Enshitification doesn't really apply to GitHub because you aren't really locked into GitHub. At least you aren't so long as you consider the git part of it to be more important than the social media platform part of it. Repositories are totally interoperable with other services so the cost to jump platform is fairly low. At least so long as you aren't relying on curling stuff directly from GitHub, which everyone knows is a terrible idea and very bad practice yet happens all the time anyway.
The template and framework of this idea requires social media platforms be finger traps, with way higher costs to leave than enter.
Doctrow himself is pretty clear about this. Interoperability is the way you fight back against enshitification.
Why do city governments need to provide free/subsidized storage for private vehicles in public spaces, now?
It is not financially nor geometrically sustainable. It is a wealth transfer from the poorer to the richer. People who want cars can store them on their own property.
It's real-time chat. That's fundamentally different, philosophically, from the way a forum/wiki works.
You can cludge forum-like features into it with stickies and bots and yada yada yada... or you could just use a platform that is designed from the ground up to be a permanent knowledge store instead of extended, glorified AOL chatrooms.
The children do not yet know how much they yearn for the mines of listservs.
A new, novel solution to an already-solved problem that is worse in pretty much every way. But at least it is anathema to retention of institutional knowledge.
In short: just do a fucking PHPBB forum, it's better than this shit.
What's the Robert Reich quote? Democratic apathy is a self-fulfilling prophecy, something like that.
These more left-leaning internet forums are full of evangelical apathists trying to convince people not to vote. Convince people that being strategic is immoral and that the flawed good guys are the exact same as unrepentant bad guys.
On the flip side, he was using up millions and millions of company dollars on his singleminded pursuit with no obvious results to show for it. Had things gone even a little differently, things would've gone very differently indeed. Hard to imagine most companies tolerating an employee flat ignoring instruction to change to another task when their old task was proving fruitless.
Hindsight is clear enough here, but in context it was pretty nuts what the guy was doing.
Makes you wonder how many great inventors of revolutionary tech were shoved off their path by dumb luck.
I’ll ask again, does a migrant entering somewhere else and simply invoking “asylum” make their entry legal?
I feel like my last reply addressed that, but since you are asking directly I'll be explicit. It does not make their entry legal. Their entry was already legal.
That's what I mean when I say it is up to us to guide them through the complex process we've set up -- they are seeking asylum which is a status we recognize. They might not know the proper legal incantations or arcane procedures for that, but they aren't the ones who invented those legal incantations and arcane procedures. They are refugees doing their best. They should be treated as innocent until proven guilty.
It is not illegal to, while acting in good faith, get lost in the bureaucracy, ESPECIALLY when that bureaucracy is designed from the ground up to be unmanageable in order to disparage your right, ESPECIALLY when your own personal circumstances leave your life at risk.
Sure, you can point towards people who clearly knew that particular point of crossing was not legal. And I will point to people who already had their proper rights disparaged without due process based on how much of a failure the "legal" crossing was.
If you're only using these words like "illegal" in a 100% legalistic framework, where we care about the letter of the statutes and not the actual rights and people the statutes assert and protect... stop. Don't do that. That's harmful.
Domestic US law recognizes that right of asylum. Don't need to bring up any international law.
We have weaponized our incompetence against these people. We're so bad at managing the border that we are unable to process them in a fair, safe, and orderly fashion. We're unable to even follow our own laws and offer the due process our Constitution requires.
The expectation should be that the asylum-seekers do not know the process. Do not know the proper rules. Are desperate and maybe even afraid and just doing their best under life and death (i.e. coercive) circumstances. As the ones who defined that process, it is our job to catch and guide them through it. It is our job to give them their due process. There should be no presumption of their criminal intent. That should have to be proven in a court of law.
It's definitely complicated. Feeding into the right-wing rhetoric about the "illegals" is a way to simplify and thought-kill that complexity.
Only until the instant the Senate takes a simple majority vote to lower it to 50.
While the Senate has historically been a useful bulwark for pushing back against the creeping fascism of the GOP, it's also a matter of fact that it is an antidemocratic institution that in the longer term we're better off minimizing or eliminating. It's the House of Lords and we do not need a House of Lords in the modern era.
Though I would like to see proper reapportionment in the House of Reps first, including adding significantly more members.
Presuming that the administration doesn't really want to do any liberalization at the border (a very safe assumption), what is the actual victory condition of escalation the confrontation here?
I really want everyone to think very carefully about the counterfactual here. What's to be gained by going full scorched earth against Texas? What's the political or practical benefit to going in and arresting government employees / Texas national guardsman who are acting according to orders of the governor?
Texas isn't going to handle the border any better than the feds did. They will almost certainly handle it worse, and look like assholes and monsters while doing it. They'll prove the administration right that the border is hard and these "simple" solutions are idiotic and ineffective. Denying fed access is unquestionably illegal and frankly seditious/secessionary. Even the people defending them know and agree that it is a bad look for a state that is begging for federal aid to be simultaneously refusing federal aid.
On the flip side, if the feds feed into the New Civil War politics by escalating or even turning violent against Texas, the entire Confederacy will close ranks and use that momentum to likely win elections. That's what Abbot wants. That's WHY he is making this very public provocation. If you actually look at the hotspot here, you'll see that the actual "disputed" area is basically just one fucking park. It's barely anything.
The controversy here is both literally and figuratively borderline inconsequential. It's just a big, stupid political trap. "That's nice, hun" and waiting for them to wear themselves out is the correct response to it.
Why? Conservatism is about preserving traditional values and traditional power structures not the economy.
If you actually care about the economy that means you care about progressing a more effective and efficient state for the benefit of the people. Afraid that makes you a progressive which the conservatives assure us they aren't.
Seems like vehicles over a certain weight requiring a special license classification is a pretty straightforward and reasonable requirement.
But we can't do it without simultaneously addressing mass transit, bikeped, and our general absolute psychological fixation around designing all of our society around cars first and people second.
Analog cameras also do not catch an image exactly as-is. Most likely, the idea of a "true" image of exactly how a thing exists in the real world is just a fantasy. This is qualia. An image is definitionally subjective. Just look at the history of film technology and the racial biases it helped perserve.
But there's undeniably a huge difference between how you interpret and commit the photons going through the lens versus entirely inventing photons going through the lens.
We all would. This border deal was a gift to Republicans. It contains no actual long-term reform that will improve the situations. It's a bad deal I'm happy enough to see fail, though it is very unfortunate that the Ukraine aid is getting trashed with it -- because the future where Russia is continued to allowed to conquer westward is a dark one indeed.
And they still rejected it. The GOP were offered a no-brainer gift and they turned it down. Because scoring political points mattered more to them than getting what they want.
For most on the left, this story is kind of a wash. No Israel or bad border policy, but also no Ukraine. But it is a great allegory for how broken conservative politics are. There's increasingly no point negotiating them because nothing will satisfy their hunger other than authoritarian rule.
Enshitification doesn't really apply to GitHub because you aren't really locked into GitHub. At least you aren't so long as you consider the git part of it to be more important than the social media platform part of it. Repositories are totally interoperable with other services so the cost to jump platform is fairly low. At least so long as you aren't relying on curling stuff directly from GitHub, which everyone knows is a terrible idea and very bad practice yet happens all the time anyway.
The template and framework of this idea requires social media platforms be finger traps, with way higher costs to leave than enter.
Doctrow himself is pretty clear about this. Interoperability is the way you fight back against enshitification.