Existing social platforms are built for profit, which modulates emotion for engagement (something kind of like entertainment, but I wouldn't say I'm entertained exactly by the rage bait I'm often fed by algorithms). Users of an open protocol might select for the same experience, or they might not, I think that's yet to be seen. This also assumes that this fantasy open protocol could also escape the pressures of maximizing profit.
I generally agree, pinning versions and then having some script to automatically update to capture security updates makes sense, except that it also assumes that every package is just using standard symver, which in my experience is something like 99% true.
But it's also missing the value of hashes, even if every package used symver, then you had a script that could easily update to get recent security updates, we would still gain value from a lockfile hashes to protect against source code changing underneath the same version code.
Some other cryptocurrency fixes this, maybe (big maybe). But as long as _Bitcoin_ is seen primarily as an investment opportunity it can't really function as a means of exchange. For the same reason that we expect and need USD to lose value over time, people need to be encouraged to exchange their currency, not sit on it forever.
Something doesn't need to be perfect to be an escape valve.
So for example, when backpage's speech was unlawfully suppressed by the US government via payment processors cutting them off in Operation Chokepoint, they successfully adopted Bitcoin.
... and then Kamala Harris aggressively prosecuted them for 'money laundering' for the evading the payment processor blockade, even though her own internal staff report said they were guilty of no crime and were a treasured asset of law enforcement in the fight against human trafficking ( https://reason.com/2019/08/26/secret-memos-show-the-governme... ). So aggressive was the prosecution that they caused a mistrial by flagrantly disregard of the court's orders, then prosecuted again leading the the suicide of one of the founders following a decade of vicious harassment by the state.
uh ... so maybe not the best example.
Or maybe it is the best example: The root cause in the abuse by payment processors is the US government leaning on them to abuse their subjective discretion to suppress lawful activity that the government is constitutionally prohibited in interfering with. This is both what underlies the schizophrenic response by mastercard, which likes money and would generally just prefer to process everything profitable, and is also why Steam would be taking a huge risk to route around them with alternate payment means.
Not sure what this says about me, but I ran into youtube putting a 3 video limit on me because I was using adblocking and when I hit that limit I just ended up going outside to have a lovely day. Honestly wish video limits was just a feature I could turn on.
Funny enough, awhile back they made it so that if you turned off watch history, they would disable the front page feed. Not sure if that was seen as a punishment to try to encourage people to turn back on watch history but that also ended up being a welcome change.
> if you turned off watch history, they would disable the front page feed
I wish that was a configureable feature. I do have watch history turned on, and I find it useful and want to keep it, but I would love to have a cleaner less noisy front page.
The engine approach seems like a solid advantage to me given that at least one decent browser has been built around it. Servo can ultimately support end users who just want a browser built off of it, and developers who want to build a browser with it. Ladybird can only support the former.
You got a back trap. When I try to navigate back from the playlist screen it goes to the processing screen, and then repeats the processing request every time I navigate back after that. Maybe a bit gnarly if that is kicking off the spotify fetch each time.
Aside from that, nice, I'm listening to one of the playlists right now.
Why do we need to keep replacing these jobs (or working hours perhaps)? If as a society we produce more for less work why is that bad? Why don’t we spend more time questioning the underlying system that makes efficiency improvements a bad thing?
