thesmokingman @ thesmokingman @programming.dev

Posts

1

Comments

630

Joined

2 yr. ago

That’s a fair point! I really struggled for years with the “gates is cool because look at what he does for Reddit secret Santa” narrative.

Behind the Bastards did one a few years ago that scrubbed away the whole “Bill Gates is a nice billionaire who does Reddit Secret Santa” image

Part One Part Two

His medical work is not commendable. Right now it’s almost impossible to do anything on the world stage without the foundation’s approval. This recent article has links to some issues. This older article highlights a bunch of problems that were highlighted during the ‘Rona vaccine process. Either you do what the foundation wants or you don’t do medicine. Even when you do what the foundation wants, you move capital and ownership up to the top (Gates was a huge proponent of the COVID vaccine IP). The foundation has done good things. The opportunity cost of the foundation is staggering.

You’ve ignored my questions attempting to flesh out your point and refuse to link this specific list to anything bad. I don’t think you understand good or bad faith. Good luck with that!

So you’re lumping this resource into a bucket with other resources that were malicious but you have no direct connection from this resource to harm you claim it causes? You’re saying a dev using this list to allow people to download free content but prune emails to save his bounce rate is doing bad things and needs to convert their FOSS use-case to yours?

Who gets to decide? You didn’t answer that and in the interest of good faith I’ll pull that one down as the important one since it follows from the argument I feel you’re making.

You’re getting into very sketchy territory by saying a dev who is using a public GitHub repo to solve their problems needs to take it down because of how others are abusing it. Should the original dev be punished by their email provider because they shouldn’t be allowed to use this? Should anything that has potential harm be required to be a private repo? Who gets to decide all of that?

In the interest of specifics, can you point to where this specific list has done harm? I spent a fair amount of time looking around to make sure I wasn’t going out on a limb for someone with neutral views.

The beauty of open source code is that you can fork this project and add that. The repo maintainer seems to have a simple litmus test for whether or not something should be on the list: is it something that will cause a bounce for email distribution? That’s a really subjective test so you kinda have to talk to the repo maintainer about answering it. I suspect they feed it into a library, perhaps one of the ones linked, for use with their platform, so their problem is most likely solved.

That’s not what this specific list is for.

I'm okay with people using burner email addresses to get my free content, I just need to be able to filter them out of my list so it doesn't drive up bounces and hurt deliverability.

AWS SES, for example, is fucking rabid about bounces. Being able to filter out addresses you know are going to bounce is pretty important.

Can a list like this be used for anti-privacy measures? Absolutely! Does that mean we should never create lists like this? For me that depends on whether or not you think we should prevent encryption because bad actors can use it for bad purposes.

Usually there’s continued testing and inspections and service members continue to attempt to climb the ladder. Again, assuming your hypothesis is correct, you’d need data that inspections are either dropping or decreasing, testing is dropping or decreasing, and requirements to move up have been reduced. Do you have that?

I think a claim like this would require some data showing the training and certification programs have gotten easier. Do you have that data?

Dashpass users pay more (and iOS usually more than Android). There’s plenty of anecdotal evidence. Speaking for myself, I paid more overall when using Dashpass than I did before using it.

Nintendo does not sell hardware at a loss and, IIRC, has done so since the Wii. It was a huge deal back when they said they were going to make a profit off the hardware. Given how abysmally the Wii U did, I’m struggling to find coverage of that from 15yr ago that I only vaguely remember. However, that’s been a major point from Nintendo since the Wii, so it’s ridiculous that Epic wouldn’t know that and is clearly just an attack on Google (please don’t read that as me supporting Google or Epic).

In theory, my email only serves as a way to verify me and spam me. A good account may require an email for communication and should allow that email to be changed without losing the account, in the same way the good account will let me change the password, the MFA, and ideally even the username (looking at you Steam). Same as a phone number. We’re beginning to see a move toward that flexibility. Most accounts with MFA allow it.

If they would let you use the handheld scanner and not remove things from your cart, it would go so much faster. I used to do that at Sam’s a decade ago; dunno if it changed. I still load my cart barcode up on the off chance one of the cool employees is running self checkout because they’ll scan my entire cart in 30s like I wish I could.

Do I use an aliasing service that allows me to change the account emails point to? Yes. Can I access those accounts with access to my email? Yes.

The issue here is that if you lose access to social network that logs you into those things, you lose the account. If you have an actual account, not delegated access, you can still access the account with the social account.

I’m struggling to find some good article examples because Google is rolling out inactive account deletion and that’s polluting my search results. So go test this out yourself: go try to change the account name/email, password, or MFA for any of those accounts you use social auth for. Try figure out how you would log into without that social account. Next do the same thing with an account you don’t use social auth for.

The biggest reason not to use a single account like this is that you lose everything if you lose the owning account. It’s bad advice to say you should absolutely do one or the other. It’s good advice to consider the risks.

I am the starting comment in this tree. We don’t have data on the lobbying arm because it’s not a nonprofit. “Supporting their members” is what I want to understand and, unless you’ve found a source I haven’t, I can find no concrete impact of the nonprofit on public television in the United States other than members of the station boards get money in salary from the dues their stations pay. With all due respect, I’m interested in sources that explain what they do, not speculation pulled from marketing copy on their own website, which is where I started.

Making the rich richer is what keeps most politicians in power. If you aren’t making lots of money you don’t matter.

All that does is show public stations, not stations they fund. I can find no record that shows they’re in any way involved in the public stations in my state.

I don’t trust their website given Pai’s involvement. Did you find an external source that talked about their funding of stations? The about you quoted (that I read several times to try to parse) really just highlights they funnel money to lobbyists.