Search results for:

They're now claiming that they have another account and logged in as a new user. No idea if true.

I'll out myself as an anti-capitalist... Or rather I have a fundamental belief in privacy, that for us to have a democracy we require privacy at it's core, which means virtually no surveillance, etc.

I just couldn't bring myself to build what the rest of the internet has become. Some of what this law represents is that, from my perspective. My rejection of this is on so many fronts.

And very much to your credit. #bringbackrep What has been 'built' is not only simply stultifying and depressing, but also extremely dangerous (we're seeing it in manipulated elections, increasing market domination by large companies, ruin of people who don't want to exploit the ridiculous competitive advantage over the Internet, completely unsustainable logistics (delivering each parcel ordered on a whim individually from x number of delivery companies) and crazy transport all over the world, etc.). No-one should hold as much data as anti-social media companies do, certainly not even governments.

They definitely do.

No, they don't.

It's behind you.

No, it's not.

Oh yes, it is, etc.

All Putin's lackeys.

This just in. RIP victims. You really wonder about agent provocateurism here (elections in Germany will be on the 23rd of February).

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/dec/20/death-and-injuries-in-germany-as-car-ploughs-into-crowd-at-christmas-market

@Velocio, have you considered diaspora as a possible asylum? I don't really know anything about it beyond what the web-site says about it and the fact that a friend of mine uses it.

https://diasporafoundation.org/

I'm sure there will be catches somewhere (such as 'podmin', urgh), but I thought I'd mention it.

Ah, very good. I'll be there. Apologies for previously suggesting a pub that's not up a big hill. :)

I have the book this is from somewhere. The quote may relate to Tolkien's famous memory of when his mother told him that it had to be 'great green dragon' rather than 'green great dragon'.

There will be exceptions to this rule, but probably very few ('absolutely' is too strong in application to a rule; principles are exceptionless, rules are not). Also, there are of course other kinds of adjective, e.g. those used to qualify abstract nouns, e.g. 'essential' in 'essential quality' isn't covered by the above list. It's a good list, but not exhaustive.

The order is also not really a question of 'word order' but of logic, i.e. a progression towards what is most substantial. For instance, your opinion of whether something is lovely or not is more distant from the object than accidental, contingent, and necessary properties. That the dragon is green is more substantial than the fact that it is great, e.g. it would have been green as a hatchling, too, and only grew to be great over time. You could conceivably have whittling knives with different-coloured blades, and so on.

I'm definitely not using boss man in a casual racism way but happy to stop using it if that's the way it's perceived.

I've always seen it as a term of deference to an authority figure - owner of a shop

Loads of shop workers call male customers 'boss', too.

Happy to help if needed, mainly experience as a charity trustee.

stichtling

'Stichting'. It just means 'foundation' ("Stiftung" in German).

a museum-grade collection of at least 300 representative British insects

Do you mean as a photographic collection or corpses on pins?

Slightly more to the point, ChainBreaker is now on the list twice, as B. and without a number or letter.

we all know everyone hates cyclists

I know you jest, but it's still important to clear this up for people who just don't understand irony.

Of course people don't 'hate' cyclists. Many are stressed because of the huge part personal transport has to play in their lives because they can't access jobs, education, or leisure facilities anywhere close to their homes, and there's a general myth going round that if you cycle, you must be smug and privileged.

Whatever antipathy there is has very little to do with cycling and much more with social factors, plus the stress that many people experience either driving or riding, and the occasional moment of badly-resolved conflict.

Carry on, as you were.

It's the third or fourth coming. (I've lost count.) :)

It'll be interesting to see whether they'll keep coming or whether they'll share the news effectively.

For me, there's a very simple distinction. The large sites are anti-social media; they use the pretext of facilitating communication to interpose themselves between people and siphon off their data, like if you're trying to have a conversation on the street or at a party and some creepy person is trying to listen in. LFGSS is a social medium, as the owner doesn't try to exploit the data, and so it genuinely facilitates communication (except when the subject of pie vs. crumble comes up and all gloves are off). The rest of the Internet is an increasingly negative place by comparison.

I'm sure many have been following the Tower Hamlets stuff. This again demonstrates some campaigners' touching faith in judicial review. Even had their case been successful, the filtering could still have been removed by following whatever process was required again, and correctly this time.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/london-low-traffic-neighbourhoods-sadiq-khan-lutfur-rahman-tower-hamlets-b1200572.html

As before, filtering is worth supporting, but the way it was implemented, often during the pandemic, the general lack of sound filtering methodology, and the bad design of almost all filtered cells require a rethink. The term 'LTN' also continues to be extremely stupid. Broken record time, but you don't want 'low-traffic' neighbourhoods, you want them to be high-traffic, just not traffic that is mostly people in cars.

I don't know Mayor Rahman's views in any detail, but he could mean any or all of the above, or he might simply not understand this and only see it as the political football all of the above turned it into.

Oh, nobody denies there's a problem, but I very strongly doubt that the large companies will really suffer from it, even X/Twitter. I think at best you'll get extremely long drawn-out court cases and obfuscation. We'll see. (I still think the only viable measure would be a general prohibition of such exploitative data-gathering sites, but obviously people addicted to them would disagree.)

Water, water, everywhere—a Standard write-up of this:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/london-flood-risk-property-storms-rain-climate-change-b1200468.html

Thanks, that's what I thought.

tools proposed by the Act won't stop them either

That really seems to be the nub of why it's a bad law.

Another thing that occurs to me—how can you moderate risk in PMs? Wouldn't it be very easy to 'share' CSAM material in messages that only the recipients can see? You've always been clear that PMs are off-limits for moderation, but does the new law now not require that?

The shit I've seen.

The tragedy of the commons—people acting out and pushing their issues into the public realm in all kinds of abusive ways, the virtual equivalent of destroying public infrastructure, etc.

You did the original tag and could have pointed out that it's a retag. (I'd forgotten.) Also, we need your superpowers to save the forum. No pressure.

I'm not a big fan of flipping a wheel to have the option of 2 x cogs at the back, that just feels like having a shit geared bike.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/london-euston-hs2-station-six-platforms-b1200561.html