I don’t see how semicolons work in this sentence.

Marking up the sentence with extras to help visualize:

Buffalo-buffalo (who) Buffalo-buffalo (do) buffalo (in return also) buffalo (the other) Buffalo-buffalo.

A sentence of similar structure, subbing components for others of the same language parts…

• Buffalo buffalo → other nouns qualified by adjectives
  • Foreign cars
  • Austin techbros
  • big money
• buffalo (verb) → other verbs
  • covet
  • cost

… would be:

Foreign cars Austin techbros covet cost big money.

(edit: I couldn’t quickly think of a location adjective for the last noun, which would have stuck to the pattern more closely, but “big” is still the same role, an adjective.)

You gotta wam me before you make me laugh.

Wasn’t meant that way. Meant it like, everyone slowly realizes how great the joke is, applause builds…

slow clap

Google Wave tried to replace email with a come-and-go / bulletin board / long-form chat kind of thing. I’d still like that for occasional things, like organizing holiday get-togethers with the family, but that has been the only time I think about using something like that.

For most personal communication that isn’t biz-to-biz, it’s chat nowadays. And the rooms/teams/channels concept (like IRC) is the main medium for what I used to want Waves to be. At least on Teams, it still supports more than just a “tweet”, and people can come and go on those threads, and depending on the service, you can pin messages, associate a wiki for persistent content, etc.

But all those still require people to be on that particular chat service.

Perhaps that’s the end result for personal and group communication. The format feels pretty right for the job, to me. I just hope it eventually morphs into a federated system like email and Lemmy, as I just don’t imagine everyone agreeing to sign up for yet another chat service every time someone else wants to start a group chat. Then instead of “did you add so-and-so to the group chat”, we’d just pivot the problem to “oh, we were discussing this on the Slack group, but on the Teams group someone else said blah blah…”. Same problem–fragmentation.

I don’t have all week.

This title is outright lying by the way it mixes another person’s quote with the main subject. Ground News only found right-leaning sources.

This guy serves a swing district. His constituents may equally favor and reject his position on those issues. He does have to listen to all constituents, but it’s also fair that loss of decorum is going to shut down a discussion, if nothing else then because at that point it’s likely to not be a useful discussion. And if roles were reversed–imagine, for example, Sarah McBride saying what Eugene said but to a conservative constituent telling her the same thing–I think that situation would make it easier to see this a different way, and many might be saying “good for her” for walking away from it.

I don’t know, I wasn’t there. I’m just saying this smells to me like a smear piece in a swing district, and it started with unethical journalism by structuring the title the way it did.

Some training content for work (I think it was for an in-browser code security training). And I’ve run into one or two sites where they required me to try in Chrome for a support issue, just can’t remember what it was. And newbs vibe-producing corporate tool proofs of concept as Chrome plugins because it’s simpler and doesn’t depend on any gatekeepers to deployment. (Fortunately, other gatekeepers still got a chance to say “no” and forced it to become a real web application.)

There was a time when Chrome was fresh that it seemed to be a fast, lightweight feeling new alternative. I didn’t switch back until I was looking for more control over content presentation options.

I tried it a few years ago. It was expensive compared to popular alternatives, and it didn’t directly integrate with my mainstream chest strap anymore. You still had to run multiple apps to collect your data, then go upload it to Strava separately. And that was it’s new policy at the time; previously, it did support heart rate monitors directly, and I guess they decided “nah, that’s not what we’re here for.” No idea what it does now because switching to a much cheaper app gave me more functionality. I think its shtick was the training feedback. So that tells you what it was trying to be, at least back then–a personal coaching app, not a comprehensive workout tracker.

What, Wired? Looks great to me–one of the most pleasant-looking article sites I like to read, but that’s on Firefox with uBlock Origin and Dark Reader.

That didn’t quite explain everything. I want to add that there are “type your name to sign” forms that are just what you described, just bytes spelling out your name. In those cases, you’re right, those bytes don’t have your handwriting to prove anything, but they do accomplish something. If the form is secured behind a login and not a totally buggy heap of garbage, then the act of typing your name on that form demonstrates that whoever logged in deliberately expressed their approval. And whatever level of identity verification is needed for login is then playing the part of demonstrating who did that. That’s not perfect, but the level of evidence might match the level of risk enough to justify that mechanism to the company providing it, and it’s important to consider all factors: not just system cost, but end user tolerance.

E.g., there was (maybe still is?) a “ham” radio logging system that had end users generate their own PGP signing key pair to sign their log books, which are simply a list of who they talked to over the radio, always for non-commercial purposes (by law). Many questioned whether a secure web site with good 2FA might suffice and be much more convenient, manageable, and adequate risk level for most users.

“Digital signature” is a proper term that should mean what the parent comment explained–public key crypto “signing” (a hash of) a document’s content–but “sign here by typing your name” will inevitably get called a signature and, obviously, is also digital, just not a real “digital signature”.

…and killing the dual boot feature of the PS3, and attacking Geohot for rooting the PS3 (so people could resume dual booting)…

Those recyclable metal ones are awesome.

I wonder, those objecting to AI, are they also objecting to using any web search or predictive text features? As I understand it, it’s all just varying degrees of the same math.

edit: Ok, I think I see now that it may be more about what it does rather than what it is.

More efficient, sure, but their argument was about freedom, which is just a different dimension. In an extreme example, private jets provide more freedom than public transportation does, even though it’s obvious which one is worse for the environment, more expensive, more intrusive, etc.

“It sure is, Tiny Elvis!”

Image shows a scene from the “Tiny Elvis” skit on Saturday Night Live where the characters are lounging in a room. Tiny Elvis is at the center, looking at objects and calling them huge.