Configuring browsers to mirror each other across machines makes a big soupy mess. I understand why surveillance capitalists like the idea, makes their lives a little easier. But I really don't get why I'm supposed to want it.
I use different machines differently. The laptop I'm typing this on is my "main" browser, I have lots of bookmarks set up in a specific structure. I only use my phone browser when I have to, and it is rarely the same thing I've done before. It has a couple stale bookmarks, I don't care. I use the browser on my iPad even less. My big desktop is where I play with recreational software development, it has lots of bookmarks, but a very different set than my laptop. And my work phone/work laptop are their own things.
It just seems like making every closet door in your house open the same closet, if that where physically possible. There are reasons different things go in different buckets.
> There were all these utopian ideas getting floated
Funny how the sales pitch and reality collide, eh?
The sad part is that stupid sales pitches like that are required to get movement. Internet access is 21st century dial tone, the vast majority of people need it to function in normal society. Universal Service was the sort of socialism a fast-growing capitalist society needed; internet service is the same now.
People seem to think of it as a luxury. They're wrong: it is a control mechanism that comes with access to videos of naked people. To the extent you want the machinery of society to keep working, you should want everyone attached, including those smut-loving poor people you seem to want to judge.
When your car crashes, do you really want it selling the livestream? Because it seems like the agreement would allow that.
If contrarians really wanted to be helpful, they'd not downplay risks inherent in the utter lack of basic privacy legislation in the US and pretend this is all fine and normal. But instead they shill for car manufacturers, pretend adtech is harmless and try to portray anyone who has a problem with these things as weirdos.
I run FreeBSD for my home storage server, have for almost a decade now. I've also used it for various other things here and there, but that's my major personal use.
The best thing about it is that it is boring, completely predictable outside of hardware faults, and dependable. If you know how to competently manage it, which isn't hard, it is a rock.
Also nice is that FreeBSD isn't involved in vendor tugs-of-war that result in the constant stream of bullshit changes* - the network config format doesn't change every version, people aren't playing political games with init, etc. All of which mean far fewer goofy make-work surprises.
And the quality of their releases is still very high. I consider them one of top open source projects, period, in terms of qualities others should emulate for better results.
As with anything, it isn't for everything. If you need the latest version of whatever is trendy this month, you should run Linux. But if your use case benefits from stability and ease of administration, FreeBSD rocks.
* What is bullshit in my environment may not be in yours, etc.
Furthermore, preemptively reacting to expected third-party behaviors is doomed.
Journalists are going to write nonsense, hype-filled science articles. PR flacks are going to hype puff newswire blurbs. Why? Because that's what they're paid to do.
You can curse the existence of bad incentives, if you want annoying ideologues to call you a communist.
Or you can hire your own PR flacks. Because worrying about how people will react to what you're doing is PR, and going up against professionals without your own is like going to court without a lawyer.
Or you can just, you know, do science, accept that people suck sometimes, and get on with your life.
It seems pretty self-evident that they wish to exchange something of value for something else of value. This is a pretty common activity among humans.
Unfortunately, as we see here, "instead, why don't you do even more work to change it to my specifications and then give it to me for free" is a common counteroffer.
I care far less about the feature set than I do getting the whatever written down and out of my head.
If you make we wait while you load a website's worth of js or phone home with surveillance data or whatever, I'm just going to delete you. I'd rather use a 1995-era Textedit or Notepad - they're instantly functional.
Just to make sure I maintain my curmudgeon's rep, I'll add - advertise AI and I'm also gone. I have zero need for assistance from a tripping robot to type in my work life.
They are attacking museums that have nothing to do with climate change, instrumentally damaging them for publicity.
I can think of all sorts of ways to do more of this. Protest meat by disrupting homeless shelters. Or protest racism by attacking the Red Cross. Do you believe those are ethically defensible actions?
I think we both know the reason museums are targets is that they know most museum employees are sympathetic to the cause and unlikely to get violent. Try the same stunt in a refinery and I don't think you'll glue your hand to the wall twice.
It is opportunistic and shitty, and I also believe counterproductive.
> "we can't enjoy nature cause you're blowing it up, so you can't enjoy your precious art safe space."
What I hear is, "I'm a selfish, naive attention seeker who needs a decent spell in jail to think about my choices."
Hah, my internet in San Francisco is worse that it was... in San Francisco in the 90s.
My symmetric DSL then was faster than downstream-DOCSIS is now. I also have to keep a backup line, because Comcast here (SOMA) goes out about every other month, and I work from home. So I pay another $35 for MonkeyBrains, which is much slower, but more than nothing when Comcast is dead.
To paraphrase Gandhi, I think American capitalism would be a very good idea.
I would say proper attribution and credit is even more important in open source development than elsewhere.
My day job takes credit for my work, but compensates me in money. Pretty much the only "pay" for the vast majority of open source work is credit.
> it's hard to argue that Massimo did wrong to the community by popularizing Arduino
So who made that argument? I haven't seen anyone claim his marketing efforts were unethical.
But let's say you wrote a significant part of a book. I took your work, completed it, and published it as solely my work. It becomes wildly successful. Have I done anything wrong?
The revolutionary rightwingers are endlessly fragmentary - the militia, white supremacy and various theocratic movements each have a ton of complicated history of fragmentation and infighting.
I suspect the phenomenon is partly a function of relative powerlessness combined with the emotional high-stakes of being marginalized combined with the personalities attracted to such groups.
These things become substantially easier when approached correctly.
In this case, never run Oracle software. Not only will it vastly improve your mood during budget season; your developers will be less likely to stab you in your sleep and you will never worry about their primary line of business: lawsuits.
Sure. But the discussion was about "rich people self funding", with him as an example.
I have a couple ideas I would happily self-fund with the state's mid-10 digit assistance.
> I do however notice a general trend of seeing Libertarians on the dole.
If nothing else, it must help with finding the time to write freedom screeds.
More seriously, just about every rich person will tell you all about their bootstraps. I just wish fewer were crass enough to whine so loudly about others getting similar, ah, bootstrap assistance, to theirs.
Yes! This alone is worth the subscription to me.
And I despise and avoid software subscriptions, Kagi is my third.