There’s security and possible support implications, and a general concept of reducing data use and storage, but I don’t see why they should take precedence for something like this.

Overall, yes, it can’t be significantly more than a few database records sitting around. The avatar image is probably more data than the rest of the account metadata.

Well, shit. I only recently started using Trilium. If it were only some Claude commits, I would probably ignore it. But with your documented bad/issue experience, I guess I’ll seek alternatives.

I checked for price now. Not even PC yet. It costs 80 € or 100 €.

Great cgi movie :p

it seems to me that he is almost admitting that he wiped the phone intentionally,

Seems like he’s trying to change the system, to do a public good, rather than only escape his conviction.

I appreciate that they challenge the system, even if it’s not individually advisable and at significant personal risk.

You call them anti imperialist while cheering for imperialist states.

What do you think is bullshit? It’s an investigation since 2010. The court document is quite extensive in their documentation.

What I didn’t like is the article title focusing on scan targets rather than successful targets. Which doesn’t seem related to govt influence.

Recent email: “get a 4k € reward”; reading beyond the teaser/bait, it’s a raffle you buy into with points, which I interpreted as you won’t win anyway, so it’s just throwing the points away.

21.3 percent disable automatic emergency braking outright

For HGVs and buses, the law changed to prevent drivers from deactivating them so they can driver closer to the vehicle in front.

Those changes were raised after crash inquiries which found some lorry drivers regularly switch off their AEB systems to drive closer to the vehicle in front. The regulation change will limit system deactivation to 15 minutes with automatic re-engagement after 15 minutes. - Wikipedia

I don’t know about their quality and false-positive rate in cars, and maybe car usage is simply different, but I’m sure automatic emergency braking prevents many accidents.

A security advisor at work recommends migrating to SaaS so we don’t have to manage any of the infrastructure. This makes me wonder.

These topics often get “why is it even connected to the internet” comments. This makes me wonder if they’re buying a “complete system solution” where it’s not an operator decision but a manufacturer decision, and maybe even reasonable in regards to generally being accessible and manageable, with critical systems separated within the whole-bundle system. But often, the necessary safeguards and system separation are not in place anyway. Offloading responsibility doesn’t mean it gets done well, unfortunately.

I’ve played a diverse set of incremental games. I can certainly see where you’re coming from. Many follow the same or similar formula and don’t add enough interesting story or other elements. Eventually, or sometimes very quickly, become boring.

There are some good ones out there too, though. That add a story and continuous progression, or a spin on or focus on gameplay over the incremental progression system.

I recently played The Last Cat in the Universe, which is only two hours long. So “for an hour or two” can end while it’s still good. :)

FAQ says

Jack Dorsey doesn’t own Divine, although he has provided funding through a grant from And Other Stuff (AOS). He holds no equity and has no ownership. He supports projects like Divine to advance open protocols without VC-led, extractive business models.

I guess it was important enough to point out.

(just quoting for context; I can’t say anything about the claim)

When Twitter shut down Vine in 2017, volunteer archivists from ArchiveTeam and the Internet Archive preserved a large collection of public videos before deletion.

Divine (which is unaffiliated with Vine or Twitter/X) has imported some of these archived videos and is giving them a permanent home on decentralized media servers. Archived videos are marked with a special badge.

Interesting. Certainly a good way to prefill the platform with some content. I guess it’s kinda questionable if you think about ownership, copyright, and the original authors. Depending on how you see it.

That’s a very dark take, but not wrong, unfortunately.

Even if it’s not their core business focus, I feel like having such a significant presence in a market has a lot of value for them. I don’t think a sell off would be a good business move. Part of large org strategy is wide prevalence so you can’t get around it. Onboard and catch into the ecosystem.

I don’t know how they see it, though. Your view/arguments also make sense

We need more technical devs and artists in leading roles. Even then, the time change can lead to behavior and view changes. But they remain much more founded and knowledgeable after having practiced and worked the art than any business, law, or management person could ever be.

The other half is actually caring for the product and people.

The statement alone is already very problematic, but even worse when you put it next to their own written policies.

These pages and individual creators posted content that appeared to be in clear violation of Facebook’s own hate speech policies.

I’m aware of extrinsic motivation vs intrinsic motivation, about the potential upsides and downsides, the potentially positive or detrimental effects of achievements.

I often do chase or consider achievements, but also explore games and their limits or what they cover anyway. I do like completing, especially if 100% is feasible. Other times I ignore them and focus on the game. If the game is not very captivating or interesting, I often don’t care much about achievements.

I did find incremental progression games interesting in how they make the extrinsic motivation, the numbers-go-up system, the core game mechanic. It’s interesting to explore and be mindful of how that can be fun, but in a different way than creative, exploratory, or story games. Of course, some mix both systems.

Potentially, this is not about stopping them. Can Wikimedia provide this copyleft-licensed data to AI companies when it knows they will ingest it and reproduce it without any copyleft? Lawfully? Morally? Maybe the act itself legitimizes the transformation into non-copyleft form?

If the authors, the contributors to Wikipedia, feel like their work is being stolen, the managing org should not sell and benefit from these acts but at the very least stay neutral or represent and act upon their contributor’s values.

I don’t know how they all feel about it, but the article makes a valid argument saying that copyleft is not retained. And the org actively participating in these activities with the other context provided by the article, it seems malicious/toxic/high discrepancy to the community values.

Out of tokens; I’ll come back with a response next month.