Senal
@Senal@programming.dev
- Comment on Proton 1 week ago:
Like the “Roman Salute” out of context, or actually out of context ?
- Comment on Would you use a self-hosted, AI-powered search engine for your favorite sites? 1 week ago:
At a level you’d need to use for a search engine ?
- Comment on America is fucked 1 week ago:
Are you saying the UK doesn’t have ambulances?
That’s a ridiculous and easily disprovable claim.
Also aren’t the nonexistent uk ambulances free?
As in not charged at a rate of thousands of dollars, they’d still be tax funded I assume.
- Comment on xkcd #3073: Tariffs 2 weeks ago:
- Comment on Online ‘Pedophile Hunters’ Are Growing More Violent — and Going Viral: With the rise of loosely moderated social media platforms, a fringe vigilante movement is experiencing a dangerous evolution. 3 weeks ago:
the majority of the population doesn’t identify this as being nazism.
That’s a big claim for no citation.
- Comment on Online ‘Pedophile Hunters’ Are Growing More Violent — and Going Viral: With the rise of loosely moderated social media platforms, a fringe vigilante movement is experiencing a dangerous evolution. 3 weeks ago:
Taxonomy.
A cat is [animal] A dog is an [animal]
The nazi’s did such a good job of distinguishing themselves they created their own (colloquial) taxonomic branch.
So [nazi] could be considered a parent grouping of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and also potentially a parent grouping for the republicans.
I think they key here is separating the nazi party from the [nazi] category
As you pointed out all [nazi]'s are [fascist]'s but not all [fascist]'s are [nazi]‘s
National Socialist German Workers’ Party were [nazi]'s The American Republican Party are subjectively showing enough similarities (both in type and progression) that they get the provisional label of [nazi] as it’s the closest existing definition.
Might turn out that they don’t quite fall in the same branch, might turn out they do. Until then [nazi] is an easy shortcut for describing the types of behaviour displayed.
Come back in a few years and you’ll probably get your definitive answer.
You don’t have to agree with any of that of course, but it does demonstrate how someone might have an opposing opinion to your own.
- Comment on In the latest Windows 11 preview build, Microsoft removed the “bypassnro” command, which let users skip signing into a Microsoft Account when installing Windows. 3 weeks ago:
Well, at least they aren’t pretending to accept longer passwords but actually truncating it, like they used to in hotmail and live.
They were silently truncating the passwords to something like the first 16 characters, the rest was ignored.
- Comment on Those YouTube ads everyone hates made $10.4 billion in just three months 2 months ago:
Not sure how versed/willing you are to selfhost but I’ve heard good things about tube archivist.
There are also a bunch of ui’s for yt-dlp, though i can’t vouch for quality.
- Comment on Those YouTube ads everyone hates made $10.4 billion in just three months 2 months ago:
It’s somewhat of a catch, that’s generally how monopolistic moats work but you really shouldn’t be relying on google as a backup service for obscure videos you wish to keep.
I’ve no idea of the amount of lectures, guides, documentaries and other non-entertainment media that is available exclusively on youtube, but again it isn’t an archiving service.
They can, will and have deleted whole channels for various reasons, most of which were bullshit, if you find something you absolutely have to keep, download it.
That being said, the process of downloading, archiving and curating content on anything more than a trivial scale can be much more involved than it seems, especially if you want backups/redundancy.
I’ve never been a big youtube user so my opinion on this is coloured by the fact that i don’t have that much invested in the platform.
- Comment on Those YouTube ads everyone hates made $10.4 billion in just three months 2 months ago:
Literally any other form of entertainment.
Though the statement was to stop using it, not replace it.
- Comment on Google reacts angrily to report it will have to sell Chrome 5 months ago:
Depends on what issue they are trying to fix.
Chromium is a problem but it doesn’t seem like that’s what they are trying to address here.
I was talking about the technical monopoly wrt to rendering engines and web standards, Chromium is a problem but it doesn’t seem like that’s what they are trying to address here.
From that article it seems like they might be trying to separate chrome in hopes that that will enable the new owners to “decouple” it from google search.
If that’s the case it’s a dumb move if it’s the only move they make, all that would happen is google would just build the new owners a scrooge mcduck swimming pool to make google the default search. Same thing they do with firefox.
It even says that in the article.
It would be interesting to see how they’d deal with the decoupling of the built in google proprietary panopticon bullshit.
They’d struggle to shift that over to chromium without upsetting…well…everyone.
- Comment on Google reacts angrily to report it will have to sell Chrome 5 months ago:
TL;DR;
They have an effective monopoly and have repeatedly shown they will use it to serve their needs.
One concrete way is the level of control that google has over the inner workings on the rendering engine giving it significant control over web standards.
A real life example fo this is the controversy around the JPEG-XL format, google decides to drop support for it, doing so removes support for every single browser based on the rendering engine in chromium (eventually).
Now, other browsers ( firefox for example) have to decide if it’s worth it to add in and maintain support for a format that will only work in their rendering engine.
Sounds like a win right? now firefox has a feature that chrome doesn’t.
Now, developers/businesses have a choice.
- A: Add/Maintain/Test features that use the JPEG-XL format exclusively, this feature is only available to the Y% of people not using a chromium based browser.
- B: Use some other format that is supported in chrome (and other browser).
- C: Do A with B as a fail-over, adding additional cost to development/maintenance and testing.
In almost all circumstances, B is the fiscally responsible option, which means that google has effective control over web standards and their implementation.
A non rendering engine example is ad-blockers, google decides there are underlying security issues with how some integrations with the web browser works, this “just so happens” to break how almost all decent adblocking is done at a browser level.
They go ahead and create an updated version of the specification that describes how this interaction works, implement this upstream and suddenly all chromium based browsers now can’t use the most effective adblockers.
Technically the downstream browsers could do some shenanigans to keep the ability to block ads effectively , but the technical and monetary barriers to such an endeavour are so high it is absolutely not worth it.
There is more technical nuance to this story, the security issues are real in V2 but the need to break adblockers in process of fixing these issues is debatable.
- Comment on I just WON'T 5 months ago:
