I used to be baffled at the use of "SJW" as a pejorative, but comments like this reveal it's aptness to me. It's not the fighting for justice that's negative, it's the adoption of the warrior mentality. Which, ironically, is a perfect reflection of the problem with American policing - viewing the world as a battlefield and anyone not with you as against you. There are no non-combatants in the streets, just as there are none in the ideological trenches. The struggle for order and/or social justice is a totalizing endeavor that demands complete obedience, to the point where non-compliance/apolitical intransigence is treated more harshly than some forms of law-breaking/ideological deviance.
The "soldier" metaphor was unfortunate, but I think the underlying thesis is well taken.
We live in a deeply interconnected world. Most actions, even studied inaction/uninvolvedness, have repercussions on lots of other people--complex repercussions that have to do with privilege and affluence and race and gender and all those other hot-button issues that people get up in arms about. We call that "political".
Now, nobody's making you be an activist (someone who puts a ton of time towards advancing one of those causes). Nobody's making you care. You're free to do whatever you want. But choosing not to care doesn't make the repercussions of your choices any less political.
It weirds me out when people get prickly in response to that pointing out that basic reality, because it sounds very much like "I don't want to acknowledge that my actions have wide reaching consequences."
What you should/shouldn't do about that reality is a separate question: opinions range from "don't tell anyone what to do" to "sell all your belongings in service to $cause right now". But accepting that basically everything we do in an interdependent society is not just tangentially but fundamentally political (yes, even refraining from discussing political topics at work) isn't a super contentious or extreme claim.
I agree that the world is a complex system, but I don't actually agree that all or most of my actions as a private individual have wide reaching consequences. If you're below a certain critical threshold of wealth, power, social influence or some combination thereof, it really just doesn't matter what you do, it's the law of large numbers. The butterfly effect is a rare exception in complex systems, not a regularity - COVID Patient 0, for example, took actions that had wide reaching consequences, but I wouldn't consider those actions to have been "fundamentally political". Both the impact and the opportunity cost of the vast majority of my actions or inactions, on the greater world, is close to zero. People trying to convince you that "you can make a difference" in your everyday life as a private citizen by voting, recycling, showing up at the protest, boycotting the right products, etc, are in fact lying - they can, potentially, make a difference by causing a wide enough cross-section of a population to change their behaviors, but you the individual are not acting with wide reaching consequences, you are simply shuffling between indifferent behavioral cohorts which will continue to exist in the same proportions regardless of your individual choices.
At very best, the claim is pointless. In order to live up to that standard, you would have to consider the interests of all people (both living and yet to be born), every time you made any decision. Even if you narrow the scope of those interests to down to only those relating to justice, you’re still left with fundamentally impossible proposition (and even if you were omnipresent, you’re still going to need to neglect some injustices, in cases where the judicial interests of two parties are at odds).
Nobody takes that position because they’re concerned that you’re not considering the injustices some random far away people, that neither of you know about, are currently experiencing. People only take that position when they want to bully/guilt/coerce/intimidate others into caring about the same issues as they do.
If taking no action against an injustice is equivalent to supporting it, then the history of humanity has been comprised entirely of absolutely despicable people. Because for every injustice that you have taken a stand against, there is an essentially unlimited number of additional injustices that you have fully supported by virtue of never even knowing they occurred.
This is an example of conflating the two things I talked about: acknowledging that almost all actions are fundamentally political, and talking about imperatives.
The reality is that actions have political consequences. You interpreted that as a requirement to track every possible consequence of your actions. That's a deeply false dichotomy, and is commonly used by people to avoid having to confront discomfort from the more immediate political consequences of their actions: "you're saying I have to worry about everything that might possibly happen as a result of what I do?!".
Nobody's insisting on that. That's a cop-out that allows people to say they're "apolitical" when what they really mean is "apathetic to the political consequences of their actions". Which is fine, sure, but, per the original comment, it's a bad look to not acknowledge that there are consequences when what you mean is that you are not interested in them.
What the "everything is political" folks (and the social justice folks, and the BLM folks, and unions, and environmentalists, and missionaries to a lesser extent, etc.) are saying is that you should care about a given set of specific consequences of your actions.
Whether you choose to agree to learn/care about some of those specific consequences, or none of them, is up to you. Whether you choose to associate morality with action/inaction (i.e. the difference between "taking no action against an injustice is equivalent to actively supporting it" and "taking no action against an injustice is equivalent to allowing it/passively supporting it") is up to you.
Like, there are plenty of things I don't give a shit about. Maybe I should, maybe I shouldn't. But I don't for a minute pretend that the fact that I don't care about those things means my actions don't affect them in potentially extremely influential ways. Denying that is Bugblatter Beast of Traal[1] logic.
Apologies for the somewhat pedantic aside, but I want to point out: "literal Nazi" is a borderline oxymoron. There is no Nazi party, nor is Nazism a coherent political ideology to which one can seriously ascribe. I suppose people who were active members when it still existed can still be considered "literal Nazis", in which case there's probably less than 50 left on earth. But saying that anyone else who claims adherence to Nazism or allegiance to the (completely defunct) Nazi party makes them a literal Nazi actually elevates their status from what it is, which is just a pathetic racist cosplayer.
I'm not going to link to it, but there is a self described National Socialist Movement party still alive today.
> But saying that anyone else who claims adherence to Nazism or allegiance to the (completely defunct) Nazi party makes them a literal Nazi actually elevates their status from what it is, which is just a pathetic racist cosplayer.
“The tragic aspect of the situation is that the Tsar is living in an utter fool’s paradise, thinking that He is as strong and all-powerful as before.”
- Sergei Witte in 1905
Was just perusing the Hoon tutorial out of curiosity, and it's wild how alien of a language it is. To my eyes it's like a bastard child of brainfuck and common lisp; look at the "simple Hoon program" they give in section 1.1 as your first introduction to Hoon code https://urbit.org/docs/tutorials/hoon/list-of-numbers/
Also, the interpreter won't parse integer literals without thousands separators (which are periods). JackieChanMindBlown.png
That doc and the language itself reads like a parody of obscure functional programming languages with obtuse syntax and semantics.
Keywords are RUNES and RUNES have CHILDREN, CHILDREN can be RUNES and the programs chains the RUNES until there are no CHILDREN. Functions are GATES and tuples are CELLS and you run programs as GENERATORS from your SHIP's DOJO.
It 'clicked' for me once I got to the example using the ?: rune since I'm already familiar with that as the shorthand ternary operator in various languages, and 'Generator' doesn't sound strange at all to any Python programmer.
Is it really? It seems like an enormous amount of effort for a prank. 18k commits on the main repo, tens of thousands of words of explanatory blog posts and documentation, etc.
That's how you know it was a successful prank: enough people fell for it for enough time to make all those commits and docs!
See also postmodernism which I still believe to be long-form trolling by Derrida et al., yet has attracted considerable scholarship and wields enormous influence over culture.
Considering the creator, it seems in the vein of Davis's TempleOS. Not a prank, but also not a thing really built for it's utility for the wider world.
I highly doubt, if they even had a dedicated "security team" at the time the platform was architected as such, that they would have told the rest of the company they "had best-of-breed security". They would have understood their shortcomings and communicated them up the chain of command. And firing them and hiring an outside team of "security experts" to re-architect their system wholesale would be a patently absurd course of action.
The form of responsibility taking you're demanding is actually just business as usual, reactionary scapegoating.
> I highly doubt, if they even had a dedicated "security team"
I can only agree, from what I have seen on previous security vulnerabilities it often seemed to fall either into straight out negligence or intentional ignorance because it's easier "that way".
I believe security had never and will never bee a top priority for zoom. At least while they can get away with it, which they currently seem to be able to do.
Also I have seen it more then once that a Team originally had good intentions into making good secure software (but not necessarily enough expertise) but due to frequent changes in priorities or wrong time estimates they end up with a software which "works" but internally is broken with a promise from management that if they produce something like that soon then they will get to fix security issues in a view month. But then they never get that time and shitty security becomes the norm. Following that people with security expertise get demotivated and move on (either literally by changing the job or metaphorically by just accepting writing not so secure software).
Mine are mostly offers for a pre-approved $250,000 loan, available in less than 48 hours, for my non-existent small business. Curious what stolen mailing list I'm on that makes scammers think I'm a small business owner. Flattering really, that they'd think I have the potential to become one.
Uh, they're the most well capitalized corporation in the world (or hovering in the top 3 plus or minus a few quarters). They have the resources to make it work if they wanted. There are undoubtedly thousands of engineers, hundreds of managers, and at least a handful of execs, working for Apple, lurking in this HN thread today, not because they're unaware of their ongoing sabotage of web standards on iOS, but because they're completely aware of it and want to take the temperature on how their latest kick to the shins of PWAs is going over.
I’m fully aware of how much cash Apple has, but they’re known for having very relatively small software teams looking after whatever app needs updating that release.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Safari/WebKit was one of the larger teams within Apple dedicated to a single app.
Yea, the build quality is the biggest area it's lacking. I have Lemur from 3 years ago or so (and they still look more or less the same) - and the body is very uninspiring chunky black plastic, and feels flimsy/flexy. The keyboard is fine I suppose, generic chiclet keys which I don't mind at all. But the trackpad is quite mediocre compared to any Macbook.
