Do we need administrators and moderators to manage our conversations for us?
Only for the United States, I still see "Gulf of Mexico" in Australia
Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Jump
DKIM makes it much more difficult to spoof email addresses, assuming your email client actually supports them.
Checking various emails I've received from @google.com addresses, they have DKIM set up and gmail is validating using it.
Whether they acted out of malice or ignorance, they bear the same moral culpability for the consequences of their vote. They have a social responsibility to ensure they are informed and vote accordingly; everyone should be able to spot fascism and authoritarianism when they see it.
It absolutely is. They seem to be using it as their primary source.
You're mostly right. Newer devices won't share their entire app list by default, at compile time you need to enumerate every app you want to query for, or add what are essentially a list of intent filters (which are like "I want to talk to apps that take this kind of message and payload"). There is still a permission that lets you list all apps like you were able to on pre API 30 devices, but Google makes it pretty difficult to get onto the app store in that state.
You can still send intents as much as you like though (as long as you know the recipient), since they're the basis for all inter-process communication.
My point is more that an app developer can't and doesn't need to use the play store to get the list of apps you have on your phone. This requirement to have the play store almost certainly isn't malicious and I disagree with the notion that apps shouldn't be able to use what is essentially system infrastructure to improve their apps. That said, given this is an app targeting the fediverse, it would have been nice for the developer to have made a universal APK build that didn't require the Play Store.
If this error message is actually talking about Google Play, not Google Play Services, I would bet that it is because it employs Dynamic Feature Modules; something which can only be delivered over the Play Store infrastructure. They're pretty common in modern Android development since they can substantially improve the user experience for users with Google Play enabled (which is most of them).
Also, I am aware this is being pedantic, but Android just straight up already has an API to get every installed app on your device and interact with it, even on a de-googled phone.
Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Jump
Social media is not a good replacement for real life community (look through my comment history and you'll see me expressing exactly that repeatedly), but we can't be oblivious to the fact that for many children their only connection to fellow queer people may be online. If you live in a small town or community where there are no other openly queer people, or if your school, peers, and parents are hostile to queer people you won't have much choice in where you find community.
Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Jump
Are you Australian? That just feels like kind of a US centric lens to analyze this through, though you're right that loss of community is a byproduct.
Like, I'm not exactly happy with the Albanese government, but I would say that most negative LGBTQ things they have said or done have been cowardly attempts to avoid drama from the Liberals, not active bigotry
I lived near this sign and passed it a dozen times, they only took it down in the last few years. It was pretty infamous, even before it hit the internet.
Ok rather than responding in kind with some snarky comment, I'm going to make a good faith effort explain what I mean.
My statement that "beauty standards are based in white supremacy" is talking about what we, as a whole society, consider attractive. I am not talking about your personal taste, I am talking about the kinds of bodies, faces, and styles that are elevated in society and pointing our their basis in white supremacy.
Firstly, we need to understand that beauty standards are not some platonic ideal of beauty, they are socially constructed and therefore informed by the society in which they exist. This also necessarily means that current standards are an evolution of historical standards, reciprocally changing as people both influence the standards and are influenced by them.
That means that if we want to understand today's beauty standards, we also need to consider them in a historical context. I hope it is not a controversial point to say that most white countries (i.e. Australia where I live, and the US where much of the discussion often centres) were historically white supremacist (if not presently, but that is a different can of worms). Like they openly stated it (i.e. "White Australia" being official policy) and legally elevated whites, this isn't up for discussion. I would hope it is not difficult to imagine that such a society would also base its definitions of beauty around white features: white skin, white facial features, blonde hair, etc. A cliche example of this would be the historical masculinization of African-American people and their bodies. Pernicious stereotypes like "Jezebel", "Sapphire", and more modern incarnations like "Angry Black Woman" are prime examples of this, where black women are given qualities or cast into roles considered, in a societal context, incompatible with femininity or even outright masculine.
Therefore, to evaluate my claim that beauty standards are "based in white supremacy", we need to determine whether our standards have substantially deviated from that history. I would argue it has not, that our beauty standards are clearly descendant. To look at the modelling industry as a prominent signifier, even with notional improvements in the diversity of models, the presence of eurocentric features is largely maintained (see 1, 2, 3). That is not to say there isn't work, particularly from passionate activists, to move on from this history - but we are not there yet.
Finally, in regards to this entire thread, I want to point out that, due to the global hegemonic nature of whiteness - historically and presently - to some uneducated eyes the premise of my argument here - that beauty standards are not objective but subjective and socially constructed - may be dismissed out of hand. A naive look at other prominent non-white cultures that attempt to recreate the aesthetics of white beauty standards (i.e. skin lightening products in south-east asia) could appear to suggest that they may be formed from an objective standpoint. This is patently and obviously untrue. Other cultures and periods of time had extremely varied beauty standards to those we have today, and it is a blatant case of presentism and ignorance to assume that our particular version is "correct". We should be skeptical of claims that, unlike so many other aspects of society, beauty standards alone are not impacted by the global history of colonialism and the dominance of white countries globally.
- Beauty is not objective
- Beauty standards are based in white supremacy
- This post is really fucking weird.
I briefly worked for a company who worked on household power technology. Their product would attempt to predict energy prices, weather patterns, and usage to sell your excess energy at peak prices. Like discussed in the article, this company collected usage data and controlled the sale of energy back to the grid centrally. They did this because it meant they could better train their prediction models and run them on more powerful hardware. The controllers would have needed internet connectivity anyway to query energy prices, and putting the prediction on device would have just made them more expensive and worse. Even when I worked there (back in 2015 I think), they were already very aware of the threat vectors discussed by this article and took some measures to prevent it.
In my opinion they were (/are, still exist) a responsible company run by competent people. They did not collect the data out of "greed", and I strongly suspect that the people in these comments implying that the data is collected to be sold have never actually worked in the industry and have very little idea of the specific value of energy usage data. I can't really speak authoritatively for other companies, but I would guess that, like the one I worked for, their products are internet connected simply because it improves the product. For example, people expect things to be controllable or viewable from an app from anywhere, and that requires internet connectivity.
The problems in government are structural and systematic, not individual. The bureaucracy was built into what it is through the accumulation of regulations, poorly implemented policies and agendas, as well as plain mismanagement. Likewise, when the cost of a failed project is a political shitstorm and a parliamentary enquiry, and beyond that you are expected to be entirely accountable and transparent, you need to be risk averse.
You can't just fix these issues by proclaiming to fire everyone. You need to fix structural and leadership problems.
Lots of places already exclude hate speech from free speech, for an example I am familiar with (because I live there), Australia has a right to freedom of expression and opinion but does not protect speech that incites discrimination, among other things. As far as I'm concerned that is still a right to free speech, not the least because hate speech inherently limits the voice of its victims.
To my understanding the ruling doesn't affect impeachment. Trump's team argued that impeachment was the check and balance on presidential power iirc
Trump supporters live in a different reality. Because they're in a fascist cult.
Deleted
Permanently Deleted
Jump
Maybe a hot take, but I actually think individual progressive taxes are great. Have a generous tax free threshold, but individual taxes stops excessive wealth hoarding and (in the case of inheritance tax) dynasties
You definitely need approval to publish on the Play Store. It's just more basic
It is illegal in most countries to host child sexual abuse material.