> Wayland was designed exclusively i3 style compositors
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool i3 (now sway) user. I don't even use floating windows. Wayland has still been an awful experience, broke a bunch of workflows for me
In 2008, I remember playing starcraft over LAN with my roommate. It played better on Wine/Ubuntu than it did on his Vista machine (and unrelatedly but hilariously, in the middle of the game his computer gave him a countdown to reboot with no option to cancel it)
Ah appreciated, that is indeed exactly what I was asking about!
Now I'm left wondering why enforcement was supposedly so hard. Seems like shooting fish in a barrel, especially given that some very large websites were in clear violation of this article
I may be missing something, but I don't see how this clearly precludes that behavior.
Which descriptor do you think is unambiguously violated by making it easier to provide consent than withhold it? To my eyes, both 'freely' and 'informed' are plausibly upheld.
It would be very straightforward to specify that consent and withholding must be equally accessible in the interface, instead of splitting hairs about definitions of "freely given". This is what people refer to when they say the law is poorly written
An additional one I noticed with my female cousins was that a lot of fun was sucked out of high school girls' social expression/reconnaissance.
On the recon side, gossiping is a fun bonding activity, but scrolling through snaps/reels is relative drudgery.
On the performance side, "be pretty and vivacious at fun social events" is no longer sufficient without obsessively managing your profile's brand. This doesn't only include posing for, curating, and editing photos, but a bunch of arcane rules about tagging etiquette, who's included in your photos, etc.
This is all from the horse's mouth, with a little bit of editorializing. The social environment of an in-crowd high school girl has always been extremely intense, but these tools hage made the process simultaneously more work and less fun, to hear my cousins tell it.
Just FYI for anyone for whom this didn't work by default: I needed to use the --all flag with smartctl (and install smartmontools if you don't have it).
Strip the subjectivity and emotion away from your analysis for a moment (not permanently), and it's easy to see both sides. Construct and add the same amount of emotion/bias in the other direction and you can construct just as "obvious" a one-sided story for the other side! Just for fun, you can construct a weak form from just the phrase you used:
"these folks have been gathering in this spot to do this [illegal] thing weekly... residents... want it canceled, citing [the law]"
I don't agree with this reductive view, but to me it's not clearly more so than the one-sided perspective you expressed. As I mention in another comment, I think the question of community rights and "the tyranny of bureaucracy" is a fascinating and complex one, and don't think the situation is covered by simply noting that the gathering is clearly against the law[1] and isn't victimless. I don't personally recognize adherence to every detail of every law as the highest moral good (a view that's clearly widespread, even implicitly, as evidenced by the PD's refusal to do anything about the plainly-illegal event thus far, as mentioned in the article).
But the question of where exactly acceptable, public lawbreaking starts and ends is a complex and interesting one. Where exactly does the line fall for where lawbreaking should be grandfathered in? What's the plainly-obvious equation for how to calculate when a group of citizens is entitled to break the law, and does that apply to all citizens equally? If so, how widespread is this legal bubble? If the law itself is irredeemably flawed, why not repeal it? If it hasn't been repealed, and implicitly has the support of our democratic system, on what basis do we determine that the exception being granted has the consent of society?
None of these are rhetorical. Laws can obviously be unjust, as can specific by-the-book applications of overall-just laws. On top of that, not all important communities are concretely well-defined and not all important norms are codified. But I'm really puzzled by the claim that it's trivial and unnuanced to draw lines between the rule of law and the (many! contradicting!) uncodified moral convictions that it's being claimed should transcend collective decision-making about society's norms.
[1] The article mentions consistent violation of ordinances. To the extent that the complaint is about the legal parts of the gathering, I agree that the topic isn't especially interesting.
The distribution of property owners is not the same as the distribution of renters (most obviously with respect to class), even in a subpopulation like "Latinos".
This is just asserting the conclusion instead of arguing it. Some people disagree that one needs to adapt to changes ad infinitum, and think that there's value in social capital, continuity, etc.
I'm personally pretty inclined towards the change side of the argument, but there's no sense in pretending there aren't two sides to discussion, particularly after the High Modernist failures of the 20th century.
> They move in, knowing full well (or should know full well) that there is an airport there, then a year later they bitch and moan about the noise and try to shut it down.
Would this be relevant for something that is in violation of the letter of the law? I ask this purely legally, as the ethical question of community rights and the tyranny of bureaucracy is a separate one.
I'm not surprised. The article struck me as particularly amateurish, which is unfortunate because the situation is an unusually nuanced and interesting one on a topic that's constantly talked about.
> But it makes sense, right? Real corruption and crime isn't always about drugs and shotguns.
I think the reaction is just that it's unexpected. Everyone expects there to be crime and corruption in unions, but they don't consider it to be as glamorous or interesting as the gangsters-and-cops tropes that they're used to, and that The Wire seemed to many to be about until season 2.
In the context of Simon's slowly-expanding lens of the American city, it makes complete sense, but most viewers aren't aware of that right at the beginning.
> If you're not naturally interested in Baltimore's police and drug gang subcultures, you may find the first season a bit slow and much of the dialogue full of seemingly unnecessary detail. I would recommend sticking with it through at least the beginning of the second season, which is mainly about longshoremen and unions, before passing judgment.
I usually recommend people make it through season 2 before deciding they're in it for the long haul (bearing in mind that 2 seasons is already quite a haul, especially for such a dense show). It's my experience that people get turned off by the jump from the expected gangsters-and-cops to the more "boring" Longshore men storyline (though like many, I appreciated season 2 a lot more in retrospect).
> Micro data only serves Google. Not my clients. Not my sites. Just Google.
Well it also serves Google's users, to be clear. Though I should also be clear that I don't think that justifies it, since I think it's bad for the ecosystem in more subtle ways than are expressed in immediate user satisfaction.
I can't find anything in your comment that alludes to what being a terrible horrible utter piece of shit consists of. Do you mind elaborating?
Note that this is a sincere question, since I haven't had exposure to 4chan since before the Internet went mainstream, and even then it was fairly limited. I've heard horrible things about what it's become since, but I don't know much about it.
This line of thought is complete nonsense. When you get a product in a transaction, you get something from the other party and you give them something in exchange. When you buy an iPhone, what you're giving is $700. In the case of non-paywalled online content, what you're giving is an ad impression. It would be ludicrous to say after an iPhone purchase "I didn't get anything out of the part of the transaction where I paid $700? The government should ban it".
I'm not dismissing the possibility of conversations about whether advertising for services is a type of transaction that's difficult to reason about, and that users need to be protected from themselves by regulation. But looking at only the outflow half of a transaction and asking "I don't benefit from this part, we should ban it" is utter gibberish.
"Did anyone ever investigate what benefits payment systems have to a population? It seems like a net loss to me, since payment systems cost money to operate and in the end all they do is reduce the amount of money a user has. While payment systems may allow you to 'buy' services, we are still paying for these systems directly and indirectly
Why then, doesn't the government bring currency and bank accounts and credit cards to a halt?"
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool i3 (now sway) user. I don't even use floating windows. Wayland has still been an awful experience, broke a bunch of workflows for me