Social media has the following elements (which would be prohibited):
Recommendation based on previous views. Recommendation based on what is currently being viewed is permitted. Recommendation based on current view that is customized to user is not permitted.
Ratings up/down.
Sorting based on rating or based on users' interest. Chronological sorting is permitted.
Suggesting content is forbidden. Specifically subscribed content is permitted to be suggested - but only chronologically, or in response to a search.
No public comments. Private comments permitted. Comments in room/forum/group permitted. User must specifically subscribe/join to see the comments.
Comments sorting/notification rules same as above.
"Reactions" to messages show up as additional/new replies, and are not attached to the original message.
Discussion:
The idea is to reduce addictive methods, and to modify discussion/views to reflect ordinary human behavior: No one rates your sentence spoken in a group, no one goes back and promotes certain things you said, words are said in a group chronologically.
GitHub does not show me (on my home page) "recommended" repositories, rather only the ones I specifically searched for, and the information on it is organized in a chronological fashion, which is permitted by my suggestion.
Is your issue that I can see public comments regarding the repository? That's permitted - comments on random repositories do not show up on my home page, only if I specifically go to a particular repository, which is effectively joining it for the purposes of what I wrote. (Although I guess that could be clarified.)
How about Discord? Or reddit? Would those be limited to kids as well? You can be sure that even if FB/Instagram were to ban kids, there would be hundreds of companies jumping in to scoop up all that teenage DAU.
Yes, reddit would be limited, unless they made a mode that ordered submissions and conversions chronologically and removed all voting.
Forums have existed before reddit that didn't have those things, and those forums worked just fine - and continue to work just fine. The way reddit does things is not necessary, they do it to try to make it more addictive, and that's exactly what we are trying to stop.
Discord I'm not sure - does it have votes/rating that kind of thing? From what I saw in my limited usage it's pure chronological chat, but I haven't used it much.
Sorry to be so direct, but your rules just don't make any sense to me. Let's go through them one by one:
> Recommendation based on previous views. Recommendation based on what is currently being viewed is permitted. Recommendation based on current view that is customized to user is not permitted.
This would ban all kinds of news aggregators, or even just simple help-desk / support ticket systems.
> Ratings up/down.
This is one of the most important features of an internet forum! Just imagine HN without votes. It would be flooded with nonsense!
> Sorting based on rating or based on users' interest. Chronological sorting is permitted.
I don't want a chronological information thread most of the time. I want to see the things that are relevant to me. A news ticker full of stuff you don't care about is just a big waste of life or work time.
If I'm working on project X with technology Y I want to get relevant information. Without the need to search for it explicitly. The computer knows anyway what I'm working on, so it should show me the relevant information. That's the whole point of a computer: It processes information for you so you don't have to go through it manually.
> Suggesting content is forbidden. Specifically subscribed content is permitted to be suggested - but only chronologically, or in response to a search.
How do you discover interesting things you don't know about already? Should we ban the "see also" section on Wikipedia, too?
What again about work organization tools? Should they be kept dump instead of helpful?
> No public comments. Private comments permitted. Comments in room/forum/group permitted.
I don't even know what this is supposed to mean.
Is a blog post a public comment?
Spam email is a private comment, right?
Reddit or YouTube comments happen in a room/forum/group I guess?
> User must specifically subscribe/join to see the comments.
Yeah, sure, you need to be logged in to read Stackoverflow comments. But you can only see them when you joined the discussion of some question, otherwise no comments for you. Do I get this right?
> Comments sorting/notification rules same as above.
Sure. Your inbox full of trash notifications about "chronological events"—that don't matter to you.
> "Reactions" to messages show up as additional/new replies, and are not attached to the original message.
OMG. Back to "+1" comment threads on GitHub & Co…
---
The whole point is: Something that works like "social media" is just a communication tool. A tool by itself is not good or bad. The difference is in who's interest the tool is applied. When I install something that works like Reddit on my own servers and use it to discus internal topic related to my workplace this tool is likely great. The same Reddit-like software operated by an company that seeks out to sell ads to people is likely dangerous to the public.
The problem now is, the whole internet is run on ads. So more or less any communication platform on the internet is potentially malicious.
Of course there are exceptions, like for example HN. But these are rare cases. Also note that something like HN ticks a lot of the "not permitted" boxes outlined above. This just makes no sense as I don't think HN is harmful. More the contrary. So the stated "rules" just don't work.
I don’t think kids should be on the internet (public WAN) alone at all, so easy for me. They could get larger whitelists over time as they approach 18—no sites where they interact with adults.
Without a working internet connection, you can simulate network setups, but not the real deal.
A teen at SDF could learn much faster with people with wisdom than by themselves.
They can be guided in a much easier way.
Hint: I didn't got internet at home until very late. And, back in the daw I knew a lot in some areas,
such as drivers under GNU/Linux, adapting basic BTTV drivers and so on, but severely
lacking in others, because there was no proper information to start with.
I used LANs half a decade before connecting to the wider net. SBCs and VMs are much greater resources than I learned on. Routers are cheap, I just set up a dynalink with openwrt for $75.
No one is asking teens to set up a production kube cluster. There’s so much to learn—they’ll be fine.
Nope. A lot of people and businesses "want" something. But they're barely ready to pay a reasonable market rate it. Whether it be a $2 pm SaaS or a $100m blockbuster drug compound.
They would still want it though, if they got the drug compound at a heavy discount, or the SaaS for free. And they'll keep telling you they want something that does exactly what those products do.
The other key factor is probably the person hiring/hiring being able to identify a 'good' programmer. Whether that's through their own competence or having some knowledge of the candidate outside their resume.
Speed to market is also a factor. If you pushing to release a new product, good engineers are very important. For big corporates with established marketshare and profits, it seems to be the thousand monkeys with typewriters approach
Indeed. I've noticed that the more off the critical path is the corpo's software team, the more waste they are willing to tolerate when it comes to software development. That's how you come to things like super-scalable, cloud-based, kooberneteez-orchestrated microservice architectures for internal applications which serve a subset of a division of a company. And you need a team 200 strong to service that.
So... Half the appeal of crypto and Tether & co has been a separation from the current financial system and 'deep state,' yet here we are embracing both with hugs.
“Fascist governments encouraged the pursuit of private profit and offered many benefits to large businesses, but they demanded in return that all economic activity should serve the national interest.”
It's just finally meeting reality. Reality is that you have to live in a world of jurisdictions. Somebody somewhere can always put you in jail or take your stuff. You know "I fought the law, and the law won."
I think there were some early adopters with libertarian or just simple "stick it to the man" ideals that believed that, it was never the original position and those who wanted it to be that ended up up disillusioned.
Bitcoin was created with the notion of decentralized control in mind. It was all about having the option to go elsewhere. I'm not sure if the early developers stated a position on secrecy. I find it hard to reconcile the public ledger with any goal of avoiding scrutiny.
That was always a hopeful lie that anti-government types were telling themselves. If you use cryptocurrency while you're in a country, you are subject to that country's laws. The 'cryptoverse' is learning that math is not stronger than guns and prison bars.
It's not an audit. Attestations mean they move a bunch of funds into the account, get the auditor to check that indeed that money was there at that point of time, then move it away again. Every legitimate auditor they've engaged has quit.
Also, the 'auditors' they are approaching are more and more into the 'not quite competent' end of the line if you look into them.
These reports are not full audits, although Tether would certainly like us to think they are! If you click into one of the reports, the auditors list the steps they took, and they're focused almost entirely on verifying the existence of Tether's self-reported assets on the report date. They would not, for example, have uncovered an FTX-style "hidden, poorly internally labeled fiat@ account" by following these procedures.
You'll also note that they're following the "International Standard on Assurance Engagements 300 (Revised) ~ Assurance Engagements Other than Audits or Reviews of Historical Financial Information", which heavily suggests that this is not an audit and they did not review historical financial information.
obviously spin, but "partnership" doesn't bother me much. Partnership doesnt mean equal partners. Someone might have a business "partnership" with a warlord, that lets them live as long as you prive payments.
It still implies some sort of meeting of the minds. You wouldn't say you've entered a "partnership" with the IRS because you paid your taxes, nor a "partnership" with the police because they pulled you over and searched your car.
"I'm excited to work with the Philadelphia Police Department in our new partnership and am thankful they agreed to negotiate yet another meeting with the parole board after I helpfully divulge where I hid more of the remaining bodies."
Yes, they don't have any power. That doesn't prevent them from presenting it like they are eagerly collaborating. And why not? Nobody wants to piss off federal government or the Congress, it's better to show they love it.
Err.. except the environment they exist in - 'crypto' - tends to be full of anti-gov/3letteragency types, so you'd think this is a bad PR angle to take.
At a guess, I would say this is more flagging to their real customers that their funds aren't safu...
Don't confuse the reddit/twitter crowd with the businesses dealing with billions of dollars. The latter can not survive - or at least can not operate in any way that is connected to the US financial system or touching it in any form - if they don't play nice with regulators like OFAC. They could be all ancaps in the depths of their souls, but if they don't play nice, they'd end up in jail. It's not dependent in any way on their politics or the strength of their convictions - it's just how it is when you're dealing with the financial markets. You can be as anti-government as you want, but if you do what the regulators consider money laundering, either you stop it immediately when they tell you (or before), or you will get shut down. If they are not getting shut down, then they are likely cooperating, there's not much other options.
You missed my point. Just because it's in a statement that they made in no way means we need to interpret it as anything but a meaningless attempt to convey to the government they are more than cooperative.
Think about it... My fake example takes it to the extreme and portrays it as a serial killer sending a statement to the police department on how excited they are to help them find more of their victims' bodies. Obviously, it's not really a "partnership". Saying it's a partnership is just an attempt by the serial killer to reframe the situation in a way that implies civility and cooperative pursuit of mutual benefit. As if they are being employed by the police department. In reality, they are a serial killer withholding information in hopes of getting a chance at leniency. We are literally saying the same thing.
I've seen the opposite. Business hires new CTO who has no knowledge of existing stack and why it is breaking but sells the top brass on a low code replacement because of how quickly he can build with it. Spends a year building the replacement, forces a hard switch and fireworks ensue.
