I use it all the time without any VPN and haven’t had any issues. I watch almost all youtube videos in MPV, which uses yt-dlp to get the video. I download any video I may want to watch again later to my server.
I never used a VPN with it. I’ve been using it for years. I figured I’m getting it directly for YouTube. Google already knows my IP. I figured they wouldn’t care unless I abuse it anyway.
Some years ago, Pussy Riot put out information on how to use Makeup to confound face detection algorithms.
On an unrelated note: This is probably going to be blocked in ML because I used the word “pussy”. I wonder why that instance has a problem with me mentioning that word. Could it be perhaps the name of a feminist anarchist group activity resisting domestic Russian oppression? No, I’m sure that’s a coincidence.
Edit: Ty to everyone who helped correct my misunderstanding. The feedback has been informative, but I’ll leave my comment as-is so people reading have context incase they also have misconceptions.
What if a farmer wants to join the instance and comments about waking up to the cock singing, finding the bitches in heat and gathering faggots from the yard
AFAIK .ml doesn’t automatically block comments from other instances containing slurs, they only automatically block slurs from being posted by their own users.
Writing good comments is an art form, and beginner programmers often struggle with it. They know comments mostly from their text books, where the comments explain what is happening to someone who doesn’t yet know programming, and nobody has told them yet that that is not at all a useful commenting style outside of education. So that’s how they use them. It usually ends up making the code harder to read, not easier.
Later on, programmers will need to learn a few rules about comments, like:
Assume that whoever reads your code knows the programming language, the platform and the problem domain at least in general terms. You are not writing a teaching aid, you are writing presumably useful software.
Don’t comment the obvious. (Aside from documentation comments for function/method/class signatures)
Don’t comment what a line is doing. Instead, write your code, especially names for variables, constants, classes, functions, methods and so on, so that they produce talking code that needs no comments. Reserve the “what” style comments for where that just isn’t possible.
Do comment the why. Tell the reader about your intentions and about big-picture issues. If an if-statement is hard to parse, write a corresponding if clause in plain English on top of it.
In some cases, comment the “why not”, to keep maintenance programmers from falling in the same trap you already found.
Comments should be part of code review, having at least two pairs of eyes on comments is crucial. Something that’s obvious to one person maybe isn’t so obvious to another. Writing good comments is as hard or harder than writing good code, so having it checked for mistakes and quality is a must
Comments aren’t the actual documentation and aren’t a reason not to write documentation to go along with your code. Often I see larger projects where each class and function is documented in comments, but the big picture and the how and why of the overall structure is completely missing. Remember that in the real world you often have a lot of folk that need to understand how the code works, who aren’t programmers themselves. They can’t read the code or don’t have access to the code. Writing documentation is still important.
Please for the love of god when you change code, check if the comments need to be updated as well. Not just around the immediate area, but also the entire file/class and related files. I’ve worked on large codebases before with a high wtf factor and having the code do something different to or even opposite the comments is a nightmare. I’d rather have no comments than wrong comments.
This is a notoriously bad book. If you read the part about comments (which I don’t know about, and am willing to accept is good) make sure to skip everything else because Robert Martin is a fraud.
I would argue that if an if statement is hard to parse, replace the entire condition with simpler to read (but way more specific) variables that you assign values (the original condition expression) in the line above. No need for comments in that case
In this day and age of source control I don’t think this is fully necessary. If you want to know the why, you can look into the commit history and see which ticket is connected to it. There you might even see the discussions around the ticket as well. But this requires good source control discipline.
Why not put the “why” in a comment and save people the job of dredging through old commits and tickets to figure out what the code is for? I’d thank someone for saving me the hassle.
Going back to the original ticket can offer far more info than what any “why” comment can give. You can see how old it is, if there are any connected tickets, who were involved with it, step by step instructions how to reproduce the bug, etc.
In any modern IDE “dredging through old commits” means clicking a single button to see who last changed the line. From there it often makes sense to go look at the PR to see a higher level of what was changed. You cannot include all of that context in a single comment.
Don’t comment what a line is doing. Instead, write your code, especially names for variables, constants, classes, functions, methods and so on, so that they produce talking code that needs no comments.
Over and over and over again in my experience this just doesn’t work. Readable code does not substitute for comments about what the code should be doing.
Sad to see. Feels like Lemmy has no bright future with people in charge of it thinking russia’s and China’s government is good and ban difference of thoughts, opinions, and beliefs.
It turns out the supply & demand story of economics is basically horseshit, and if you look at how the economy works scientifically - which in this case just means paying attention to what actually happens and letting that shape your theories rather than demanding that your theories are correct and patching them ad-hoc to pretend you were always right - then essentially inflation is caused by price setters just hiking prices.
This is a decent interview with the authors where they also talk about how orthodox economists gatekeep their theories and launder other’s theories so they never have to admit they were wrong:
If we still had “real” competition, this wouldn’t have happened. Even during the pandemic competition would’ve/should’ve kept prices normal-ish. But of course we all know this isn’t how it works. Turns out that if a dozen or so companies own the grand majority of whatever their industry is, they behave like monopolists. Who could’ve possibly predicted such a thing?
There was this bearded fellow in the 1800’s, but I’m sure he had no idea what he was talking about.
This is more of a failure of government rather than a failure of capitalism.
In democracies, people can vote to tax the wealthy corporations and give food vouchers to the middle and lower classes.
The problem with a marketplace with too few unique sellers is they don’t have to agree to raise prices, they just know no one is going to lower them to try to gain market share.
The government should have done something or broken up larger companies and it did nothing. Capitalism isn’t the problem, weak governments and terrible leaders are the problem.
Biden could have spearheaded hauling the leaders of every supermarket into a congressional hearing to ask questions that would have resulted in downward price movement. Congress could have passed “increased profit taxes” so that if corporations selling inelastic goods had profit increases over 10% and price increases over 10% on the top 5 of their best selling goods, then a large tax would kick in. Price gouging taxes could have taxed the profits on any store that raised prices by over 20% per quarter. Any of these things would have reduced the problem. I am surprised Elizabeth Warren didn’t get anything passed because despite all of her past problems (rising in academia though misrepresentation), she’s incredibly smart with policy, she just doesn’t know how to scream and yell at people to get her point across.
But most government leaders are feckless and lazy and stupid. That’s the sad reality.
If a democrat got on TikTok screaming about these policies and yelling that Republicans are being selfish and fucking over the middle class, they would have been passed. I have thought about going on TikTok myself and ranting and raving but I have a complex past and I’m not sure how people would respond and I am concerned about TikTok’s collection of data.
There’s not been actual LEGISLATION that could be effective.
The lazy ineffective government controlling even more of society through Marxism is not the answer. Better people need to run for office.
Ultimately, what is going to happen is somehow the Democrats are going to get Newsom into office to try to be Bill Clinton II and he’ll enact mediocre policies that will be slightly better than the shit that’s been going on and he’ll be praised for being slightly less than mediocre. But the downward spiral of society will continue because ultimately, the math of global warming will kill us all, so none of this will matter. Newsom isn’t smart enough to veer away from the cliff of doom the world is barreling towards, but he’ll make some meaningless gestures and look good with great hair and be self-aggrandizing and people will feel better prior to everyone dying.
100%. Unfortunately, somewhere down the line, American style neoclassical economics because simply “economics” or even worse “just basic economics.” Suddenly tax breaks for the rich became the all curing treatment for any economic ailment.
Too much money to spend on healthcare? Tax cuts for the rich.
Too little money to spend on healthcare? Also tax cuts for the rich.
In terms of fixing every problem even, I’m yet to hear what it can’t do.
My favourite was when you had every economically illiterate stock bro in existence claiming along the lines of “no, I’ve glanced at a couple of margin calculations i made for 2 companies, at one point in the supply chain, and, as such, I know price gouging couldn’t possibly have happened.” They dont know enough about inventory keeping to explain to them that they can’t tell either way, bless them.
I recall Bush II starting his first term saying that the economy was doing so great that we had a budget surplus, and that had to be given back to the people* via tax breaks.
Then, before that could happen, the economy hit the shitter, and he said we needed to encourage the economy to recover by giving tax breaks to the people*.
I would love to read more about how supply and demand is bullshit, but that is NOT a credible source. it’s just some guy’s blog. I’m sure it’s an interesting read but it would be intellectually irresponsible for me to disbelieve a fundamental principle of economics based on a source like that
I understand that, but if you read the first section, there are reputable sources quoted that simply admit that they have no good working model of inflation, and that supply & demand does not explain it.
Also if you actually go looking for the science that establishes the supply & demand model, it’s not really there. The supply & demand “graph” is actually just an illustration. It doesn’t come from anywhere. It’s a story mainstream economists tell, not a reality.
How old were you in 2008? Because I saw some really ugly racism directed at him both when he was running and during that first term. It went up, not down.
Yeah, that’s probably why. I’m 38 and racism has always been prevalent here. If anything, I’d say it was worse when Obama was president because all the racists/White Supremacists didn’t want a black guy running the country since it has been white guys since the 1700s.
Some live a more sheltered life, and there’s always a varying degree of racism in different areas.
My experience was of becoming an adult right around that time, which just meant other adults were now suddenly ok being openly racist around me, and boy did they have a lot to say around that time.
Holy crap haha. No, I either forgot or dont remember and had to look it up. Man, they didn’t even wait for the man to get in office before selling racist memorabilia.
I have had the misfortune of reading comments from dimwits writing that racism was ended but Obama brought it back. Really pleased to be off of reddit now.
My experience as a suburban white kid growing up in the Reagan era was that racism was just something to learn about in history class. Part of me really misses being that naive.
I feel like this communith is mostly suited for asking questions about things you feel like you ought to know, because everybody seems to know it naturally.
It can range from “How do I properly clean my foreskin?” to “what is ffmpeg and why is everybody using it?”, but not “Who’s the current president of Turkey?” nor “How do I calculate the circumference of a sphere?”
It’s noy questions that can be answered by a “simple google search”, but questions that might be answered by a single google search, but only if you know what to search for.
can range from “How do I properly clean my foreskin?” to “what is ffmpeg and why is everybody using it?”, but not “Who’s the current president of Turkey?” nor “How do I calculate the circumference of a sphere?”
I am impressed that you have four closely related questions right off the top of your head!
I think a lot of people also misuse the word and use it as a catch-all for companies doing something they don’t like.
Raising prices is not enshittification, that’s inflation.
Not paying employees well is not enshittification, that’s under-compensation.
YouTube putting more ads in their videos including when the video is paused isn’t enshittification that’s… wait no that is enshittification.
Enshittification refers to offering the same service (often free, or at least with an option to pay more) but making it worse in order to squeeze you onto a paid (or higher paid) tier of service. This sounds good to shareholders but ultimately it alienates their customers and often leads to a company dying.
I understand it to mean the general life cycle of corporations: first valuing users, then shareholders, then themselves, then dying. A quote from Doctorow:
Here is how platforms die: first, they are good to their users; then they abuse their users to make things better for their business customers; finally, they abuse those business customers to claw back all the value for themselves. Then, they die. I call this enshittification, and it is a seemingly inevitable consequence arising from the combination of the ease of changing how a platform allocates value, combined with the nature of a “two sided market”, where a platform sits between buyers and sellers, hold each hostage to the other, raking off an ever-larger share of the value that passes between them.
By that definition, everything you described is a likely consequence of enshittification (paying employees less, charging more, more ads, etc.). But the word itself refers to how the company’s values shift over time.
This seems similar to Wall Street’s “profits must increase every quarter” approach. Once a business gets somewhat popular, Wall St. types start sniffing around and offer to take it public. Once public, Wall St. wrings more profits out of the business every quarter until service/products collapse and customers flee elsewhere.
Exactly. Whatever product or service a business provides, once it goes public, the primary goal becomes profit–everything else is secondary and subject to removal if it promotes the primary objective. Shareholders don’t care about the long-term viability of the business–once it peaks, they’ll sell and move on. Basically a financial swarm of locusts.
At a certain point, a company’s primary product becomes its stock. Share buybacks, short term gains, etc become the strategy. The goal is no longer to create value for customers, but to create value for shareholders.
new platforms offer useful products and services at a loss, as a way to gain new users. Once users are locked in, the platform then offers access to the userbase to suppliers at a loss, and once suppliers are locked-in, the platform shifts surpluses to shareholders.
So, it
gives users a warped sense of what they deserve by giving away a costly service, and running competitors out of business.
Then it puts a stranglehold on suppliers by holding users hostage.
Then it fucks everybody by extracting value for shareholders.
Enshittification refers to offering the same service (often free, or at least with an option to pay more) but making it worse in order to squeeze you onto a paid (or higher paid) tier of service
It doesn’t have to be a paid service, it can also refer to (and usually does) a two-sided market. For example, a site with free users and advertisers. The platform first gains a critical mass of users, then they switch to focus more on the paying advertisers to increase value for shareholders. Over time, the main focus becomes the advertisers.
Honestly, I feel like you’re being bizarrely calm about the situation. This is so far beyond unacceptable that one or both of them should be immediately fired for this offense, lest you have an open-and-shut hostile work environment lawsuit on your hands.
I would make sure to keep the text as evidence and let HR know about it. If the guys are somehow not fired, and ever approach you again or try to retaliate in any way, go consult a lawyer.
yeah OP needs to provide this detail specifically as it changes everything.
If the Ethernet jack was not on a desk, then it wasn’t there for them to use. If they unplugged a cable to make it accessible, that is unfortunately enough to be considered tampering.
If an Ethernet jack was not expressly provided, unoccupied, at the technology access station then yes the access to Ethernet information facilities was unauthorized and illegitimate and could carry legal ramifications. Say what you want about proprietary wifi drivers, you get the access you are given and any attempts to gain further access without authorization are defined as intrusion attempts and will more likely than not be treated as such to some degree. Because honestly, the libraries aren’t funded enough to have great security and Ethernet security is harder than WiFi security in practice, despite the challenges being characterized by the same principles.
Yeah, any half decent city IT department will at least be using port filtering for their switches anyways. Unless a port is specifically set up to provide open access to the internet, all OP would be able to do is bonk against the city IT’s MAC address filter until the port was disabled for having an unrecognized device/suspicious activity.
In my building, (and pretty much any city building I’ve ever worked in,) only specific ports were set up to provide open internet access. And usually those ports are in places that need to be unlocked, and which OP wouldn’t have ready access to without a fun little bit of breaking and entering. Because those ports aren’t intended for the general public to use; They’re meant for presenters, speakers, clients who have rented a room for the day, etc… The general public is meant to use the free wifi. Because there’s a different level of service expected if you’re renting a room, vs simply camping out all day in the quiet study area.
When OP tries to bypass that by plugging straight in, the switch will just go “lol git fukd loser” and disable the port. Of fucking course they weren’t able to access anything, because the port isn’t there for OP; It’s for the IT department to be able to use whenever they need to set up a new computer, or book checkout station, or simply to plug their city-owned laptop in to be able to use the city network.
kbin.life
Top