This is starting to look suspicious. I have seen several threads redacted in a similar way in the last days, and all of them don’t disclose the search term. When disclosed in comments everybody answer, it works ok for me. Common factor, in all threads there is advertising for paid kagi search engine. Connecting the dots, I think this is just a marketing campaign spamming lemmy forums (and probably others)
This should be higher up… This whole topic is such a big nothing burger. OP and everyone jumping on the Google sucks bandwagon most likely just suck at using a search engine or run into shitty AI articles (which you can’t really blame on your search engine of choice either…)
I personally have 0 issues to find whatever I’m looking for in 3-4 searches at most. Skill issue rather than algorithm issue imo.
While i do think people are exaggerating that google is useless, and the kagi push on lemmy is suspiciously strong, I do still hate what google has become. It lies to me almost every time I ask it what movie an actor has been in.
google claims Alan Tudyk is in Andor when he isn’t. There are one or two articles of people suggesting that he might end up in Andor, but nothing official. Google pulls from the rumors and says “yep, he’s clearly in Andor”. The way i search this is by typing just an actors name then clicking the “movies and tv” option.
I scrolled the comments and some comments are about some paid search engine, definitely seems suspicious and especially when OP didn’t give us any of his search parameters.
I tried " movie woman assassin cold war" and one of the first results was “Atomic Blonde”, which is what I was trying to get at. I then searched “movie two guys solve a murder comedy”, the first link was some IMDb list about comedy/murder films that also had a bunch of buddy cups cop films on it and number 19 on that list was “The Nice Guys”, which is what I was getting at. I would really want to know what this guy searched for because I refuse to believe he spent an hour searching and didn’t find it. I don’t remember the last time that happened to me honestly. Even the two times I tried just now were pretty generic (especially the second one) and yet I found them quickly.
I could probably write a RegEx for email format validation that’s accurate, but why would I when there are ones already written and readily available that covers all possible legit variations on the standard? I never understood why people insist on writing their own (crap) RegEx for something with as many possible variations they can miss like email…
And that one isn’t even a weird edge case! It’s a domain with a sub domain, if they can’t even cover that case then it’s an extra shitty RegEx
Let’s see your regex pattern that covers every possible valid email address and rejects all invalid then. It’s not remotely as easy as you’re making it out to be.
Not saying this isn’t a shitty pattern, but you can’t make a claim like that.
What claim, that I probably could? I didn’t say anything at all about it being easy, it would be a pain in the ass and involve a lot of checking the RFC, but I could probably make one that accurately represents the spec if I wanted to take the time, and even then I’m not exactly confident I would hit every edge case.
But why would I go to that hassle when there are well designed and vetted ones available?
The full email address syntax described in the RFC cannot be precisely matched with a mere regular expression due to the support for nested comments. The need to track arbitrarily deep nesting state makes it a non-regular language.
If you remove the comments first the remainder can be parsed with a very complex regex, but it will be about a kilobyte long.
Probably, from what I can see the address in question isn’t really that exotic. but an email regex that validates 100% correctly is near impossible. And then you still don’t know if the email address actually exists.
I’d just take the user at their word and send an email with an activation link to the address that was supplied. If the address is invalid, the mail won’t get delivered. No harm done.
Personally I don’t think that sucks or is even wrong. Case-independent text processing is more cumbersome. ‘U’ and ‘u’ are two different symbols. And you have to make such rules for every language a part of your processing logic.
If people can take case-dependence for passwords (or official letters and their school papers), then it’s also fine for email addresses.
The actual problem is cultural, coming from DOS and Windows where many things are case-independent. It’s an acquired taste.
“If people can take case-dependence for passwords”
They cant now do they ? If they could passwords would be a-okay and there wouldn’t be any need for stickies on monitors, password managers, biometrics, SSO, MFA and passwordless authentication.
The dumbest idea in computing is assuming everyone is as smart as you.
They aren’t. Why isn’t *nix any bigger? Here’s your answer. People are stupid.
Why did IT only finally took off with windows 3.11? because people could understand that. Barely. Most of us where way to dumb for everything which came before.
Why does ipv6 acception takes so long? Because people are stupid and don’t get it. Nobody really gets hex. So they just stay with what they can read and more or less get. Even the hardest part of ip4, subnetting, has an easy way out: just add 255.255.255.0 in there and it works. Doesnt work? Keep replacing 255 with zeros and eventually it will. Subnetting on ipv6? No idea. Let’s just disable ipv6 on the internal lan and leave everything on ipv4. Zero migration, zero risk, zero training needed.
Why do so many companies only go half assed into cloud? Because they don’t get it.
Powershell? Only half, a third even, of the admins truly get it.
Oh, I like writing such rants too, so I’ll answer with lots of words.
They cant now do they ? If they could passwords would be a-okay and there wouldn’t be any need for stickies on monitors, password managers, biometrics, SSO, MFA and passwordless authentication.
Hardware tokens. With sufficient demand the scale would make them really cheap.
It’s exactly because of having experience with making work the whole zoo that engineers don’t understand how much easier that would be for normies.
The dumbest idea in computing is assuming everyone is as smart as you.
Assuming that everyone is as dumb as me in areas where I’m dumb would also be a mistake.
Why isn’t *nix any bigger? Here’s your answer. People are stupid.
Because of oligopoly. People are not stupid, but they have priorities and they don’t have some of the knowledge we have. Also it doesn’t really have to be that big immediately, all in good time.
Why did IT only finally took off with windows 3.11? because people could understand that. Barely. Most of us where way to dumb for everything which came before.
Can’t comment on that, I was born in 1996.
Why does ipv6 acception takes so long? Because people are stupid and don’t get it. Nobody really gets hex. So they just stay with what they can read and more or less get. Even the hardest part of ip4, subnetting, has an easy way out: just add 255.255.255.0 in there and it works. Doesnt work? Keep replacing 255 with zeros and eventually it will. Subnetting on ipv6? No idea. Let’s just disable ipv6 on the internal lan and leave everything on ipv4. Zero migration, zero risk, zero training needed.
Because not everything supports it right, including some industrial equipment and network hardware, there may be new bugs in everything involved, the old ways work and it’s not just v4 with longer address, so people fear making mistakes in configuration.
Why do so many companies only go half assed into cloud? Because they don’t get it.
Now think about similar horrors in, say, piping in houses, or other construction stuff. Or cars. Or roads. Everything is half-assed. It’s normal.
Powershell? Only half, a third even, of the admins truly get it.
I kinda get it, but also hate it. Hard to read.
In general:
The most precious secret you can get from experience is that people are not stupid when they are given easy opportunity to try many things and choose what they like.
‘U’ and ‘u’ are two different symbols. And you have to make such rules for every language a part of your processing logic.
Unicode has standard rules for case folding, which includes the rules for all languages supported by Unicode. Case-insensitive comparisons in all good programming languages uses this data.
It’s that capitalization is language dependent, which email addresses shouldn’t be as I hope the rules for France shouldn’t be different than for Dutch. For instance é in Dutch is capitalized as E, but in French it is É. The eszett didn’t even have an official capital before 2017
In most programming languages, case-insensitive string compare without specifying the culture became deprecated. It should imo only be used for fuzzy searching doubles, which you probably will do with ToUpper for performance reasons, or maybe some UI validation.
For instance é in Dutch is capitalized as E, but in French it is É
Sure, but we’re just talking about string comparison rules, and Unicode sees all three of those as being equal. For example, a search engine that uses proper case folding rules in its indexer should return results for “entrée” if you search for “entree”, “Čech” if you search for “cech”, etc.
It should imo only be used for fuzzy searching doubles, which you probably will do with ToUpper
You can’t just use ToUpper for comparisons due to issues like you mentioned, and the Turkish i problem. You need to do proper case-insensitive comparisons, which is where the Unicode case folding rules are used.
offtopic: The eszett strictly speaking was a ligature for ‘sz’, which Hungarian orthography kinda preserved while for German the separated version is ‘ss’, and there’s plenty of such stuff in nature.
In most programming languages, case-insensitive string compare without specifying the culture became deprecated. It should imo only be used for fuzzy searching doubles, which you probably will do with ToUpper on all four performance reasons, or maybe some UI validation.
Actually, one of our customers found out the hard way that there is harm in sending emails to invalid addresses. Too many kickbacks and cloud services think you’re a bot. Prevented the customer from being able to send emails for 24 hours.
This is the result of them “requiring” an email for customers but entering a fake one if they didn’t want to provide their email, and then trying to send out an email to everyone.
Our software has an option to disable that requirement but they didn’t want to use it because they wanted their staff to remember to ask for an email address. It was not a great setup but they only had themselves to blame.
My guess is that would also occur with valid but non-existing e-mail addresses no? The regex would not be a remedy there anyway.
Of course you should only use the supplied e-mail address for things like mass mailings once it has been verified (i.e. the activation link from within the mail was clicked)
That’s exactly what they did. They used something like [email protected] to get around the checks we had in place. I’ve intentionally been vague but most people will give their email address to our customers and won’t give a fake one. So under normal situations the amount of bounce backs would be minimal: fat fingering, hearing them incorrectly, or people misremembering their email. Not enough to worry about. Never thought we’d come across a customer intentionally putting in bad email addresses for documentation purposes. They could have just asked us to make the functionality they wanted.
TLDs are valid in emails, as are IP V6 addresses, so checking for a . is technically not correct. For example a@b and a@[IPv6:2001:db8::1] are both valid email addresses.
try [email protected] or user@d.e.a.d.b.e.e.f.0.1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.a.b.c.d.e.f.0.0.0.0.1.2.3.4.ip6.arpa just for the giggles. Mix it with BANG-Adressing:
TLDs could theoretically have MX records too! Email addresses as specified also support IPv6 addresses! The regex would need to be .+@.+ and at this point it’s probably easier to just send an email.
I’m with you, and I agree that is technically correct, but I believe the sheer number of people who might accidentally write “gmail” instead of “gmail.com” compared to people using an IPv6 address (seems like a spam bot) or using a TLD like “admin@com” make requiring the dot worthwhile.
That’s not a contradiction. Your, my, and everyone’s bed is for sleeping in. The beds in that store are for accumulation of wealth. This displays the harsh efficiencies of capitalism, because the people in the most need for a bed cannot afford to have one.
100%. I have yet to see somewhere that sells display furniture/appliances at full price, usually they knock some off due to shop guests messing around with it, wear and tear
Right but equally it’s not the mattress company’s job to accommodate the homeless person. It’s not like they didn’t have to pay an inflated price from the manufacturer so if they sold it for the price of the materials they’d probably make a loss.
I mean I don’t even wanna know how often the average person changes their sheets, let alone their mattress. My parents have mattresses in spare bedrooms older than me.
Honestly though, display beds aren’t as scary to me as hotel beds
SPARE BEDROOMS?!! By this you mean they have beds to spare and yet are not allowing unhoused individuals to sleep in them?? How very dare they. Guest rooms should be illegal. Everyone with a bedroom to spare gets a mini homeless shelter in their house.
Especially because unless you’ve solved the limited resources problem, then even in a utopia you’re still going to have to have something like money, and therefore you will still have things that some people have that other people don’t have.
Define ‘limited.’ Because limits include trained manpower, right? There’s only a certain amount of that. Our ability to provide certain drugs for everyone who might need them are limited by the number of people trained to make them. This is true of virtually any industry. It is as limited as the number of people who can make it usable. And that is usually not an ‘anyone can do this’ issue.
Labor of any stripe is abundant. In an economy that doesn’t prioritize profit, people would be able to pursue specialized jobs that they want to contribute towards. For example, after the modernization of the USSR, they had the most doctors of any country in the world and healthcare was made accessible for millions of people. Our growth as a society is limited by the amount of cooperative labor we have available, but it’s not a limited resource.
In contrast, capitalism is reliant on a reserve pool of labor to keep wages down. If someone remains in the reserves for too long, they become homeless because every aspect of life has been commodified.
I’m not talking about labor, I’m talking about specialized labor. Which is limited not just to numbers but to numbers willing to be trained in that field.
Pharmacology? It’s a science like any other. Pharmacists talk constantly about how their wages are actively being depressed because of intentional understaffing. The hypothetical you’re presenting is a reality under capitalism.
No it isn’t. It’s due to training. You can’t just walk into a production facility and start making Zoloft. And there is absolutely no guarantee that you will get enough people trained to know how to make Zoloft to keep up with demand. Because that, in part, is based on people’s willingness to work in a Zoloft production facility.
So unless you’re talking about forced labor, that is an example of supply not necessarily meeting demand.
Zoloft is mass manufactured in vats that produce thousands of pills each. Unfortunately the pharmacists that created Zoloft for Pfizer probably didn’t see a lot of benefit from it. Zoloft saw supply chain issues in the pandemic because of “just in time” supply chain practices.
I feel like you’re imagining boutique drugs in this conversation. Boutique drugs are made onsite, typically in small pharmacies that specialize in making that drug, and are made for extremely rare conditions. I think people would flock to the field to solve all sorts of conditions that effected them or someone close to them
Which things? Because all historical sources show that the bottom 10% had all the bare necessities for life. They didn’t have luxury apartments, but they had a roof. They weren’t eating steak every night, but they had more caloric input and healthier diets than US citizens.
I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, so I’ll edit this comment if I find more relevant information, but so far I’ve only found one paragraph related to food inequality, and it seems to disagree with you:
the figures shown represent average nutrient levels on a per capita per day basis for the USSR as a whole. They do not indicate the differences that exist in the diets of different population groups, which preliminary research indicates are substantial.
The problem isn’t lack of shelter. There’s enough shelter available for the homeless. They just choose not to use it because it comes with rules like no drugs and (often) no pets.
Best method we have found so far. If you want cookie cutter efficient ass state made beds you can move off to the.... Well, every state who has tried has collapsed so you're shit out of luck.
Again- a limited labor pool means a limited number of the drug that can be developed. That means that only a limited amount can be distributed, which might not be enough to provide it for everyone who needs it.
It’s obvious that we see labor differently. I don’t consider labor to be a commodity, and therefore I don’t think any of the concerns you raised about labor shortages are something worth worrying about.
Actually, I can. Because I did. On a fundamental level, we disagree about what labor is. Labor is not a commodity. It’s treated like a commodity within capitalism, but it’s plain and simply not a commodity.
Let's imagine I had 100 rocks. For some reason I have to move them in order to feed everyone.
If I have one person I can move one rock a day.
With two people I can move two rocks.
And so on and so forth.
There is a labor demand - the need to move rocks.
And a labor supply - the number of people you have available to move rocks.
You can't mind game your way out of that. Call it a commodity or not, you still need X people to do Y tasks and the discrepancy between the tasks and the people you have to do them is a measure and very real thing.
Despite the attempt to simplify labor to the point of fiction, I can roll with this example to explain why I see labor vastly different from you. I have a lot of questions about this set up. How crucial is it to move these rocks? What’s the deadline? How many rocks need to be moved? Are there safety procedures in check, and will safety equipment be provided?
You as an employer want to move as many rocks as possible as fast as possible with as few people as possible. The people comprising your labor force want to move the correct number of rocks on a reasonable timescale with adequate resources and be recognized as valuable individuals. If your needs from the foundational questions are out of line with the worker’s needs, then you are not guaranteed that labor, and you don’t deserve that labor. The factors that determine if the labor is essential are the workers and society, not the employer. If the workers or society don’t deem the labor to be as essential or as worthwhile as you think, then you face delays or other factors. In a cooperative or otherwise non-market economy on a larger scale, this would appear as degrowth, which is normal and ok. Not everything is essential, and even in periods of degrowth there’s still plenty of labor that can be done. All labor is specialized as well, which is an additional problem I had with the initial objections. People are flexible and want to provide meaningful labor. If there’s a period of degrowth and the task of moving rocks becomes a completely unnecessary for the current economic needs, the people providing labor will seek out new meaningful labor. The needs of labor always change, but labor itself is a fundamental and unchanging aspect built into our natural instincts for survival.
How crucial is it to move these rocks? What’s the deadline? How many rocks need to be moved? Are there safety procedures in check, and will safety equipment be provided?
Yes. Let's introduce OSHA standards into a theoretical example where moving rocks feeds people.
All the while spinning a billion bullshit nonsense side points.
Labor has a supply.
Labor has a demand.
To dismiss that is to dismiss reality. Yes. The nature of labor can change and some sorts of work can be abandoned when there is a shortage. No. That doesn't invalidate scarcity and your "degrowth is good and okay" seems tor to just be a hilarious and twisted rationalization of how when your ideals cause the economy (and more importantly the general will being of people in the nation) to collapse that it's actually a good thing.
I do understand the sentiment but the thing is a lot of homelessness isn’t because people don’t have money not exactly. They may have support systems that they can make use of but if they have other problems they may not be inclined to use those support systems.
You can’t just blame capitalism for homelessness, not exclusively.
You kinda can. Capitalism provides no incentive to help this man (actually, it provides a disincentive because the time and/or money needed to help this man could be spent on more profitable endeavors). The support structures that may exist are not capitalistic, are disincentived, and obviously not adequate.
Who are the people in most need for a bed? Isn’t that need relatively equal? I mean, I guess when I was younger I didn’t really need one, but now I’m a wreck without one. I know some guys with copd that only sleep in chairs, so maybe their need is on low end.
So… you think they should just- give beds away? Thats hilarious!
Look kid, capitalism sucks. No one with a functioning brain is going to argue against this point. But going full bore extreme to the opposite side is just a fucking stupid.
Infantilize me all you want, that doesn’t change the fact that I’m college educated and in my late 20s. Explain to me why we can’t distribute beds to people based on need. If we can, then please explain why we have to have homeless people.
Because beds won’t fix their problem. How do I know this? Because almost every state in the country has beds available for them. They don’t want them. Because with those beds come rules. And they don’t want to live by those rules.
Go ahead, prove me wrong. Show me homeless shelters that are overbooked and full.
Those rules tend to kind of suck, to be fair. Certainly, if I was homeless, and had a dog, I wouldn’t really want to stay in any homeless shelter that banned me from keeping pets, if I didn’t absolutely have to. It’s really funny to me that people try to defend policies against drug use, or against holding drugs on the basis of addiction or something. I dunno, I thought it was a pretty common opinion to just want drugs to be legal since we all drink coffee and monster energy and IPAs anyways, and at this point I’d rather have heroin, or cocaine sprinkled honey buns, if for nothing else than to spice things up a little. Withdrawal symptoms are a sometimes lethal bitch, and that’s gonna be much harder to surmount outside of a shelter, than inside one, though, would be the main point of contention. IME homeless shelters tend to be populated on the usefulness of their service relative to putting up with “actual” homelessness. If your shelter is less useful than being homeless for most people, then most people will choose being homeless over your shelter.
And that’s not even really getting into the nonprofit shelters that basically require religious indoctrination on the half of the homeless, which is super scummy, or how lots of homeless shelters are super “out of the way”, and eliminate the homeless’s ability to be self-sufficient, or to seek help from whatever meager support network they tend to have. Or how homeless shelters are full of homeless people, and thus, suck to live in for everyone involved, relative to owning your own tent, where you can just move all your shit somewhere else in the event that you don’t like someone. Or how means-tested support programs tend to usually waste a ton of their budget testing the means of their applicants.
Overall I think even probably if you lived in like a communist utopian whatever whatever society with 0.1% homelessness and 99% employment or whatever, you’d probably still have, at the very least, a warehouse where you kept some excess beds, or where people could see which bed they wanted, that sort of thing, so it’s not like this picture is really illustrative of that much beyond just the plain visual irony of it, sort of in a similar genre to other pictures of, say, homeless people camping out underneath a huge trump billboard saying he’s building a new hotel or high rise or something. I dunno, this is the sort of shit you see on tiktok side by side with memes saying that jimmy fallon looks like the pink bug from backyardigans.
The rules aren’t there to be agreed with. It’s how it is. If you’re homeless with a pet- that’s not anyone’s problem but yours. No one is obligated to take care of your responsibilities for you.
I’m all for anyone getting help, but not at the expense of people having to bow down and coddle to people who can’t see that they are- wether they are intentionally or not, a burden. And if you’re a burden- you don’t get to pick what rules you’ll follow.
Having said that- I understand that some people can’t help the situation they’re in- but we can have separate rules for those that wish to play along, and those that don’t.
Not when it’s a taxpayer expense. People tend to get pissed when they’re paying for a homeless guy’s dog food.
Moving forward-
No business is responsible for bedding and housing the homeless. This is NOT a capitalist ideology. It’s a logical one. The owner of that business cannot afford to just give away his inventory. Even under a democratic socialist economy- suggesting so is fucking stupid. (Not saying you’re suggesting so for the record)
We’ve come to some conclusion lately that everyone should give up their possessions, inventory, and whatever else to support those that don’t have those things- while a guarantee you that all the whiny SJWs here on Lemmy would have a shit-fit if they were asked to give up their own shit.
Fine to blame me for just being honest, as I honestly don’t care what these kids think of me- but I only hope that when they grow up- they’ll come to understand that their ideology has been incredibly flawed and that life exists within the gray area between what they only see as black and white.
Fine to blame me for just being honest, as I honestly don’t care what these kids think of me- but I only hope that when they grow up- they’ll come to understand that their ideology has been incredibly flawed and that life exists within the gray area between what they only see as black and white.
I don’t think that’s necessarily a great mentality to have, you’ve simultaneously made yourself a victim, and you’ve also initialized your opposition where you presume yourself to only know the nuance therein. that’s kind of not a great position to generally regard these issues from. It’s preventing you from steel-manning your opposition.
The rules aren’t there to be agreed with. It’s how it is. If you’re homeless with a pet- that’s not anyone’s problem but yours. No one is obligated to take care of your responsibilities for you.
I’m all for anyone getting help, but not at the expense of people having to bow down and coddle to people who can’t see that they are- wether they are intentionally or not, a burden. And if you’re a burden- you don’t get to pick what rules you’ll follow.
Generally the MO of this ideology you oppose, is that all of this talk of the expense, or people being burdens, is kind of like. Not relevant. It sees homeless relief as purely being for charity, as solely being for the sake of those who give, to probably just make them feel better, out of the goodness of their heart, when that’s not necessarily the case. Both, because these services are intentionally gimped, or, are just used for optics, imo, but also because there is a form of self-interest in these services which can lead to mutual benefit. The general idea being that, if you leave people to be homeless, don’t help them through, they will accelerate out of that homelessness less efficiently than had you helped them, and this will strain the economy more than had you simply pooled money and got them a house, or a crack pipe and a manual labor job, or what have you. There are also arguments in favor of homelessness, as the homeless are both an easy pool of desperate labor, willing to be underpaid, and an effective threat against existing low-level labor, because they can be replaced at any time. You will get more amazon workers and walmart employees if you do not have a safety net for the homeless. Or, rather, you will get workers willing to tolerate worse positions, if there is no safety net. Needless to say, I’m not really in favor of homelessness, I tend to think that threats and work under duress don’t provide the best outcomes, which is important when I get pissed off that my burger has been put together wrong, and when my astrophysicist’s calculations are totally wrong and my rocket falls into a black hole because I keep telling him that it will either be done by next week or he’s on the street. That’s a really stupid set of example but you kind of get the point I expect.
But then, more to the point of these rules. You will end up spending some money enforcing any rule. If it is a broad discriminatory rule, say, curfew, no pets, no drugs (generally in that order), you end up spending in the enforcement of those rules, and that money could’ve just been spent on more direct outreach, more bang-for-your-buck. There’s not really a guarantee the people you have discriminated in favor of will be any better off “making it in society” than the people who are still on the street. And it still doesn’t really solve the broad problems of homelessness, you’re still gonna get people complaining at the city council meeting, especially as, if you were right, you’ve only helped out the least destructive of society, and pushed off the most destructive to, at worst, be handled by the police, which rockets up your expenses, because that’s not what they’re really for, and then the prison system isn’t going to end up paying off any better societally for pretty obvious reasons, if the police so choose to just push them into prisons.
If you end up implementing a niche discriminatory rule, like, say, you only will help out the most desperate, people who have been homeless for an extended period of time, those who have drug problems, mental health problems, or, on the flipside, if you just want to provide some sort of stop-gap for people who have just been laid off, you end up, again, spending a lot more, a substantial amount more, in these cases, than had you just spent it on outreach. It is usually a metric fuck ton that is spent on these forms of means-testing, this is usually why federal programs suck. You also get, not logarithmic benefits, from economies of scale, but you do end up spending less to cover everyone, especially in the long term.
So, those are kind of easy reasons as to why if you were to deal with the problems of homelessness really in any form, you would want to do so with a broad-scale housing first kind of policy, because the alternatives all suck ass tend to be pretty bad.
I think also, the idea of, you know, the rules just get to be arbitrary, the rules get to be whatever they are, because that’s the rule-maker’s choice, as though it’s some sort of like, purely ethical right, that doesn’t pass the smell test to me. Freedom for the sake of it, as the driving force behind an ethical ideology, or a political ideology, is sort of like solely having power for the sake of it: it still doesn’t tell you what freedoms, freedoms to do what, freedoms over what, or what powers, powers to do what, powers over what. That’s where the nuance comes in, and then that’s where you actually have to do the work of forming a coherent worldview based on the realities of the situation, that’s where you pull on the thread.
If any of this is interesting to you at all, shoot me (please I’m begging you please god) and I might try to dig up some sources for all of the claims I’ve made, probably by way of reference to some huge compilation document I’ll have to sort out, and then you can probably (and probably rightly) disparage them on the basis of us not living in a society where everything is totally recorded in a perfect case study with control groups and alternatives, except for when it is, in order to serve us ads. What fun, the internet!
For the record, that article is bogus. It’s counting total homeless population against beds available- NOT homeless seeking beds vs beds available.
There are TONS of homeless people that don’t want to seek shelter because most sheltered won’t let you do drugs there.
This would be the same thing as if I tried to argue that there’s a housing shortage because we are counting people that already live in houses or in nursing homes as people wanting to have houses and there’s not enough for these people.
Try again. This time- use actual numbers that represent homeless NEEDING beds.
Why are you so intent on defending the ruling class? You aren’t in their group. You’re a broke ass like the rest of us and you never will achieve anywhere near enough wealth to forget that.
So just because the “ruling class” is shitty and there needs to be change, we should just be allowed to make stupid, embarrassing statements that show a complete lack of understanding of society or economics?
For anyone panicking, this is exactly like what happened with the transition from ICQ to AOL messenger, from MySpace to Facebook, from 9gag/etc to Reddit, and so on.
Website makes a mistake, some people leave. Makes another, more leave. Each time this happens, more ‘main’ people of said website leave. Hell, I already saw PoppinKREAM here, so that’s a great start.
So this is exactly how it always goes. The fact it is still here means it’s staying. Look at Threads, or Metaverse, whatever those things are. All dying or dead, barely lasted. Lemmy is still here, people are still posting, so just keep doing what you’re doing. It’s already working.
It’s like a ratcheting effect. Every time schmeddit fucks up, we gain a few more. And if you can count on Spez for one thing, it’s that he’ll reliably fuck up on the regular.
Not sure about the other but PoppinKREAM became known on Reddit during the Mueller probe for very long, very well researched and cited comments mostly related to politics. Their citation style in particular meant their comments got tons of Reddit awards and were highly visible.
Man, those days were awesome. You’d browse the list of online people to find someone to talk to. A lot of the times there’d be no communication possible, but sometimes you’d get to know a little bit about the life of someone in a radically different culture. What a time to be alive.
they’re probably patching a security flaw, because we live in the future now and it is perfectly normal for a simple clock to have backdoors that can read your bank accounts
The companies BUILD IN backdoors so that they can steal your data.
But because the backdoor is built in, they have to constantly monitor and update the security around it so that “bad guys” (they don’t think they are the bad guys) don’t get in.
They only do security updates to prevent liability iirc.
The whole thing stinks.
Note: I’m not a software developer just an outraged bystander with tech hobbies and techy friends, it’s possible this isn’t true.
I have been with a few companies as an engineer, and can at least confirm that you are right from my experience. Nobody really needs a backdoor to get massive amounts of data. The ToS for most software makes it so they can already do whatever they want with it. It’s pretty easy to get a lot of data just by having people use their services normally.
My biggest question to this type of thing is, what data? Why is it you’re all so concerned about a tech company knowing how you use their services or what you’re spending your money on?
The only ones I’m worried about doing that are foreign owned companies that operate in realms where my personal data could be actively harmful. I don’t use TikTok because our only real military adversary is using it to assemble Petabytes worth of data on Western populations which they can turn into cyberware via reactionary propaganda.
Know what I don’t care about? Doordash knowing what I’m more likely to spend my money on. Microsoft trying to sell me an Office365 subscription.
“Outraged bystander” yeah, clearly. Most of you are just parrots who follow the FOSS crowd but don’t know enough to actually vet their information. You think they’re all these full stack programmers who have deep insights but most of them are just paranoid hobbyists who think any shred of data on their spending habits = the end of the free world. As if Wingstop knowing your propensity of eating dry rub versus buffalo is worth anything at all beyond trying to sell you a product.
My Wingstop orders? Sure. Once again, WHO FUCKING CARES. I don’t use social media for anything but sharing memes. I don’t post, I have the absolute bare minimum required information, and my account usually isn’t even my real name.
Even if the US government went full on USSR tomorrow, the data they have on me isn’t the type to be useful to them because my traditional social media usage is so damn low. Tiktok wasn’t the only example, it’s just the one with the most obvious political implication for us right now.
If I had a reason to hide my data (like in your hypothetical) then I could do it at the drop of a hat by switching fully to Linux which I already use. I have emails with three different providers only one of which is Google, and I don’t federate anything critical.
You guys are just so concerned about the stupidest information that can’t even be used against you unless it’s for selling you a product.
Outside of the car (mines a 90’s model) none of that is even remotely avoidable even if you went totally FOSS. Your ISP still needs your info and you’ll still use some kind of bank or credit union.
So what kind of parrot are you? It’s not unusual to want to restrict who can snoop on you, even for trivial information. I’ve worked on embedded software - what gets logged and reported can get downright obnoxious.
I’m not sure if it’s getting better, but I’m seeing less of it these days. It could just be that I’m working for better companies though.
The more a company knows about you, the more money they can make out of you. For example, cab companies have been caught increasing prices for customers whose phone batteries were dying.
Unless you are a journalist, high-ranking civil servant or military officer, foreign governments aren’t usually a huge threat. You are most likely not worth their time, and (apart from maybe the US) it’s not like they can actually do anything to you.
I didn’t say that me as an individual was worth the time of a foreign government, because I’m not talking about one off events like someone wanting information on me specifically.
I’m talking about the attempt by foreign nationals to undermine our entire society by preying on social media and misinformation. The kind of shit thats been affecting people on Facebook for years now and thats being used to affect the Tiktok algorithm as well.
Fair point. But if a foreign government can use Facebook / TikTok data to undermine society, can’t big companies or other interest groups do the same? More importantly, can’t Facebook or TikTok do the same? At least governments have checks and balances, and are at least theoretically accountable to their people. Companies can do whatever they like.
Companies don’t need to follow laws? Last time I checked the reason they can “do whatever they want” is the same as the government’s. Because no one ever fucking holds their feet to a fire. In theory both entities are held to standards, in reality neither are.
Many do follow the law, but have the law written to their convenience. Why bother stealing data when you can get it for free from people who don’t know any better?
Because it can be used against you in one way or another. You never know were the data end up at. It could leak or the government force them to give the data and lower your score in any system.
That is the point, we dont know what system they will come up with in the future. Lets build a social score system that we use to tax you economical and take past data into account. Hint China.
No need for backdoors when the front door is perfectly legal. The need to monitor for bad actors is still correct, though; mostly because they skimp on development costs and penetration testing. Like they say, “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.” Or in this case, slashing budgets.
I hate Hanlon’s Razor with a passion. It’s just a way to introduce plausible deniability for cases that do involve malice. Not that this stuff necessarily is malicious, I just think it’s dumb to rule out maliciousness any time it could be incompetence.
If I were to rewrite Hanlon’s Razor today, I would update it as so: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence or indifference.” Because yes, it does introduce plausible deniability; but most of the most harmful things in our modern world aren’t malice, but simply big companies caring less about you than about their own precious profits, or politicians caring less about their constituents than about their kickbacks and campaigns.
But admittedly, the word “adequately” does do a lot of heavy lifting in the original and in my update, because I’d counter your (quite reasonable) objection with the corollary that if malice is evident, incompetence is no longer an adequate explanation.
In general, though, I’ve had simply too much experience in this world to believe that there’s a grand conspiratorial plan behind anything awful people do these days.
Good comment, I can agree with it. Though to address your last paragraph, I wasn’t trying to say that it’s usually maliciousness or best to assume it, I just don’t think it should be summarily dismissed.
I’d also say that there’s not much functional difference between a pattern of malice, incompetence, or indifference.
Totally true. Though you might address the various patterns differently (malice = legal action, incompetence = mandated education, indifference = financial penalty), the results of the patterns are often the same.
What would the “front door” even be in this case? What comes to my mind is the corresponding app on your phone, but that doesn’t really make sense in this context.
In this case, the “front door” would just be not hiding it. Normal, un-hidden APIs. A back door is usually something that the developer includes without informing the user, but they don’t need to be surreptitious; there’s no legal reason to pretend that they’re not collecting the data, and unless you’ve built your brand on privacy and security, there’s no business reason to do so either in the current cultural climate.
And given that the appliance needs to communicate with the app on your phone while you’re not home in the first place, there probably isn’t even a separate tracking API vs. data just being harvested as part of normal operations. So “back door” doesn’t really fit. “Broken by design” or “spyware” would be more apt, I think.
Still, I’m really not a fan of calling any spying/data harvesting a “front door” – IIRC, the term was coined by an FBI head pushing for back doors in our phones so the FBI could scan our messages. But he called it a “front door” as a way to dodge the reasons why building back doors in our security software is a terrible idea.
It’s just another step in the terrible trend of “let’s pretend that this horrible idea is ok if we just rename it” :(
“My dishwasher is on the internet!” - “Why is on the internet?” - “To download software updates!” - “Why does it need software updates?” - “To fix security vulnerabilities!” - “Why would it have security vulnerabilities?” -“Because it’s on the internet!”
And here we have why I have not connected my smart dishwasher to the Internet. Those 2 extra wash cycles don’t seem worth it. Especially considering I only ever use the most powerful sounding wash cycle.
I get that, I have a smart oven, washer, dryer and dishwasher. All connected to the internet (private guest network just in case), and they all send updates to one Telegram group chat using IFTTT. It’s pretty convenient to get updates when a device is done.
The only two things that I like about smart appliances:
remote preheat for the oven (ready to pop the frozen pizza in right when I walk in the door)
cycle end notification for the washer (when I’m in the basement I can’t hear the sound to know when to move the clothes to the dryer)
I can’t imagine needing a notification on the dishwasher (I’m never wanting for it to finish to do something else) or refrigerator (just what even would it do).
I guess the smart control of the hvac is nice (turn it on when I’m on my way back from vacation so the temperature is perfect when I get home), but does that count as an appliance?
I love that “door open” warning of my fridge, and I also like that I get a notification when the fridge unexpectedly disconnects from the network (which usually means that the power has gone out, so I can go and check before all my food has died).
Also, the notifications when then laundry machine finishes are handy (so I can unload it and avoid smelly clothes).
lol yep. If only. My washer adjusts the cycle time based on…well honestly I don’t know what. Load size? Dirtiness? So if it starts the cycle and says it’ll be an hour, it could be 55 minutes or it could be 85 minutes. There’s just no way to be certain. Gets everything clean, though.
remote preheat for the oven (ready to pop the frozen pizza in right when I walk in the door)
Most ovens these days have a sort of time delay feature so you can set it to turn on X hours from now. Though I will admit it’s more convenient not to have to estimate what time you’re gonna be home at. Still, there are definitely alternatives to using an internet-connected over.
cycle end notification for the washer (when I’m in the basement I can’t hear the sound to know when to move the clothes to the dryer)
I already know my washing machine takes almost exactly 30 minutes to finish after I turn on the water. I just set a timer on my phone for that amount of time.
The delayed start requires planning ahead. I’m…not great at that.
As for the laundry cycles, my washer is variable on time depending on load size or dirt level or something. It’s rarely done by the time it estimates at the start.
I could see a connected dishwasher being useful if all water using apps (liances, not lications) could coordinate with the water softener to determine if it needs to cycle before they start (and to automatically start once the soft water is ready).
The fuck a smart dishwasher gonna do, play Mozart while my dishes get smashed around inside then receive a text message later saying “Oi it’s me ur dishwasher I just finished the dishes” while it plays Mozart again but at max volume until you waddle your fatass over and press the ‘shut the fuck up’ button?
Poor people should just simply try working for their father’s company for a year and then taking a VP position at a small fortune 500. I don’t understand why they won’t try that, and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. Tsk tsk tsk.
look, we all know if you click this link here you too can be a millionaire working 6 hours a week. (link withheld because i want to be a millionaire first)
Click “Like” and subscribe to my channel for more tips on being rich!
But it’s so much easier if you just start with a conclusion instead of all the way back at observation. You don’t have to do any work for soundness at all, just ignore facts that disagree with what you want to believe.
Sooo I’m a continuous improvement manager and work on process improvement, basically the scientific method for processes. The #1 rule I tell people when we sit down to tackle an issue is “The solution can’t be in the problem statement.” Then, they spend 5 days trying to challenge that rule instead of working with the observations and data.
Conspiracy theories are so close to the scientific method. They’re looking at data, drawing conclusions from them. They can disagree with each other in a civil way like scientists do. These people aren’t dumb, it’s some kind of mental problem. I think it’s the same mental problem that can turn you into a sovcit if it happens in the legal field. These people need mental help
You haven’t worked in any customer support position, and it shows. The amount of slurs hurled at them is far greater than anything found in a few github comments.
Also complaints that lack specificity must be aggravatingly common. I once complained on an open board about a bug in Wasteland 3 and a dev reading comments actually PM’d me asking for details. I provided details as best I could, including screenshots- the very next patch included a fix for my niche issue. But I imagine most bug reports being “GAME BROKEn! SUX! Fix NOW character creation BROKENN!”
Yeah that’s pretty average for most bug reports. You’re lucky if they even mention the issue, people like you who actually submit details are the only reason we can fix bugs lol.
Man I was using Amazon prime because my server was down for maintenance and my search results didn’t contain thr words I searched for until much lower in the results, then half the stuff needed extra subscriptions or had ads like what is the point
There’s a lot of problems with their service. They’re missing a bunch of functionality that a lot of the other streaming platforms have like creating profiles, decent recommendations, and thumbs up/down. You also have to go through 50 iterations of TWD to get to anything, but they don’t even have all of it (I’m not a fan, but I know a lot of folks are).
I know they’re working on it, but it’s definitely not there yet. They got a new head of engineering just a few months ago so I assume we’ll start seeing some changes later this year.
Yeah so somebody grew up in a racist household that prioritized Protestant ideals about work and success. And then that person moved to Silicon Valley with Daddy’s money and worked there during its bommiest years. Then went on to pump money into electric cars and rockets.
This all came to a screeching halt during Covid when all of a sudden, he had to not prioritize profits and success but rather the health and safety of his employees and others.
This sent him down a rabbit hole on Twitter where suddenly he felt accepted by all the Trump crowd. Now he’s stuck there and slides further right each day.
This guy is now the wealthiest person on the planet.
Fun fact, related to this: learned and learnt are also both correct. I always assumed learnt was a redneck thing (I’m from the south), but it turns out the Brits use it too. Who knew?
I’ve heard it used in a sentence like “When I was a boy, my daddy done learnt me a thing or two about fishin’”. Which is why it’s associated with southern slang, I think. That’s my hypothesis anyway.
Folks in west verginnie use words and phrases carried over from the old days when talkin like brits and Frenchmen was considered fancy, and it’s devolved into hill folk lingo. Yes, it’s technically a dialect but it’s not proper grammar in American English just because some hillfolk and southern drawl says it.
Right, I get that it’s not grammatically correct in that context, but the word itself is valid. I had always thought “learnt” was akin to “ain’t”, but that’s not the case. Both “learned” and “learnt” are correct, but the latter is less commonly used in the US.
Most modern linguists consider “should have” to be a completely valid variation of should’ve / should have.
Yes, it does contradict what your english teachers in school taught you, and according to that world view “if we don’t have those rules then we wouldn’t be able to understand each other”. But the hundreds to thousands of languages where those rules don’t even exist and people understand missing/“incorrect” meaning from context, as well as the fact that you can proudly stand on your “i know what’s right” soapbox and say that “should of” is wrong, only serve to prove that these rules aren’t actually rules or part of the english language and are more like the linguistic equivalent of fashion.
Again, you understood exactly the meaning OP meant, enough that you could confidently barge in and tell them they’re “wrong”, and tell them what they should have used instead to fit your fashion rules.
Basically, absolutely nobody saw this meme, saw “should have” instead of “should have”, and thought “hmm, i don’t know what’s supposed to be being said in this case.” You dislike “should have” because you were told you were supposed to, and that if you didn’t stick to these rules nobody would respect you or understand what you’re saying. Now, you do the same thing and lose respect for people who didn’t (while also understanding what they are saying exactly). That has nothing to do with the language, and is, again, more akin to “you wore white after labor day” or “you wore socks with sandals” or whatever other fashion faux pas you committed — none of which are related to actual linguistics or the natural way through which languages evolve (or whether or not your outfit looks good on you on any given day)
Your phone auto correct has a preference as well it seems.
I mean sure, linguistic descriptivism is relevant for the evolution of language. However, why study language at all if that’s the sum-total of your perspective on language? We could all just speak however we want as long as we are understood… except then we end up with an uncountable number of dialects and creoles a la mainland china. This is also how you end up with linguistic rules that are basically impossible to teach I suspect.
Speaking is sort of a different animal. “Should of” is a malapropism that is a homophone for “should’ve”. There is no transformation of language from that, it’s just an error. If you accept an alternate written version though, you’re creating an alternate conjugation for the conditional perfect tense. There’s no reason for this at all: it’s accommodating failings of literacy by adding complexity to language rules for one, and creating a new (and faulty) evolution point for two.
It’s like saying “oh, the speed limit is 55, but everyone drives 60, so let’s make the law so the police can’t ticket you unless you go over 60 since 55 or 60 is correct”. What does it mean when you see a sign that says 25 now? You can accept that people break the rules, but that doesn’t mean we should change the rules to describe the situation in every circumstance.
Speed limits are a not a good analogy to language rules, partly because they are generally intentionally designed rather than a product of an evolutionary pattern, partly because there is a clear and accepted authority that sets and enforces them with actual penalty, and partly because the consequences for not having them are often deadly.
By contrast, there is no clear authority that “owns” a language and can enforce it’s rules. Some government or academic body might in some cases declare that it has that authority, but they don’t really have any ability to set more than guidelines for how people working for them or producing documents on their behalf must write. Unlike speed limits, which simply would stop existing in a meaningful sense if governments stopped existing, languages existed before any such “authorities” did and would continue to exist if those organizations ceased. As such, I’d argue that linguistic rules aren’t really rules at all in the normal sense, there’s no-one with actual accepted authority to create, repeal, impose or enforce them, they’re just guidelines, loose ones at that, that one should follow if one’s intent is to be understood by someone else using the same or sufficiently similar guidelines. If you understand what someone is saying, which in cases like “should of”, people calling it against the rules clearly do, then they have succeeded in that goal, so it cannot really be a failure at being literate.
I reject any notion that this will eventually overcomplicate language to the point of it being too difficult to learn or use, because ultimately, people are not born knowing it, they must all learn, so any language too complex to learn wont be learned and therefore won’t be used, and similarly, any language too complicated and unclear to be used to communicate, can’t be used, and so won’t be. The complexity of language is inherently self-limiting at a level that prevents it from becoming useless.
Or for a TLDR: we don’t have to change the rules to accommodate people breaking them, because there aren’t really any rules at all.
What you say is true for passed down spoken language because errors like the ones we are talking about are transparent. Once you can write it down, the rules are evident and persistent. Nobody has to own them to say that as we transcribe language X these are the rules for conjugation, pluralization, etc. you can break them if you want, but as you say nobody owns the language: you need not be accommodated in your mistakes. Spoken language can change and the rules can follow, but being shit at writing (even if lots of people have the same problem) isn’t something written language must accommodate.
To understand it, and how and why it evolves over time, just like any other study. There’s no such thing as prescriptivist physics, or math, or biology, or etc etc. We don’t get to tell the world how it works, and pretty much no science is focused on that assumption other than historical linguistics.
we could all just speak however we want as long as we understood
We do speak however we want, and we do understand, because we pick up new trends in language on an unconscious level and this is the way languages have always worked and evolved.
then we end up with an uncountable number of dialects and creoles
We’ve already ended up there, and that’s nothing new. Sure, new languages/dialects/creoles creep into the world, but that’s how all languages evolve — instead, the lines between “what’s a language”, “what’s a dialect”, and “what’s a creole” get grayed and more blurry and fuzzy.
The thing is, humans developed language a very very long time ago, and those languages evolve and split off due to large-scale trends in the lives of humans speaking those languages, for a multitude of reasons that interact and make the process essentially random.
Here’s one way to look at it: it’s the opposite of the “jurassic park” problem, instead of “your scientists were preoccupied with whether or not they could, they never stopped to ask whether they should”, linguists spent so much time arguing over prescriptivist/descriptivist arguments, and never asked whether prescriptivism actually can control the evolution of a language.
Anybody, even some random teen in some random neighborhood in any english speaking country, can come up with a new word, and it can catch on and eventually become a new accepted and widely-used word. That’s because it’s a “you can use this if you want” situation, whereas the prescriptivist version is “if you use ___ you are wrong, if you want to be right use ___ only”.
It should be obvious why telling someone they can do something is an easier argument than that they can’t, and this is why prescriptivism has failed. especially because, again, nobody saw “should of” in this post and thought “oh god i don’t know what this is supposed to mean”; instead people either understood and said nothing, or they understood but jumped in to tell people they’re wrong for making them understand in a way that contradicts what their own english teachers in school said they SHOULD be able to understand.
I mean, sort of, I guess. I also read “Frindle” in school.
There is nothing wrong with a descriptive approach to spoken language, but what I see you arguing is that written language should be treated the same way. This increases complexity in written language for no reason other than to protect mistakes in literacy.
There’s real value in preserving spelling (it often contains etymologically relevant information to the current or past meaning of the word) and also grammatical structure. If the sound of two samples is indistinguishable, why make it harder to teach or to infer meaning from by accepting spurious representations as correct?
When you write it down, you gotta follow the rules, yo.
Most modern linguists wouldn’t take a position on this at all, and would tell you that you’re conflating Language and spelling. Most linguists don’t study writing systems, because they are a different thing from Language. Language is an evolving system that is always changing, and people develop the ability just by being around other people as they grow up, whether someone is teaching it to them or not. It just happens naturally. Reading/writing is more formalized, has to be taught, and many people in the world never master it. Many languages don’t even have an official written form. It’s not the same sort of thing.
There were many many reports of rapes and sexual abuse of detainees going back before the second intifada but increased in number since then. The IDF always brushed off press questions saying they’re lying but they’ll “investigate.”
lemmy.world
Top