I started the campaign to move us from Bitbucket to Github before the Microsoft acquisition. If I knew MS would be involved, I'd have campaigned for something else. I would never recommend any Microsoft product.
It took ages for us to get permission and licenses. We only recently finished moving the last repos over and shut down Bitbucket.
If AWS offered a product like GH, I could probably unilaterally start moving to that. Any other alternative would take 3-4 years of meetings, budgets, lawyers, and other such nonsense before we could declare we'd left Github.
Safari because of the seamless integration with Apple platform features and because it is the most energy efficient browser while still being the most performant. It’s the best of all worlds.
If you are tied to apple ecosystem, then obviously Safari is going to be the fastest one since its apple specific so they can optimize it for their hardware, though I think with as powerful computers as we have right now, you can run almost any browser without performance issues
Same here, I love it. I've also caught quite a few Safari only bugs because I was "that one dev on the team who uses Safari" - everyone needs a Safari dev on their team.
I’m surprised that there is no discussion here about the practice of using NDAs to bypass / prevent residents of local communities from learning about data centers about to be built or being able to provide any kind of input via the democratic process before it’s too late and construction has already started.
People are royally pissed off by the sheer arrogance of these data center people and Silicon Valley assholes who think they can just impose their will on places.
It mildly upsets me, because I think the impulse to denigrate that which we oppose is a harmful one which, if cultivated, we can all too readily turn on people who don't deserve it. But it's not a real slur for real people. (Note that in Star Wars, where many people got this slur from, droids are – or at least, have the potential to be – people, albeit they are usually enslaved, and subject to arbitrary mind wipes.)
However, I couldn't care less about the feelings of chatbots. What I do care about is the feelings of the people to whom the slurs were originally directed, and (generally) the kind of culture that this creates. The use of slurs is a symptom, rather than a cause, but complaining about slurs does get people asking the kinds of questions you're asking, which is a positive.
I would not have said anything if the word "clanker", alone, had been used. But if you look at GP's other comments, I think you'll see evidence to support my musings about the kind of attitude that the practice of slur use cultivates.
"Retard" is a forbidden curse (read: slur) that holds great power in the English language.
I understand the risks of using this sort of language, and yet still I have determined that it is prudent to use the harshest rhetorical weapons that we have available to resist the large AI firms.
"Clanker" much less potent, much less powerful. I want an anti-AI slogan that stays in people's minds after they leave this comments section, and I think "AI is for retards" is that slogan.
The literal meaning of the word is "delayed", which seems less descriptive than the words you rejected in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49183728. Do you understand why this word is "forbidden"? What's the advantage over a more vulgar word like "fuckwit"?
So, you're trying to upset (former) bullying victims, while having the people you're trying to criticise dismiss you as a mere bully? I don't see how this is an effective strategy.
> “That movie was so developmentally disabled”.
Nobody says this, and it's been 14 years since this article was published. The euphemism treadmill continues up until people stop treating the attribute as slur-worthy – which was the primary goal of this campaign.
> For that reason I think these comments are going to stick with people once they leave this comments section.
No, this is going to stick with me, because it's an attitude that I find exceptionally annoying: constantly repeating "I have a noble cause, therefore I am in the right", when you've already said it once. I'm reasonably confident I'm going to forget the details of your message by the end of the week, because you are far from the only edgelord on the internet, and you all go into my mental bucket of "not worth listening to", but I will remember that you were obnoxious about whatever it is you were saying.
I have finally remembered which slur has been used! Not the slogan, though, even though I do remember that it's uncreative, so there are only three or four possibilities. It still doesn't come to mind in any context other than me re-reading this thread, though, so I'm going to have to call this a failure.
Funny, the same telecoms that whine about how hard this traffic is to stop... are also selling a "premium" service to customers- who then manually tag unwanted calls so that the telecom can sell that data back to other customers...
I don’t seem to be charged for Scam Shield on my account. I’ve had one unknown number call and not leave a message over the last month, which is a far cry from the 20–40 spam calls per day some people report.
There are a number of options. My view is that carrier-based filtering (rather than on-device filters) are where effort must be focused. Much as we learned with email: if you're routing traffic for many people, mass-contact attempts and patterns become quickly visible. Individuals see only a minuscule fraction of traffic, networks see overall patterns.
The other element is that carriers can act at the network level, noting how much abusive traffic arrives from given peers, and taking direct action against those peers. That could involve rejecting traffic outright, subjecting it to stronger challenges, and/or diverting it to investigative / law-enforcement bodies (I'd suggest both national and state entities) for both tracking and enforcement. Power-law relations mean that at any given time, a small number of networks will account for the overwhelming majority of spam, though which networks will likely change over time.
The key problem with this is getting the carriers to act, which ... will probably involve a few carrots and sticks. I'll address those in another comment, except to mention bonding: <https://oag.ca.gov/consumers/general/telreg>.[1]
Individual action will not solve this problem, but there are steps you can take.
Most major US carriers now offer some form of robocall blocking. "Scam Shield" from T-Mobile, "ActiveArmor" from AT&T, "Call Filter" from Verizon.
MVNOs (mobile virtual network operators) may or may not offer scam / robocall blocking themselves (though IMO they should, and should be required to). Some will identify spam calls, but those are still passed through to your handset.
Beyond this, there are on-device apps which can be used, some are carrier-based (e.g., "Call Filter Plus", from Verizon, similar tools exist for Verizon and AT&T), some are third-party. These of necessity share your voice/text activity with third parties, which is its own concern and consideration.
Full Android, iOS, and several full-featured Android alternatives (GrapheneOS, /e/OS, LineageOS, etc.) offer unknown caller rejection. Numbers not in your contact list are directed to voicemail. At present, few spam calls will leave voicemail, though some do, and as AI expands in capabilities, applications, and adoption this will all but certainly increase. I'd strongly encourage use of this.
Feature phones / dumbphones ... have far less capability. Most cannot even reject unknown numbers, which ... seems a ripe target for legislation and/or regulation. Phone frameworks such as AOSP / KaiOS seem to afford little capability for even creating a call-blocking app. This and other dumb devices (e.g., traditional landlines) are a strong argument for carrier/network level mitigations.
It classifies calls into three categories: high, medium, and low risk.
It adjudicates calls based on risk.
High-risk calls are terminated entirely.
Medium-risk calls are directed to voicemail.
Low-risk calls are subjected to an audio CAPTCHA (enter a two digit value to ring through), otherwise are directed to voicemail.
(It's not clear whether or not a whitelisted number will escape any treatment, perhaps subject to conditions such as originating from the appropriate/approved network for that call.)
I haven't used that system, but in advising people still moving off landlines, or looking at VOIP solutions, it's making Comcast an attractive option.
(I don't know what other VOIP providers, say, Twillo or Asterisk, offer, but suspect at least some have similar if not more-capable systems.)
________________________________
Notes:
1. California requires a $100,000 bond by all telemarketers in the state. The state has a small fraction of the incidence of robocalls of the worst US states. Several others have some bond. My view is that bonding should apply at the carrier level and be surrenderable to both contacted individuals and downstream peering networks, to provide both a strong financial penalty to abusers, and an incentive to downstream networks to pursue abusive calls.
