Holy shit. Somehow it’s both exactly what you expect, and completely shocking. Literal dehumanization and genocide, played as jokes.

Who’s ‘we’? xD

Yes, 君 is ‘kun’ when used as an honorific.

海 is ‘umi’, or sea/ocean. You are correct that the second half of the kanji (母) is the same as the standalone character for mother, but it’s base radical is ⽏, which also just means mother. The first radical, ⺡, means water/ liquid, so you can sort of infer that “water mother” = ocean. Not all kanji work out this nicely with their radical structure, though.

Last part is spot on, ikou (行こう) is the shortened (conjugation?) of iku or ‘to go’ that expresses a suggestion to do, i.e. “let’s (go)”.

I have to since my partner doesn’t speak Japanese, but half the time I end up having to correct lines for them once or twice, to make things make sense. The non-egregious stuff I don’t even bother with. It’s crazy how amateurish some of the mistakes are, or even what are clearly choices to omit entire sentences, for no reason.

おい、ゆうじ君、海行こうぜ

“Hi Yuji!”

The actions of an employee, when reviewed and released by a company, are the actions of that company. A company is just the sum of its employees’ actions.

It will make it extremely risky from a liability standpoint to operate any platform that allows user content.

The EFF has a bunch of writeups on these types of laws. This is the last of a 4-part series on them: Link

Fediverse operators would for example be extremely vulnerable to lawsuits, because almost none of them can afford teams of lawyers to deal with claims, true or not, that they failed to enforce content policies.

Depending on how the laws are written, anyone who could find a piece of objectionable content (which will vary by jurisdiction) could sue the platforms. This makes it very appealing as a route to shut down platforms you dislike, especially if they’re niche.

It consolidates power under large corporations like Meta and Xitter, who can afford to handle legal threats.

If I had the self control to not just unblock the sites or uninstall the extension, I’d have the self control to not go to them in the first place. :P

I understand it’s a slippery slope argument, which is why I didn’t find it particularly convincing.

And if you’ve done bugfixing of software, you know that the data that users give you in reports is 90% of the time less useful than what you get out of crash reports or telemetry (yes, there are rockstar testers out there, but they’re the vast minority of users). Not all beta programs are there solely for the developers’ sake (some are there for e.g. third party devs to update integrations, etc), but this one seems to be, and that isn’t evidence of malice.

Forking Firefox means it isn’t Firefox - yes, this means that the original was OSS, but you really need to be an expert to get at all the OSS code running on your machine. I mean that it is literally not Firefox, since your fork doesn’t have permission to use the trademarked name.

This is only relevant if you are planning to redistribute it after you make changes. You can make any and all changes you want to FF on your machine to remove telemetry, and you do not have to remove the branding.

If we think of the enabling functionality in Firefox as a virtual lock, breaking that lock is illegal under the DMCA. That seems very weird for code that is ostensibly open source.

Extending this argument would mean that it’s potentially illegal under DMCA to remove any protection mechanism that it would be ‘hacking’ to bypass during usage (e.g. SSL, authentication, etc) from any OSS project. Thats not the case, because an OSS license gives you explicit permission to modify the application.

I am 100% on board with the author until they question it being open source, immediately after noting that users can take the source code and remove the telemetry function from it. They try to reconcile that contradiction by seemingly saying that since Firefox has the telemetry, a non-telemetry Firefox wouldn’t be Firefox, and that somehow makes FF not open-source?

Is Firefox really open source if we have to submit to data collection to access features distributed under an open source license?

Yes, ordinary end users can create a patch set to enable these features without needing to submit data to Mozilla - but that would clearly no longer be Firefox.

Plenty of OSS licenses have rules baked into them about how you can use the code, or lay out obligations for redistribution. That does not negate their OSS-ness.

“Is it really open source if I have to edit the source code I was given to remove a feature I don’t like?”

I mean, yeah? What a program does is completely orthogonal to the rights granted by its source code license, which determines whether something is open-source.

I am also not sure why they seem to think that this move either is meant to or is likely to push away technical users in favor of some supposed group of non-technical users who will go into the settings to manually enable a beta testing feature (Labs).

Yes, (as the author notes) the purpose of a system is what it does, but the author isn’t presenting any evidence of what it’s doing vis a vis their claim of making technical users quit FF.

Mozilla has plenty of issues, but I just don’t see “forces you to agree to telemetry if you want to participate in beta testing” as some canary in the coalmine of enshitiffication.

Technology isn’t inherently bad, obviously, but in our current world it’s primarily owned, controlled, and advanced by bad groups and people (for-profit companies, governments, and the rich). Until we actually extricate ourselves from this situation, we should be very wary of looking to technology for cures to out problems.

If they’re operating in the US, it doesn’t matter whether the app is intentionally pulling unnecessary information, there are still server logs showing the IP of each request being made for the real-time updates (ISPs also will have logs of the connections, even if they can’t see the SSL traffic directly). That IP + timestamp would let the government know (with the help of your ISP, who we know from the NSA leaks are all sharing info without asking for warrants) exactly who you are.

If you are routing all your traffic through a VPN, you can make that much harder to correlate, but unless you validate on the wire or in the code that the app isn’t sending e.g. a device ID or any other kind of unique identifier, it could still end up compromising you. A webpage just intrinsically doesn’t carry the same level of risk as a local app.

That’s why, as the article notes, many of these have been shutting down preemptively; they know they could be putting their users at risk.

I’m torn on this for any app-operating companies/orgs based in the US.

The real-time maps mean at best they’re able to see at least the IPs of users, and at worst, a ton of device or personal information (depending on what perms are granted to the apps). This would be a treasure-trove of info for ICE. A lot of women stopped using period-tracker apps for a reason after Roe was overturned.

Also, unless people are side-loading the apps, Google or Apple will also know exactly who downloaded them, since you can’t download through their app stores anonymously.

There are websites with real-time information that don’t force you to install an app to view, and visiting a website rather than using an app makes it much easier to minimize the information you’re leaking.

I’m glad that some of these apps are shutting down preemptively if they are certain they don’t possess the resources, or are located in a safe enough place, to ensure their users’ privacy. Ideally they would partner with a legal entity outside the US to operate the app instead, but obviously that’s a big burden.

The kernel is now well beyond the singular control or shepherding of Linus. He’s still hugely influential in the community obviously, so not a pure figurehead, but the kernal dev community will continue on very well.

I will trust the experienced lawyers and civil rights advocates at the ACLU, thanks. Nothing about this bill is good for children, it is a direct attempt to allow government to exert control over online spaces’ content, as well as de-anonymize internet users. Both of those are bad, including for kids.

Chinese hacking competitions (plural) are different

A 2018 rule mandates participants of the Tianfu Cup (singular) to hand over their findings to the government

This approach effectively turned hacking competitions (plural)

So the article uses one competition doing this to assert this as “Chinese hacking competitions”. There are tens if not hundreds of hackathons in China.

Please stop posting these heavily biased or misleading articles about China from questionable sites.

We get it, you don’t like China. We got that after the first 50 posts about China being bad. Most of us don’t like the CCP either.

But at least post reputable sources that don’t push agendas quite so blatantly.

For anyone interested, this site (firstpost.com) is an english-language Indian news site owned by Network18, a news conglomerate with a right-leaning, pro-Modi bias.

More space trash from trash corporations…

Cool tech used for boring purposes.

the repetitive tasks that turn any job into a grind are prime candidates

The problem is, this varies from person to person. My team divvies (or did, I quit not too long ago) up tasks based on what different people enjoy doing more, and no executive would have any clue which repeating tasks are repetitive (in a derogatory way), and which ones are just us doing our job. I like doing network traffic analysis. My coworker likes container hardening. Both of those could be automated, but that would remove something we enjoy from each of our respective jobs.

A big move in recent AI company rhetoric is that AI will “do analyses”, and people will “make decisions”, but how on earth are you going to keep up the technical understanding needed to make a decision, without doing the analyses?

An AI saying, “I think this is malicious, what do you want to do?” isn’t a real decision if the person answering can’t verify or repudiate the analysis.

Its not an empty panic if you actually have real reasons why its harmful.

Every panic has ‘reasons’ why something is harmful. Whether they are valid reasons, proportional reasons, or reasons that matter, is up for interpretation.

First you’d need laws in place that determine how the social media algorithms should work, then we can talk.

Yes, then we can talk about banning systems that remain harmful despite corporate influence being removed. You’re still just arguing (by analogy) to ban kids from places where smoking adverts are until we fix the adverts.

companies ARE making it harmful, so it IS harmful

No, companies didn’t make social media harmful, they made specific aspects of social media harmful. You need to actually approach this with nuance and precision if you want to fix the root cause.

That, and there are various other reasons why its harmful

Every reason that’s been cited in studies for social media being harmful to kids (algorithmic steering towards harmful content, influencer impact on self-image in kids, etc) is a result of companies seeking profits by targeting kids. There are other harms as well, such as astroturfing campaigns, but those are non-unique to social media, and can’t be protected against by banning it.

Let me ask you upfront, do you believe that children ideally should not have access to the internet apart from school purposes (even if you would not mandate a ban)?

This is the newest ‘think of the children’ panic.

Yes, social media is harmful because companies are making it harmful. It’s not social media that’s the root cause, and wherever kids go next those companies will follow and pollute unless stopped. Social Isolation is not “safety”, it’s damaging as well, and social media is one of the last, freely-accessible social spaces kids have.

We didn’t solve smoking adverts for kids by banning kids from going places where the adverts were, we banned the adverts and penalized the companies doing them.