Mastodon Feed: Posts

ChrisWere@toot.wales ("Chris Were ⁂🐧🌱☕") wrote:

Playing some Divinity on Twitch with Drew
https://twitch.tv/ChrisWere

mattblaze@federate.social ("Matt Blaze") wrote:

A thing that makes this difficult to discuss is that many people (across the political spectrum) demand simple narratives about Trump. “He’s our savior!” “He’s an all-powerful monster who can’t be stopped by the rule of law!” Or whatever.

Explanations that don’t fully fit a clean narrative, including much to do with elections, are upsetting.

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

@owa Not for nothing, but Apple have also starved Mozilla of the revenue it needed, while siphoning off profits each of the last five years that would have funded Firefox for a decade. Obscene doesn't begin to cover it:

https://infrequently.org/2022/06/apple-is-not-defending-browser-engine-choice/

slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell") wrote:

The area under these lines is a measurement of lost potential because Apple prevents real browser choice on iOS. An integral of fail; a decade of suck.

Join @owa to keep it from continuing:

https://webstatus.dev/stats?startDate=2015-01-01&endDate=2025-09-01

Boosted by slightlyoff@toot.cafe ("Alex Russell"):
argyleink@front-end.social ("Adam Argyle") wrote:

gradient.style has finally
- come out of beta
- offers multiple background editing
- is open source

🎉 https://nerdy.dev/gradient.style-is-out-of-beta

Boosted by aral@mastodon.ar.al ("Aral Balkan"):
crispycat@calitabby.net ("crispycat :enbytroll:") wrote:

@aral @staff calitabby is pro-free speech and welcoming of people from anywhere in the world

our code of conduct can be found at https://calitabby.net/coc

Boosted by aral@mastodon.ar.al ("Aral Balkan"):
ensoyote@furry.engineer ("Ensō") wrote:

@aral I had a brief and regrettable stint at a German ad tech firm while GDPR came into force. The conversation in the room was literally "how do we make this as inconvenient as possible for people so that they just click accept?" Advertising should be illegal.

jwz wrote:

Fun fact! Raven from Twisted Metal is also Madisynn from She-Hulk!

adam@social.lol ("Adam") wrote:

Raise your hand if you’re a Gen X-er who uses "90210" whenever you need to come up with a sample ZIP code (e.g. when building/testing forms).

🙋

jwz wrote:

Billionaire Calls Burning Man Demonic.

Stop trying to make 'fetch' happen, Nicole.

Nicole Shanahan, ex-wife of Google co-founder Sergey Brin and former vice-presidential running mate of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., made the stunning accusation...
https://jwz.org/b/ykuh

fribbledom ("muesli") wrote:

"When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression"

Boosted by mattblaze@federate.social ("Matt Blaze"):
mattblaze@federate.social ("Matt Blaze") wrote:

@ravelin Making up disaster fantasy bullshit is of no help to anyone (except to people trying to bring about the disaster).

mattblaze@federate.social ("Matt Blaze") wrote:

Stuff like this is one reason I have no patience with the "why are you even trying, Trump can do whatever he wants, rule of law is dead, etc" nihilists.

The rule of law is under great strain right now, but still matters a lot. But if we abandon it, it dies.

adam@social.lol ("Adam") wrote:

👷‍♂️ Digging into ancient omg.lol billing code for a special secret thing.

Boosted by mattblaze@federate.social ("Matt Blaze"):
mattblaze@federate.social ("Matt Blaze") wrote:

@ravelin No. For reasons I explained in the thread you didn't bother to read.

mattblaze@federate.social ("Matt Blaze") wrote:

I believe Judge Sooknanan was woken up at 3am today with an emergency motion in this case, and is still going strong holding the government's feet to the fire. In the middle of a holiday weekend.

I'm sure she's delighted.

https://fed.brid.gy/r/https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:qrllvid7s54k4hnwtqxwetrf/post/3lxqgan2zik2j

mattblaze@federate.social ("Matt Blaze") wrote:

Cicadas are out in full force here right now. It sounds like UFOs are landing outside.

Boosted by mattblaze@federate.social ("Matt Blaze"):
mattblaze@federate.social ("Matt Blaze") wrote:

@dangillmor the major news outlets - who have ample resources and expert sources available to know full well that this is not some borderline, unsettled edge case - are committing journalistic and societal malpractice here. (As usual).

mattblaze@federate.social ("Matt Blaze") wrote:

By the way, a not entirely obvious, but very useful, heuristic I use when I’m trying to figure out if someone is genuinely engaging or a troll/bot is their post count. 30,000 posts with an account created 6 months ago with 45 followers? Uh, no thanks.

mattblaze@federate.social ("Matt Blaze") wrote:

I’ve got a very itchy block-button finger today, FWIW. Life’s too short.

mattblaze@federate.social ("Matt Blaze") wrote:

This thread brought to you by someone who researches and teaches election stuff at a still-somewhat-reputable school.

mattblaze@federate.social ("Matt Blaze") wrote:

Finally, the federal government has no role in actually running US elections. States do that (usually via counties). So there is no one subject to this order in a position to follow it.

There are plenty of things to worry about with Trump. The legitimate power of the presidency is already vast, and he constantly pushes at its edges to abuse the office further still. But this “order” is just empty blather on his part, not something that he has any ability to actually implement or require.

mattblaze@federate.social ("Matt Blaze") wrote:

It's also worth noting that the measures he calls for - voter ID, no vote-by-mail, etc - are nothing new. He and others have long advocated for them, and some states already implement versions of them. So everything in this "order", which has all the legal force of a "suggestion", is also old news.

mattblaze@federate.social ("Matt Blaze") wrote:

Also, “Executive Orders” are not laws. They’re orders to the executive branch of the federal government. If you don’t work for the executive branch of the federal government (say, for example, you’re a state election official), presidential executive orders don’t apply to you.

mattblaze@federate.social ("Matt Blaze") wrote:

Now, Congress might well be able to legislate some or all of the things in Trump’s putative elections order. And the current Congress has been generally compliant with Trump’s legislative wishes, so it’s not out of the question that they might advance a bill with provisions along these lines, or that some legislatures might do the same. But no executive order can require them to do so. It’s meaningless.

mattblaze@federate.social ("Matt Blaze") wrote:

And this is not some borderline edge case. It’s addressed directly in Article I of the Constitution. See https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript this and other fun facts about how our government is organized.

mattblaze@federate.social ("Matt Blaze") wrote:

Just for the record, Trump can’t do this. The Constitution is very clear that the “times, places, and manner“ of elections for federal office are determined by individual states (though can be altered by Congress).

The president simply has no role in US elections (except to sign into law or veto whatever election-related bills that congress might pass).

Boosted by NfNitLoop ("Cody Casterline 🏳️‍🌈"):
aral@mastodon.ar.al ("Aral Balkan") wrote:

Look, Jeff Atwood, it is difficult to take you seriously when you write authoritatively on a subject you clearly don’t understand.

GDPR doesn’t mandate cookie notices.

Cookie notices are *malicious compliance* by the surveillance-driven adtech industry.

If you’re not tracking people, you do not need a cookie notice, period.

If you’re only using first-party cookies for functional reasons, you do not need a cookie notice, period.

If you’re using third-party cookies to track people – i.e., if you’re sharing their data with others – then *you must have their consent to do so*. Because, otherwise, you are violating their privacy. Even then, the law doesn’t mandate a cookie notice.

How would you conform to EU law without a cookie notice if your aim wasn’t malicious compliance?

You would not track people by default and you would make it so they have to go your site’s settings to turn on third-party tracking if, for some inexplicable reason, they wanted that “feature”.

Boom!

No cookie notice necessary.

What’s that?

But that would destroy your business because your business is founded on the fundamental mechanic of violating people’s privacy?

Good.

Your business doesn’t deserve to exist.

Because the real bullshit here isn’t EU legislation that protects the human right to privacy, it’s the toxic Silicon Valley/Big Tech business model of farming people for data that violates everyone’s privacy and opens the door to technofascism.

https://infosec.exchange/@codinghorror/115120175033311443

fribbledom ("muesli") wrote:

POSIX: "Filesystems should behave like this."
APFS & ZFS: "Hold my non-case-sensitive, transactional, snapshot-capable beer."

isagalaev ("Ivan Sagalaev :flag_wbw:") wrote:

"This telegram must be closely paraphrased before being communicated to anyone."

A fascinating historical anecdote about cryptography (totally readable by non-experts).

https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/79371/this-telegram-must-be-closely-paraphrased-before-being-communicated-to-anyone

#history #cryptography #enigma #wwii