I really dislike this style of development: abandon the current version and start a perpetual beta that you're expected to use as your daily driver, as that's the only version that's also getting updated and QoL improvements. If you stay on the older version, expect breaking changes when/if they release a non-beta version, and have bugs unfixed. Or expect bugs/breaking changes if you use the perpetual beta and perhaps some of the previous bugs fixed (see: finamp, linksheet, and lawnchair, as a few examples). Applications that follow this development model are hard to recommend.
Despite enjoying logseq a lot it has stagnated for so long (and the mobile app is atrocious) that I ended up moving to obsidian. It was frustrating to see "new" versions get updates, bug fixes, and QoL improvements that I couldn't use unless I was willing to run an unstable build (plus they didn't update the mobile app during the beta, so it felt half-baked anyway). Even now, it's still a beta. Its such a shame.
Sure, but it explains the dates. Which is all that you originality highlighted as your confusion. Perhaps you can query them directly about your other curiosities?
I think the interview is interesting regardless if some of the details within are dated or not.
It seems you want to talk about other things rather than the VPN age-gating or the online safety act this post is about. I'll engage with the content of this post.
> but then force you to send your children to schools that give them ipads and other distractions
What does the online safety act (OSA) or this VPN age check do to prevent this? Are the "ipads" at school giving the users "unfettered access to the internet"? That seems a bit irresponsible, however I would think that your ire should instead be directed towards the schools? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding?
> In addition to the fact that phones are engineered to be addictive
Is it the phones or the content? I interpret your views as someone who should be campaigning for phones and other "distractions" to be restricted in a school environment, however the OSA and this VPN age check do not appear to tackle this.
> there's a huge problem with people addicted to phones and children are especially vulnerable
I will assume this is true for the sake of conversation. Similar to my previous query, how does the OSA or this VPN age check tackle this problem? Will banning certain types of content prevent this, or perhaps shift it? Instead of social media, would it be preferable if children were playing games on their phone? If they were then "addicted" to gaming or socialising around a popular game, would the proposal be at that point to ban children from playing games on their phone? To me, it seems the problem is less the content and more that the environment is setup in certain ways that allows this. It is unclear to me how banning and gating certain content will prevent this.
> different campaigners care about different aspects, so I'm going to talk about the one I care about: addiction, destroyed ability to focus, and dopamine desensitization
What kind of things are you pushing outside of banning material and gating access? Is there a push for educating parents of the dangers of this "addiction"? Perhaps informing people about how to use parental controls to limit the access their children have? Is there a push on companies to provide robust, and easy-to-use parental controls? I feel that parents should have the tools, yet it seems that we consider the problem out of the parents control. Why is that? If parents make an informed choice and choose differently to you, should they be allowed to do so?
> I don't care if adults are vulnerable, they have to make their own decisions.
I feel that if you are caring about children accessing "addicting" material that you should also care about your fellow citizens accessing the same. How would those adults know that this material is addictive? Are they being informed by the state? What avenues are there for them to get help? It seems that the OSA and this VPN age check do not provide any assistance to people that are perhaps already addicted, or preventing people from falling into that trap. Does the care only extend to children and no further? Should we care about building sturdy adults regardless if they are currently children or not?
My general thoughts on this is that there appears to be a lot of restriction and preventing people from accessing certain content, however very little on informing people on what those perceived dangers are. The UK government is especially keen on this restriction, yet I am seeing no push towards informing people, or providing assistance for those afflicted. To me, the proposed motivation and the implementation are incongruent with each other. The perception of safety, as opposed to an improvement in real world safety.
I feel I see these solutions somewhat often, but you can execute a command and use that as a value. To me, I'm not sure why people aren't calling their secret store as part of it. I use direnv mostly, but seems `.env` supports the same thing. e.g:
MY_SECRET=$(pass show path/to/my/secret)
Of course substitute that for Vault/SSM/whatever. There are other solutions to this problem too, but I show this to people as there's so little friction to using it.
As for the solution itself, we shouldn't really be storing secrets as plain text wherever we can help it. Masking them feels like a kludge.
> There is no moral principle in any system anywhere in the history of the universe that requires me to bind myself to a contract that nobody else is bound to.
Is there not? I don't feel this makes sense to me, as the conclusion seems to be "if everyone (or perhaps a large amount of people) do it, then it's not immoral". My immediate thought goes to moral systems that universalise an action, such that if everyone did it and it makes the world worse, then it's something that you should not do. That would be an example of a system that goes counter to what you say. Since morals are personal, you can still have that conclusion even if other people do not subscribe to the same set of moral beliefs that you have. Something can be immoral to you, and you will refuse to do it even if everyone else does.
> But if nobody ever agreed to it [...] there is no reasonable ethical principle you could propose that would prevent me from grazing all my cattle too.
Why not? I don't quite understand your conclusion. Why could the conclusion not be "I feel what everyone else is doing is wrong, and I will not do it myself"? Is it because it puts you at a disadvantage, and you believe that is unfair? Perhaps this is the "reasonable" aspect?
*Revolut is not a registered bank in many regions. Other financial institutions (i.e. actual banks) also provide no addition exchange rate fees in foreign currencies, and some have the full feature set described.
perhaps its something you missed, but you can use a work profile. put all your google apps in there and its a tap of a button (quick setting pull down) to jump into. then another to turn it off. you get the benefits of sandboxing a bunch of apps, while using the same user profile. its very convenient.
I personally don't use the separate user profiles at all. I agree they are clunky, due to how segregated they are. though with a work profile, and if needed (I don't use it atm) the newly added android feature, a private space, I feel there are plenty of compartmentalisation/sandboxing options available within a single user profile.
Despite enjoying logseq a lot it has stagnated for so long (and the mobile app is atrocious) that I ended up moving to obsidian. It was frustrating to see "new" versions get updates, bug fixes, and QoL improvements that I couldn't use unless I was willing to run an unstable build (plus they didn't update the mobile app during the beta, so it felt half-baked anyway). Even now, it's still a beta. Its such a shame.