Posts in Media (20 found)
DHH Yesterday

Europe is weak and delusional (but not doomed)

The gap between Europe's self-image and reality has grown into a chasm of delulu. One that's threatening to swallow the continent's future whole, as dangerous dependencies on others for energy, security, software, and manufacturing stack up to strangle Europe's sovereignty. But its current political class continues to double down on everything that hasn't worked for the past forty years. Let's start with free speech, and the €120 million fine just levied against X. The fig leaf for this was painted as "deceptive design" and "transparency for researchers", but the EU already bared its real intentions when they announced this authoritarian quest back in 2023 with charges of "dissemination of illegal content" and "information manipulation" (aka censorship). Besides, even the fig leaf itself is rotten. Meta offers the very same paid verification scheme as X but, according to Musk, has chosen to play ball with the EU censorship apparatus, so no investigation for them. And the citizens of Europe clearly don't seem bothered much by any "deceptive design", as X continues to be a top-ranked download across every country on the continent. But you can see why many politicians in Europe are eager to punish X for giving Europeans a social media that doesn't cooperate with its crackdown on wrongthink. The German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, is personally responsible for 5,000(!!) cases pursuing his subjects for insults online, which has led to house raids for utterances as banal as calling him a "filthy drunk". Germany is not an outlier either. The UK has been arresting over 10,000 people per year since 2020 for illicit tweets, Facebook posts, and silent prayers. France has thousands of yearly cases for speech-related offenses too. No wonder people on X aren't eager to volunteer their name and address when their elected officials crash out over their tweets. It's against this backdrop — thousands of yearly arrests for banal insults or crass opposition to government policies — that some Europeans still try to convince themselves they're the true champions of free speech and freedom of the press. Delulu indeed.  But this isn't just about the lack of free speech in Europe. The X fine also highlights just how weak and puny the European tech sector has become. Get this: The EU's tech-fine operation produced more income for European coffers than all the income taxes paid by its public internet tech companies in 2024!! That's primarily because Europe basically stopped creating new, large companies more than half a century ago. So as the likes of Nokia died off, there was nobody new to replace them. In the last fifty years, the number and size of new European companies worth $10 billion or more is alarmingly small: But even the old industrial titans of Europe are now struggling. Germany hasn't grown its real GDP in five years. The net-zero nonsense has seriously hurt its competitiveness, and its energy costs are now 2-3x that of America and China. This is after Germany spent a staggering ~€700 billion on green energy projects — despite Europe as a whole being just 6% of world emissions. All the while, the EU as a whole sent over twenty billion euros to Russia to pay for energy in 2024.  So cue the talk about security. European leaders are incensed by getting excluded from the discussion about ending the war in Ukraine, which is currently just happening between America and Russia directly. But they only have themselves to thank for a seat on the sidelines. Here's a breakdown of the NATO spending by country: This used to be a joke to Europeans. That America would spend so much on its military might. Since the invasion of Ukraine, there's been a lot less laughing, and now the new official NATO target for member states is to spend 5% of GDP on defense. But even this target fails to acknowledge the fact that even if European countries should meet their new obligations (and currently only Poland among the larger EU countries is even close), they'd still lag far behind America, simply because the EU is comparatively a much smaller and shrinking economic zone.  In 2025, the combined GDP for the European Union was $20 trillion. America was fifty percent larger with a GDP of $30 trillion. And the gap continues to widen, as EU growth is pegged at around 1% in 2024 compared to almost 3% for the US. Now this is usually when the euro cope begins to screech the loudest. Trying every which way to explain that actually Europe is a better place to live than America, despite having a GDP per capita that's almost half.  And on a subjective level, that might well be true! There are plenty of reasons to prefer living in Europe, but that doesn't offset the fact that America is simply a vastly richer country, and that matters when it comes to everything from commercial dominance to military power. But it's the trajectory that's most damning. In 2008, Europe was on near-parity in GDP with America! But if the 1% vs 3% growth-rate disparity continues for another decade, America will grow its economy by another third to $40 trillion, while Europe will grow just 10% to $22 trillion. Making the American economy nearly twice as large as the European one. Yikes. These should all be sobering numbers to any European. Whether it's the 10,000 yearly arrests in the UK for social media posts or the risk of an economy that's half the size of the American one in a decade.  But Europe isn't doomed to fulfill this tragic destiny. It's full of some of the most creative, capable, and ambitious people in the world (like the fifth of US startup unicorns with European founders!). But they need much better reasons to stay than what the EU (and now a separate UK) is currently giving them. Like drastically lower energy costs to for a competitive industrial base and to power the AI revolution, so best we quickly revive European nuclear ambitions. Like an immigration policy designed to rival America's cherry-picking of the world's best, rather than mass immigration from low-average-IQ regions of net-negative contributors to the economy (and society). Like dropping the censorship ambitions and bureaucratic boondoggles like the DSA. Like actually offering a European internal market for remote labor and a unified stock exchange for listings. There are plenty of paths to take that do not end in a low-growth, censorious regime that continues to export many of its best brains to America and elsewhere. So: make haste, the shadows lengthen.

2 views
Stratechery 5 days ago

2025.49: Conflicts, Consternation, and Code Red

Welcome back to This Week in Stratechery! As a reminder, each week, every Friday, we’re sending out this overview of content in the Stratechery bundle; highlighted links are free for everyone . Additionally, you have complete control over what we send to you. If you don’t want to receive This Week in Stratechery emails (there is no podcast), please uncheck the box in your delivery settings . On that note, here were a few of our favorites this week. This week’s Stratechery video is on Robotaxis and Suburbia . What the Times Missed in Its David Sacks Story. On Sharp Text this week, I wrote about the commotion that ensued in tech and media after the New York Times profiled Trump Crypto and AI Czar, David Sacks, including an OpenAI-style outpouring of Sacks support, why the piece failed on its own terms, and an entirely different story that went unexplored. While the Times  focused on the private interests that may benefit under Sacks’ watch, there are better questions about the public’s interest in leaning on someone like Sacks , and why the government might need Silicon Valley expertise as it confronts a variety of tech questions that have enormous implications for the future of the Western world.  — Andrew Sharp Atlassian’s History and the Near Future.  My favorite part of every Stratechery Interview is Ben’s “how did you get here?” question to first-time interview guests, and  this week’s interview with Atlassian CEO Mike Cannon-Brookes  is a terrific entry in the series. Come for the story of how a Qantas Frequent Flyer program eventually led to a $40 billion software business in Sydney, and stay for Cannon-Brookes on how his company is adapting to the AI era, as well as his take on “correct, but chronologically challenged” snake oil salesmen. Finally, as a rabid F1 fan, I’d be remiss if I didn’t recommend the end, where Cannon-Brookes expounds on Atlassian’s role sponsoring and helping to transform the once moribund Williams team (a story that can also be marketed to enterprises the world over). — AS Code Red at OpenAI. I have, for three years now — i.e. ever since ChatGPT took the world by storm in November 2022 — been convinced that we were witnessing the birth of the next great consumer tech company. Today, however, there are very legitimate reasons to be concerned that OpenAI is going to eventually succumb to the Google behemoth, just as Yahoo, Microsoft, Blackberry, and countless others have; I still want to believe that OpenAI can be an Aggregator, but they don’t have the business model to match, and that may be fatal. I summarized all of these feelings in this week’s episode of Sharp Tech , which covered both this week’s Article about OpenAI and Nvidia angst , and Tuesday’s Update about the bear case for OpenAI . —  Ben Thompson Google, Nvidia, and OpenAI — OpenAI and Nvidia are both under threat from Google; I like OpenAI’s chances best, but they need an advertising model to beat Google as an Aggregator. OpenAI Code Red, AWS and Google Cloud Networking — OpenAI is declaring code red and doubling down on ChatGPT, highlighting the company’s bear case. Then, AWS makes it easier to run AI workloads on other clouds. AWS re:Invent, Agents for AWS, Nova Forge — AWS re:Invent sought to present AI solutions in the spirit of AWS’ original impact on startups; the real targets may be the startups from that era, not the current one. An Interview with Atlassian CEO Mike Cannon-Brookes About Atlassian and AI — An interview with Atlassian founder and CEO Mike Cannon-Brookes about building Atlassian and why he is optimistic about AI. The Forest the New York Times Missed Among the David Sacks Trees — The New York Times failed to support its David Sacks headline, and ignored better questions about the how U.S. devises modern tech policy. Google Looms Alan Dye Leaves Apple Let’s Break Down the 45nm Process Node A Quiet Chinese Mobile Giant in Africa Trump, Takaichi and a Game of Telephone; Japan Jawboning Continues; An Internet Governance Study Session; China Making Trade ‘Impossible’ Wolves and Cavs Concerns, The NBA Cup in Year 3, Questions on the Magic, Suns, Thunder and Raptors The Game of the Week, A Giannis Inc. Emergency Board Meeting, Chris Paul Gets Cut at 2 a.m. in Atlanta OpenAI Declares a ‘Code Red,’ Alan Dye Leaves Apple for Meta, Questions on Tranium 3, Substack, and F1

0 views
pabloecortez 1 weeks ago

Re: the overstated importance of connectivity

This post is mirrored from my website at ENOCC.com Ava published a great piece on the way social media platforms exploit our desire for human connection. Which is why the need for connectivity in the way these companies mean it and push it is a big lie just to further their financial interests and has nothing to do with how humans actually pursue, facilitate and experience true connection, and we need to question it. Below are some scattered thoughts on this topic and the relationship between us and cyberspace. In the fall of 2021 I had the pleasure of taking Amy Reed-Sandoval 's seminar on the Ethics of Privacy and Surveillance. Philosopher Cécile Fabre even gave a guest lecture on the ethics of espionage , clarifying for us that what governments and platforms were doing with our data was exactly that. This was after things began picking up in the US following the pandemic, and as most of us had gotten used to spending a considerable part of our days online, it seemed particularly relevant to understand what privacy and surveillance meant in the context of working, studying, socializing, and being online. During this time I conceived of the digital world as an extension of the environments with which we interact. I didn't believe digital personas to be an alter ego, I saw them as one more form of self-expression. There are of course different attitudes regarding the relationship between the physical world and cyberspace. For example, Ava goes on to write: I can only speak for myself, but the reason why I would be able to be completely alone, unread and ignored online is because I already get all the connection I need offline. Online is a bonus, or a fallback. Not to mention that it could overlap and only my offline relationships could read my blog. Would that not be enough? Yes, that is exactly what we should be doing! Identifying how each of us inhabits cyberspace is the key to setting boundaries, managing expectations, and maintaining a good balance between the physical world and cyberspace. And these can look different for each of us, and we don't have to agree, because the relationship between the individual and the digital world is cultivated by each person. I would call these "real life" and "the internet" or something along those lines, but I think that falls short. We have to acknowledge that for some folks, whether it be by choice or circumstance, cyberspace is a real, habitable environment. This is why people defend freedom of speech online, along with privacy, encryption, and the infrastructure which makes it all possible. All of these are fundamental so you can even begin establishing a relationship with cyberspace on your own terms. If we are to reconcile the differences between the physical and digital worlds, we must start by recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of each one as they pertain to the individual . We will disagree on what these are, however, which is one of the reasons why we constantly see new articles and posts in which people analyze their own relationship to technology and proceed to make sweeping, normative declarations on what we ought to do because of the way things are . No one is exempt from this, and in fact these are helpful to read because the experiences of others broaden our options and inform our opinions. I'm thinking for example of posts where we may talk about how we use e-mail, or how we use RSS, or why we quit Instagram, so on and so forth. In the spirit of learning more about these topics, I want to share with you some of the readings from that seminar. They're grouped by topic, and this list is certainly not exhaustive, but it's a good way to learn about what work is being done to identify and engage with issues pertaining to the relationship between people and cyberspace. These readings had a big influence on how I began to think about technology and the role I let it play in my life. And it's only going to get more interesting as the future comes closer to us. Sissela Bok, Secrets: On the Ethics of Secrecy and Revelation [Book] Cécile Fabre, The Morality of Gossip [PDF] Matt Lister, That's None of Your Business! On the Limits of Employer Control of Non-Workplace Behavior [PDF] Elizabeth Anderson, Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don't Talk About It) [Book] Anita Allen, Unpopular Privacies: What Must We Hide? [Book] Katie Engelhart, What Robots Can—and Can’t—Do for the Old and Lonely [Article] Dana Boyd and Eszter Hargittai, Facebook Privacy Settings: Who Cares? [Author Blog] Andrew Marantz, Why Facebook Can't Fix Itself [Article] Anita Allen, Gender and Privacy in Cyberspace [PDF] Carissa Véliz, Privacy is Power: Why and How You Should Take Back Control of Your Data [Book] Marisa Elena Duarte, Network Sovereignty: Building the Internet Across Indian Country [Book] Cécile Fabre, Spying Through a Glass Darkly: The Ethics of Espionage and Counter-Intelligence [Book] Michelle Goldwin, Policing the Womb, Invisible Women and the Criminalization of Motherhood [Book] Amy Reed-Sandoval, Socially Undocumented: Identity and Immigration Justice [Book] Gloria Anzaldúa, Borderlands/La Frontera, The New Mestiza [Book] José Jorge Mendoza, The Contradiction of Crimmigration [PDF]

0 views
ava's blog 1 weeks ago

the overstated importance of connectivity

I sometimes wonder if we have too uncritically accepted the marketing narrative of social media companies about how connectivity is always good and preferable, and that they as the mediators always need to be the ones facilitating it in their own way. I’ll have to narrow it down: Of course having friends, family, a support network is good - even needed - and work connections get you further professionally, both offline and online. That’s not what I mean. What I see critically instead are tech companies continuing to advertise their services as facilitating these connections, when they actually do so less and less in favor of more sponsored content and AI bots, and that the best way for connection to happen is to have an endless supply, and on their platform. They were extremely successful in convincing many of us that merely having potential access to more people, and many more people having access to us directly, is an advantage and counts as “being connected” (meaning: more than the simple software connection between us). I just don’t believe that, at least for a private person who doesn’t need to win over customers or become a brand. We can see daily that most of us are just not equipped to handle thousands or more people coming at us online. There’s good reasons why famous people used to have a more filtered access to fans via fan mail, interviews, magazines and the occasional meet and greet, plus a PR team and media training. There is a sweet spot when we have relationships to just enough people to be happy without the attention becoming a burden. These companies have conflated a sort of passive consumption, access and surveillance with “connection” and “relationships”, using the image of keeping up with friends and family via a platform to imply that thousands consuming your posts without ever talking to you and more or less surveilling you as a stranger counts the same. They have facilitated a business model around parasocial behaviors with influencers via this exact narrative. They also want you to believe that you need their platforms for relationship maintenance, and they have succeeded, with many claiming they would not be able to get a hold of their inner circle or know about their lives if they deleted their account… which is sad. The idea that you cannot interact with family anymore without this platform, that you can go through millions of strangers to find your next best friend or partner or other opportunity, keeps you on it. The exchange of posts across millions of people keeps each other on the platform too, as you’re always looking for new posts and never run out. No one would use it if it was dead, and they’d use it less if a post couldn’t generate these juicy numbers. That reinforces itself. There’d be less posts to consume if most people limited their profiles and posts for privacy, and ragebait loses its teeth if everyone just blocks the poster or blocks each other too freely. People are also expected to make themselves available 24/7 and overshare, which helps mine additional data and creates more attractive and scandalous content round the clock for the other users to consume, as opposed to just using it for an hour a day. All of these factors have in common that huge masses of people need to be almost constantly available, active and not walled off to each other. That means no limits via settings, friend lists, block lists, feeds that only show who you follow, friction or time constraints, because then the free flow of “content” is disrupted and people spend less time on the app. That could also mean your friends and family drop off too, so you don’t stay there either, which means less eyes on ads and less data to harvest. So of course they’d want to counter this possible risk with the notion that the average Joe needs to open himself up to the eyes of millions because "connection is good!" and maybe you’ll even go viral and earn money. Don’t you wanna be “connected”? Why are you isolating yourself? You’re so weak for blocking that person, and you’re missing out by privating your profile or deactivating it, and you’re antisocial by not posting! Meta went notoriously hard on pushing its capability to be hyperconnective: In Careless People by Sarah Wynn-Williams , she describes again and again how Mark Zuckerberg met with lots of important authorities and key political figures to underline how the platform could connect, just to get more users 1 , without taking responsibility for what their platform would enable in some of the most heated regions - even hiding their role in the outcome of the 2016 US presidential election by pushing their narrative about openness and connection 2 . They also disregarded the setting not to import phone contacts and implemented the "People You May Know" feature 3 to make more "connection" happen, jeopardizing people's safety and privacy to do so. In general, bringing internet to other disadvantaged and cut-off countries is a good thing, and they did launch Internet.org (now: Free Basics) to allegedly aid with that 4 ; however, it quickly devolved into just providing rudimentary Facebook versions to these countries (Facebook Zero), becoming essentially the entirety of the internet in these places and therefore controlling it completely just to gain more users and influence 5 , and only pleaded with countries under the guise of connection to get unblocked, especially by China 6 . They even created a Connectivity Lab in 2014 7 , invested in a Connectivity Declaration and spent over 1 Million dollars on full-page advertisements for it. They even got positive press by CNN and Reuters about pleading with the UN that connectivity over their platform could eradicate "global ills" like extreme poverty 8 . Not only that, but as many probably already know, Meta has been pushing chatbots and fake AI profiles on their platforms (especially Instagram) for a year or so now. The goal is to keep you there still, as less and less people actually talk to each other while just passively consuming content. As the net gets taken over by bots, what’s the advantage of connecting with them? Connection at all costs huh, even if there's no human involved? That is where the idea of it starts to crumble and fall apart. Which is why the need for connectivity in the way these companies mean it and push it is a big lie just to further their financial interests and has nothing to do with how humans actually pursue, facilitate and experience true connection, and we need to question it. Discussions around isolation and viewership online are a bit skewed for me for that reason, especially when they happen outside of the mega-platforms and are about blogging, because they apply the marketing we internalized on social media to other spaces who don’t depend on this lie. My friend Suliman said something very sweet recently about discoverability in the indie web: “But what's the point of a home on the internet if you're living it alone? There's a saying in Arabic that says "a Heaven without people is no Heaven" and I think it's truer in our modern day than ever. We're already so isolated, so why isolate ourselves even further?” I think this is true for the offline context, but I am not convinced about how well it works for the online world. I am concerned this view on connection uncritically applied to online spaces is playing too much into the financial interests of Meta and others and is, at least partially, learned behavior from growing up on their platforms, and growing up in a capitalistic era that urges you to use everyone you know for professional networking, extracting favors and all to attain better work, housing, and donations. I can only speak for myself, but the reason why I would be able to be completely alone, unread and ignored online is because I already get all the connection I need offline. Online is a bonus, or a fallback. Not to mention that it could overlap and only my offline relationships could read my blog. Would that not be enough? Connections I have offline are people I can visit flea markets with, play board games with, we share beds and food and I can rely on them when I’m sick. Meanwhile, the online people I am supposed to crave being connected to en masse can give me an upvote, and an email - which is very appreciated, but it is just not on the same level. Online people absolutely can become offline people, as I met my wife online and have had good internet friends. But that, as shown above, has nothing to do with the widespread passive consumption and access that is presented under the guise of connection by these giants who abuse it. I don’t feel connected by simply witnessing someone exist; neither on social media, nor around the blogosphere. To me, saying I need people online to notice me to not be isolated is like telling me I need to go to Times Square on New Years Eve to not be lonely. All that will happen is that I’d feel lonely while surrounded by other people and noise. We should not value quantity over quality, and I don't want to pretend that the attention economy that these companies have instilled to further their own power is my way to find true connection. Reply via email Published 30 Nov, 2025 Small selection: Pages 81 (Myanmar Junta), 108 and 168 (Colombia), 181 (panel of several presidents in Panama), 186 (President Roussef) ↩ Page 256 ↩ Page 62 ↩ Pages 106-108 ↩ Page 203 ↩ Pages 144-145 ↩ Page 107 ↩ Page 194-195 ↩ Small selection: Pages 81 (Myanmar Junta), 108 and 168 (Colombia), 181 (panel of several presidents in Panama), 186 (President Roussef) ↩ Page 256 ↩ Page 62 ↩ Pages 106-108 ↩ Page 203 ↩ Pages 144-145 ↩ Page 107 ↩ Page 194-195 ↩

0 views
Rik Huijzer 2 weeks ago

The X Community Notes Are Different, Are They?

In some cases, Wikipedia feels the need to "clarify" a certain video, which a commenter aptly called the "the blue box of gaslighting": ![YouTube_screenshot_demonstrating_Wikipedia_fact-checking.png](/files/ce94431fd8117f45) Now X community notes was promised to be something else, but to me it does look very similar. The note posts some helpful "context": ![x-fact-checking-moon.png](/files/34a372a5cf49e063) The reason that I'm critical is that especially on a topic like this, the note doesn't add any information. People who believe that the moon landing was staged will still believe that a...

0 views
Taranis 2 weeks ago

So it's going to be about appearance?

After the utter debacle surrounding the UK EHRC's initial guidance, it seems that their revised guidance has leaked. The Times has seen it – here's a non-paywalled secondary source: This is a spectactularly bad idea. It gives free rein to anyone who wants to police other people's looks the go ahead to abuse people. And I do mean all people here, cis and trans, because they really can't 'always tell'. I'm a trans woman who tends toward the high-ish femme end of the spectrum by my own preference. I pass as cis face-to-face, and after a lot of voice training also do so on the phone. I don't tend to make photos of myself very public because I value my own safety, so you're going to have to just accept this as written. Trans people are a tiny percentage of the population. Some of us 'look' trans. Many don't. But the bigger problem here is that this also applies to cis people. A substantial proportion of cis women aren't anything like as femme-presenting as me, and as-such are way more likely to be excluded. Since cis women are roughly half the population, way more cis women than trans women will be affected by this idiotic legislation, just by sheer weight of numbers. The nonsensical nature of this argument can easily be laid bare: if trans women are such a danger to cis women (which is blatantly untrue anyway, but even letting that slide for a second), why are cis-passing trans women somehow given a pass, whilst a whole spectrum of cis women are excluded on the basis that they (checks notes) might be trans? What a load of absolute fucking bollocks. Let's just see this for what it is: an attempt to force women – all women, cis and trans – into rigid, narrow gender roles, on pain of exclusion from society. And let's also not miss the fact that this has considerable racist overtones, because the standards of femininity we're talking about here are those of idealised cis white high femme presenting women. Black and brown women have historically been seen as less femme, more masculine, so this will inevitably be seen here. Can we just cut to the chase and bury this total fucking stupidity, before another genration (and most likely the EHRC's anagramatic nemesis, the ECHR) has to fight to slap it down? For the record: this legislation would basically give me a free pass. I'm really very far from wanting to accept that privilege at the cost of the freedom of other women, both cis and trans.

0 views

Thingness

I am thinking again about this notion of “self-sameness” that Byung-Chul Han talks about in The Disappearance of Rituals . He writes: For Hannah Arendt it is the durability of things that gives them their “relative independence from men [ sic ].” They “have the function of stabilizing human life.” Their “objectivity lies in the fact that…men, their ever-changing nature notwithstanding, can retrieve their sameness, that is, their identity, by being related to the same chair and the same table.” In life, things serve as stabilizing resting points. The table does not change—at least, it does not change at any time scale that is noticeable to the human who sits before it. I do not need to pay attention to the table, because nothing is happening with it that requires or even asks my attention. I can simply trust it. I can turn around and turn back, and even with my eyes on something else, I can reach for it and know it will be there, exactly where I left it. Screens, of course, lack any such sameness or stability. Screens are inconstant, unsame, unstable. A screen demands my attention—not only via the regular chirping of notifications, as hungry and unrelenting as a baby bird—but through that fundamental inconstancy: I know something may have changed since I last looked at it, know I cannot trust it to remain the same, to be steady or faithful. I must be vigilant towards a screen, always on alert, suspicious. And vigilance is exhausting. I will not add to the discourse about how we should spend less time with screens; you are as familiar with those patterns and arguments as anyone. I want to suggest instead that turning away from screens is turning towards something else. It is not an absence but a presence, not an empty hand but one with a hold on something solid and true. That is, a politics of refusal must be more than a closed door; it must be both a closing and an opening, both rejection and invitation. The refusal must contain its alternative, the other paths, the thing you are turning to while you turn away. And what you turn to must have that stabilizing presence, that thing ness, the restfulness of something you can trust. A rock that fits into your palm, a notebook, a bowl, a tree, a trail through the woods, a book (always a stack of books), a table, the chairs around it scraping the floor as your kin sit down to join you. View this post on the web , subscribe to the newsletter , or reply via email .

0 views
Manuel Moreale 3 weeks ago

Y’all are great

I keep hearing and reading people bitching and moaning about the web being dead, lamenting the good old days of the web, when real people were out there, and sites weren’t all about promoting some shit nobody cares about or attempting to amass an audience only to then flip it in exchange for money. And I’m sitting here, screaming at my screen «That web you’re missing is still here, you dumbdumb, you just have to leave your stupid corporate, algodriven, social media jail to find it» . This past Friday the interview with the lovely Nic Chan went live on People and Blogs. Her site has something mine does not: analytics. And they're public! That offered the rare opportunity for me to see the effect the series has on a featured blog. This series lives on my blog but has nothing to do with me. It exists to connect you, the human who’s reading this, with all the other wonderful humans that are still out there, spending their time making sure the old school web, the one made by the people, for the people, is not dying. And see that bump on Nic’s analytics made me so happy. Because it means the series is working and doing its job. And it’s all because people like you are taking the time to read these interviews and click on those links to visit those blogs. And maybe you’re also taking time to reach out to those people and connect with them. This is the web many people are missing, a web that is, in fact, still here, very much alive. Y’all are great. Thank you for keeping RSS alive. You're awesome. Email me :: Sign my guestbook :: Support for 1$/month :: See my generous supporters :: Subscribe to People and Blogs

0 views
annie's blog 3 weeks ago

My new business + tech podcast

After reading 1 the recent news about the unsurprising lack of diversity in podcasting — 64% of the hosts of the most popular US podcasts of 2024 were men…Shows with video are more likely to have male hosts; the worst gender balance is with business and technology podcasts, where men host 92% of shows. — I have decided to start my own business and technology podcast (with video) to help balance this dreadful imbalance 2 . Please enjoy. Show transcript available upon request 3 . Don’t forget to like, subscribe, share, burn it all down, etc. Thanks to Chris for sharing this , which I otherwise would never have seen because I don’t follow podcasting at all but I am sucker for reports  about anything especially when I am procrastinating on actual work I should be doing which is really what this entire post is all about. I can only help with the gender aspect. Better than nothing, I guess. Transcript: Dramatic intro music. Eyes. Nodding authoritatively. Pause. Thump. Coffee slurp. Coffee sigh. “Today in business-tech podcast we’ll look at the state of business and tech. Business: bad. That’s right. Tech: Also not good. Tune in next time. “ Thanks to Chris for sharing this , which I otherwise would never have seen because I don’t follow podcasting at all but I am sucker for reports  about anything especially when I am procrastinating on actual work I should be doing which is really what this entire post is all about. I can only help with the gender aspect. Better than nothing, I guess. Transcript: Dramatic intro music. Eyes. Nodding authoritatively. Pause. Thump. Coffee slurp. Coffee sigh. “Today in business-tech podcast we’ll look at the state of business and tech. Business: bad. That’s right. Tech: Also not good. Tune in next time. “

0 views
neilzone 3 weeks ago

Perhaps I just stop reading the news?

I have been looking for a while for a reliable, online, text-based, source of important (subjective, I know, but to me that doesn’t include sport or celebrities or what is on TV) UK and world news, with a focus on reporting rather than analysis. At this point, I’ve basically given up; I don’t think that what I want exists, paid or free. But do I need to read “the news” anyway? I wonder what I really get from it, other than an increasing sense of despair and frustration. I get updates from key primary sources, through a combination of RSS and to monitor websites. I’m not concerned about missing a key regulatory or legislative update, which is important to me from a work point of view. I subscribe to 404Media, which I enjoy, although a more UK-focussed version would be amazing. I occasionally look at our local news site, when I can stomach the clickbait headlines. I think I’ve got more uBlock Origin filters set up for that site than for any other, in an attempt to make it usable. I’d rather hoped that there was a subscription option which does away with all the advertising, gives actually informative headlines and like, but no - it is an app-based offering, with an “ad-lite … experience”. I can see what people are discussing in the fediverse, where my filters for most party politics are pretty effective. But predominantly I enjoy the fediverse as a place to chat and have fun, not to be exposed to “news”. Having an appreciation of what is going on in the world, in a geopolitical sense, is also useful for my work, and that is a bit trickier. It is primarily for this that I’ve continued to read the BBC news, despite my increasing dissatisfaction with it. But perhaps it is time - even for just a test period - for me to stop reading “news sites”, and see how I fare.

0 views
Manuel Moreale 4 weeks ago

Input diet

Two related pieces of writing are doing the loops in my head recently. The first is the editorial piece from Dense Discovery #361 —thank you Mattia for sending it to me—where Kay wrote We’ve normalised giving our attention almost exclusively to people who already have obscene amounts of influence. And we amplify them by watching. The power law in action: a few rise to the top, and we keep them there by never looking away. (...) Seeking out lesser-known voices isn’t just an act of cultural curation; it’s a philosophical stance, a refusal to let attention be the only metric that matters. Because the most interesting stuff usually happens on the margins. The topic of who is getting my attention these days is something I’m spending a lot of time thinking about. Because time and attention are a precious resource, one we probably take for granted way too often. A resource that’s been abused by the modern economy to the point where people seem unable to focus anymore, with the sole goal of selling us crap we likely don’t need. The other piece I’ve been thinking about is Ridgeline #217 , where Craig wrote: The modern smartphone, laden with the corporate ecosystem pulsing underneath its screen, robs us of this feeling, conspires to keep us from “true” fullness. The swiping, the news cycles, the screaming, the idiocy — if anything destroys a muse, it’s this. If anything keeps you locked into a fetid loop of looking, looking, and looking once more at the train wreck, it’s this. I find it impossible to feel fullness, even in the slightest, after having spent just a bit of a day in the thralls of the algorithms. The smartphone eradicates “space” in the mind. With that psychic loss of space, grace becomes impossible. You see the knock-on effects of this rippling out across the world politically. I’m starting to believe that a phoneless life is, for me, the ultimate goal. How to get there, that I don’t know, but I feel like it’s a worthy goal to pursue. And I think this goal is gonna be part of a broader push towards really curating the inputs in my life. By inputs, I mean everything I consume. Because I realised my mental health is deeply affected by what I consume, day after day. The books I read, the posts and blogs I scroll through, the news I ingest, the music I listen to. Everything contributes to how I feel, and I think I’m only now realising how much more strict and diligent I should be with my input diet. The other day, I reopened my RSS reader after my small break from media consumption, and I was both over- and underwhelmed. Overwhelmed because I follow quite a lot of blogs, and so there were thousands of posts waiting to be read in there. Underwhelmed because after a quick scroll through all those entries, I realised there wasn’t much I was genuinely excited to read. Which isn’t to say the content in there wasn’t interesting, quite the opposite. I follow a lot of people who write a lot of interesting content. But I realised it was not content that really resonates with me, at this point in my life. And I came to the realisation that the only reasonable thing to do is to start from scratch again. Remove everything and start adding back only the content I really want to consume. And in doing that, this time around, I should be a lot more deliberate, a lot more careful in what I add. Because now more than ever, in this age of infinite digital abundance, quality really is more important than quantity. Thank you for keeping RSS alive. You're awesome. Email me :: Sign my guestbook :: Support for 1$/month :: See my generous supporters :: Subscribe to People and Blogs

0 views
ava's blog 4 weeks ago

disability and living for yourself

I am scared of the point in disability when you are seemingly just living for other people, not yourself. The point where all of your personal goals and dreams have been shattered, developing a new identity is gatekept by your abilities and your caregivers, and your purpose seems to just be existing as a reminder to everyone else that they should be grateful for their health and life. You can’t die (yet), because that would make everyone sad, and it would cease to be the inspirational story of never giving up and always smiling through it all that they want it to be. They want to look at you, be happy they’re not you, but simultaneously also want you to keep fighting so they know that even if they became you, that life is still worthwhile and happy. Bearable. It’s too painful to admit that maybe it isn’t sometimes. I think people love disability stories like Stephen Hawking because people like him were still able to leave a mark, did what they love, had tools to move, and functioned (mostly) under capitalism. They love to think that they will also score similarly on the disability roulette, and I hope so too, but we also tend to forget that these people often had vastly different resources and privileges than many, too. It reminds me of the liberal disability advocacy that tends to push mostly healthy people in the foreground with a caption that’s something like “I might look different, but I’m just like you!”. The message tends to skew towards something like “People with Down Syndrome can still work in your company!”, fighting discrimination based on a sort of ableist lookism or fear of wheelchairs, and focusing on the fact that they can still be productive. You can see something similar happening in certain autism advocacy groups led by allistic parents, who love to push low-needs geniuses (“savants”) as the face of autism. The cynical might see this as an admission of the fact that many can only stomach the disabled if they somehow make up for their disability via another good or even exceptional quality that can be monetized or contributes to the greater good. Many disabled people are just not that. It might be the reverse: looking just like you, but the illness(es) make studying, reading, writing, thinking, or formulating and voicing things, difficult or impossible. It doesn’t even have to be outright cognitive damage - chronic fatigue, chronic pain, lots of doctor’s appointments and more can make education hard, especially if it’s in a school setting or a degree, in a rigid schedule, lots of text. When my chronic pain is high, I can’t even keep up with my Zoom classes, and I can’t retain what I read. Writing is okay, but speaking is hard, and I blank every couple seconds, and stop multiple times in the sentence, searching for words. I lose words, I mix them up, I stutter. That’s the same person writing all of these posts though, the same person enrolled in a law degree, the same person holding down a fulltime job. It’s the same person with dreams and goals that might be significantly altered or shattered down the road against my will because of illness progression. I thought about all of this because of a YouTuber I like to watch, Vereena Sayed. She has created videos for years, but I only discovered her last year when I was very sick. I loved seeing her on her pink motorcycle, riding with her dad while I was in bed, in pain. But soon after, I found out that she was in a horrible accident since she uploaded those videos, and barely survived. She was in a coma, with 9 broken bones, a shattered spine, a broken jaw and a TBI. For a long time, no videos were uploaded, but recently, she has started uploading again. She’s showing very candidly what her life now looks like: A wheelchair, needing help 24/7, lots of physiotherapy and… pain. On Instagram, she recently admitted that she tried to kill herself. In her latest video, she says: “I hope this video motivates you to not end up like me.” The accident wasn’t her fault; there’s nothing she could have done to avoid this. It hurts, seeing her have to resign herself to being a memorial or an inspirational story, because her old goals and path are dead, and there is not much else to do than live for others when you can’t live for yourself (yet, or ever). It also reminds me of another quote I heard recently, that I also wrote in my notebook: “I’m scared of losing the rest of my worth.” Reply via email Published 10 Nov, 2025

0 views
Ruslan Osipov 1 months ago

PC Gamer physical edition is good, actually

I spend a lot of time in front of a computer or a phone, even now that I have a kid. Hey - she needs to sleep, and I have some time to kill. Many of my hobbies revolve around a screen too - like playing video games, tinkering with stuff, or writing. It’s unsurprising that I’ve been wanting to take a step away from the screen and find a way to engage with physical media more. I used to read a lot of books - I don’t anymore. I listen to audiobooks sometimes, but it’s been a good year or two since I last sat down and read a book cover to cover. That’s fine - life ebbs and flows, and even though sitting down and reading books used to be a huge part of my life - they aren’t today, and that’s okay. But it’s nice to put down devices and just hold something in your hand. I worked around this limitation though and decided to get more into magazines. Yeah, print media is still alive and kicking. We have two physical publication in our household this year - The New Yorker, and PC Gamer. Two very different magazines, and you can probably tell which subscription appealed to my wife - and which one to me. I’ve been reading both, although I’ll admit that PC Gamer has received more of my attention. Hey - unlike The New Yorker, which oppressively sends you a new issue each week, PC Gamer has been sending me issues monthly. And I don’t need to tell you that The New Yorker is a great publication - it’s got hell of a reputation, and for a good reason. It’s quality journalism, and peak writing, or so I’m told, but it certainly reads that way despite my limited knowledge on the subject. But I do know a thing or two about video games, and one thing I know is that gaming journalism from major publications - PC Gamer included has been steadily declining in quality over the past decade. Between corporate relationships, out of touch and burnt out reviewers, and sanitized, often generic pieces - I have been avoiding mainstream gaming media. There are lots of small independent reviewers who do a wonderful job covering the titles I care about, and I trust those a lot more. I’ve read somewhere that the print edition of PC Gamer is somewhat different. You still have the same people working on the issue, but the time pressure’s different, articles can’t be updated once they go live, and there’s much more fun and creative writing. I’m sure all of that’s available offline too, but I don’t think I would’ve read any of that if the magazine wasn’t already in my hands. Reading editions of PC Gamer feels like stepping a time capsule, in big part due to fairly substantial retro game coverage - you can’t exactly publish breaking news in a monthly print, so the focus is much more on having interesting things to say. Chronicles of Oblivion in-character playthroughs, developer interviews, quirky reviews - there’s lots to love. I’ve heard Edge Magazine is well known for high quality writing and timeless game critique. I think I’ll check that out too - here, I just subscribed.

0 views
Jim Nielsen 1 months ago

Down The Atomic Rabbit Hole

Over the years, I’ve been chewing on media related to nuclear weapons. This is my high-level, non-exhaustive documentation of my consumption — with links! This isn’t exhaustive, but if you’ve got recommendations I didn’t mention, send them my way. Reply via: Email · Mastodon · Bluesky 📖 The Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes. This is one of those definitive histories (it’s close to 1,000 pages and won a Pulitzer Prize). It starts with the early discoveries in physics, like the splitting of the atom, and goes up to the end of WWII. I really enjoyed this one. A definite recommendation. 📖 Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb by Richard Rhodes is the sequel. If you want to know how we went from atomic weapons to thermonuclear ones, I think this one will do it. It was a harder read for me though. It got into a lot of the politics and espionage of the Cold War and I fizzled out on it (plus my library copy had to be returned, somebody else had it on hold). I’ll probably go pick it up again though and finish it — eventually. 📖 The Bomb: A Life by Gerard J. DeGroot This one piqued my interest because it covers more history of the bomb after its first use, including the testing that took place in Nevada not far from where I grew up. Having had a few different friends growing up whose parents died of cancer that was attributed to being “downwinders” this part of the book hit close to home. Which reminds me of: 🎥 Downwinders & The Radioactive West from PBS. Again, growing up amongst locals who saw some of the flashes of light from the tests and experienced the fallout come down in their towns, this doc hit close to home. I had two childhood friends who lost their Dads to cancer (and their families received financial compensation from the gov. for it). 📖 Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety by Eric Schlosser Read this one years ago when it first came out. It’s a fascinating look at humans bumbling around with terrible weapons. 🎥 Command and Control from PBS is the documentary version of the book. I suppose watch this first and if you want to know more, there’s a whole book for you. 📖 Nuclear War: A Scenario by Annie Jacobsen Terrifying. 🎥 House of Dynamite just came out on Netlify and is basically a dramatization of aspects of this book. 📖 The Button: The New Nuclear Arms Race and Presidential Power from Truman to Trump by William J. Perry and Tom Z. Collina How did we get to a place where a single individual has sole authority to destroy humanity at a moment’s notice? Interesting because it’s written by former people in Washington, like the Sec. of Defense under Clinton, so you get a taste of the bureaucracy that surrounds the bomb. 🎧 Hardcore History 59 – The Destroyer of Worlds by Dan Carlin First thing I’ve really listened to from Dan. It’s not exactly cutting-edge scholarship and doesn’t have academic-level historical rigor, but it’s a compelling story around how humans made something they’ve nearly destroyed themselves with various times. The part in here about the cuban missile crisis is wild. It led me to: 📖 Nuclear Folly: A History of the Cuban Missile Crisis by Serhii Plokhy is a deep look at the Cuban Missile crisis. This is a slow burning audiobook I’m still chewing through. You know how you get excited about a topic and you’re like “I’m gonna learn all about that thing!” And then you start and it’s way more than you wanted to know so you kinda back out? That’s where I am with this one. 🎥 The Bomb by PBS. A good, short primer on the bomb. It reminds me of: 🎥 Turning Point: The Bomb and the Cold War on Netflix which is a longer, multi-episode look at the bomb during the Cold War. 📝 Last, but not least, I gotta include at least one blog! Alex Wellerstein, a historian of science and creator of the nukemap , blogs at Doomsday Machines if you want something for your RSS reader.

0 views
マリウス 1 months ago

Cameras, Cameras Everywhere!

We live in an age when a single walk down the street can put you inside at least a dozen different recording ecosystems at once: Fixed municipal CCTV, a bypassing police cruiser’s cameras or body-cam feeds, the license-plate cameras on light poles, the dash-, cabin-, and exterior cameras of nearby cloud-connected vehicles, Ring and Nest doorbells of residences that you might pass by, and the phones and wearables of other pedestrians passing you, that are quietly recording audio and/or video. Each of those systems was justified as a modest safety, convenience, or product feature, yet when stitched together they form a surveillance fabric that reaches far beyond its original intent. Instead of only looking at the big picture all these individual systems paint, let’s instead focus on each individual area and uncover some of the actors complicit in the making of this very surveillance machinery that they profit immensely from. Note: The lists below only mention a few of the most prominent enablers and profiteurs. CCTV is not new, but it’s booming. Market reports show the global video-surveillance/CCTV market measured in tens of billions of dollars and growing rapidly as governments and businesses deploy these solutions. A continued double-digit market growth over the next several years is expected. Cameras haven’t been reliably proven to reduce crime at scale, and the combination of live feeds, long-term storage and automated analytics (including behavior detection and face matching) enable discriminatory policing and concentrate a huge trove of intimate data without adequate oversight. Civil liberties groups and scholars argue CCTV expansion is often implemented with weak limits on access, retention, and third-party sharing. In addition, whenever tragedy strikes it seems like “more video surveillance, now powered by AI” is always the first response: More CCTV to be installed in train stations after knife attack Heidi Alexander has announced that the Government will invest in “improved” CCTV systems across the network, and that facial recognition could be introduced in stations following Saturday’s attack. “We are investing in improved CCTV in stations and the Home Office will soon be launching a consultation on more facial recognition technology which could be deployed in stations as well. So we take the safety of the travelling public incredibly seriously.” Automatic license-plate readers (ALPRs) used to be a tool for parking enforcement and specific investigations, but firms like Flock Safety have taken ALPRs into a new phase by offering cloud-hosted, networked plate-reading systems to neighborhoods, municipalities and private groups. The result is a searchable movement history for any car observed by the network. Supporters point to solved car thefts and missing-person leads. However, clearly these systems amount to distributed mass surveillance, with weak governance and potential for mission creep (including law-enforcement or immigration enforcement access). The ACLU and other groups have documented this tension and pressed for limits. Additionally there has been a plethora of media frenzy on specifically Flock Safety’s products and their reliability : A retired veteran named Lee Schmidt wanted to know how often Norfolk, Virginia’s 176 Flock Safety automated license-plate-reader cameras were tracking him. The answer, according to a U.S. District Court lawsuit filed in September, was more than four times a day, or 526 times from mid-February to early July. No, there’s no warrant out for Schmidt’s arrest, nor is there a warrant for Schmidt’s co-plaintiff, Crystal Arrington, whom the system tagged 849 times in roughly the same period. ( via Jalopnik ) Police departments now carry many more mobile recording tools than a decade ago, that allow the city’s static CCTV to be extended dynamically: Vehicle dash cameras, body-worn cameras (BWCs), and in some places live-streaming CCTV or automated alerts pushed to officers’ phones. Bodycams were originally promoted as accountability tools, and they have provided useful evidence, but they also create new data flows that can be fused with other systems (license-plate databases, facial-recognition engines, location logs), multiplying privacy and misuse risks. Many researchers, advocacy groups and watchdogs warn that pairing BWCs with facial recognition or AI analytics can make ubiquitous identification possible, and that policies and safeguards are lagging . Recent reporting has uncovered operations where real-time facial-recognition systems were used in ways not disclosed to local legislatures or the public, demonstrating how rapidly policy gets outpaced by deployment. One of many recent examples consists of an extended secret live-face-matching program in New Orleans that led to arrests and subsequent controversy about legality and oversight. Drones and aerial systems add another layer. Airborne or rooftop cameras can rapidly expand coverage areas and make “seeing everything” more practical, with similar debates about oversight, warranting, and civil-liberties protections. Modern cars increasingly ship with external and internal cameras, radar, microphones and cloud connections. Tesla specifically has been a headline example where in-car and exterior cameras record for features like Sentry Mode, Autopilot/FSD development, and safety investigations. Reporting has shown that internal videos captured by cars have, on multiple occasions, been accessed by company personnel and shared outside expected channels, sparking alarm about how that sensitive footage is handled. Videos of private interiors, garages and accidents have leaked, and workers have admitted to circulating clips . Regulators, privacy groups and media have flagged the risks of always-on vehicle cameras whose footage can be used beyond owners’ expectations. Automakers and suppliers are rapidly adding cameras for driver monitoring, ADAS (advanced driver-assistance systems), and event recording, which raises questions about consent when cars record passengers, passers-by, or are subject to remote access by manufacturers, insurers or law enforcement, especially with cloud-connected vehicles. Ring doorbells and other cloud-connected home security cameras have created an informal, semi-public surveillance layer. Millions of privately owned cameras facing streets and porches that can be searched, shared, and, in many jurisdictions, accessed by police via relationships or tools. Amazon’s Ring drew intense scrutiny for police partnerships and for security practices that at times exposed footage to unauthorized access. A private company mediates a vast public-facing camera network, and incentives push toward more sharing, not less. Another recent example of creeping features, Ring’s “Search Party” AI pet-finder feature (enabled by default), also raised fresh concerns about consent and the expansion of automated scanning on users’ cloud footage. While smartphones don’t (yet) record video all by themselves, the idea that our phones and earbuds “listen” only when we ask them has been punctured repeatedly. Investigations disclosed that contractors for Apple, Google and Amazon listened to small samples of voice-assistant recordings, often including accidentally captured private conversations, to train and improve models. There have also been appalling edge cases, like smart speakers accidentally sending recordings to contacts, or assistants waking and recording without clear triggers. These incidents underline how easily ambient audio can become recorded, labeled and routed into human or machine review. With AI assistants (Siri, Gemini, etc.) integrated on phones and wearables, for which processing often requires sending audio or text to the cloud, new features make it even harder for users to keep control of what’s retained, analyzed, or used to personalize models. A recent crop of AI wearables, like Humane ’s AI Pin , the Friend AI pendants and similar always-listening companions, aim to deliver an AI interface that’s untethered from a phone. They typically depend on continuous audio capture and sometimes even outward-facing cameras for vision features. The devices sparked two predictable controversies: Humane ’s AI Pin drew mixed reviews, questions about “trust lights” and bystander notice, and eventually a shutdown/asset sale that stranded some buyers, which is yet another example of how the technology and business models create risks for both privacy and consumers. Independent wearables like Friend have also raised alarm among reviewers about always-listening behavior without clear opt-out tools. Even though these devices might not necessarily have cameras (yet) to record video footage, they usually come with always-on microphones and can, at the very least, scan for nearby Bluetooth and WiFi devices to collect valuable insights on the user’s surroundings and, more precisely, other users in close proximity. A device category that banks primarily on its video recording capabilities are smart glasses. Unlike the glassholes from a decade ago, this time it seems fashionable and socially accepted to wear the latest cloud-connected glasses. Faced with the very same issues mentioned previously for different device types, smart glasses, too, create immense risks for privacy, with little to no policy in place to protect bystanders . There are several satellite constellations in orbit that house advanced imaging satellites capable of capturing high-resolution, close-up images of Earth’s surface, sometimes referred to as “spy satellites” . These satellites provide a range of services, from military reconnaissance to commercial imagery. Notable constellations by private companies include GeoEye ’s GeoEye-1 , Maxar ’s WorldView , Airbus ’ Pléiades , Spot Image ’s SPOT , and Planet Labs ’ RapidEye , Dove and SkySat . Surveillance tech frequently arrives with a compelling use case, like detering car theft, finding a missing child, automating a customer queue, or making life easier with audio and visual interactions. But it also tends to become infrastructural and persistent. When private corporations, local governments and individual citizens all accumulate recordings, we end up with a mosaic of surveillance that’s hard to govern because it’s distributed across actors with different incentives. In addition, surveillance technologies rarely affect everyone equally. Studies and analyses show disproportionate impacts on already-targeted communities, with increased policing, mistaken identifications from biased models, and chilling effects on protest, religion or free association. These systems entrench existing power imbalances and are primarily benefitial to the people in charge of watching rather than the majority that’s being watched . Ultimately, surveillance not only makes us more visible, but we’re also more persistently recorded, indexed and analyzable than ever before. Each camera, microphone and AI assistant may be framed as a single, sensible feature. Taken together, however, they form a dense information layer about who we are, where we go and how we behave. The public debate now needs to shift from “Can we build this?” to “Do we really want this?” . For that, we need an informed public that understands the impact of all these individual technologies and what it’s being asked to give up in exchange for the perceived sense of safety these systems offer. Avigilon (Motorola Solutions) Axis Communications Bosch Security Systems Sony Professional Axis Communications Bosch Security Systems Flock Safety Kapsch TrafficCom Motorola Solutions (WatchGuard) PlateSmart Technologies Digital Ally Kustom Signals Motorola Solutions (WatchGuard) Transcend Information Flock Safety Lockheed Martin (Procerus Technologies) Quantum Systems Mercedes-Benz Eufy Security Nest Hello (Google) Ring (Amazon) SkyBell (Honeywell) Bystander privacy (how do you notify people they’re being recorded?) Vendor and lifecycle risk (cloud dependence, subscription models, and what happens to device functionality or stored data if a startup folds) Gentle Monster Gucci (+ Snap) Oakley (+ Meta) Ray-Ban (+ Meta) Spectacles (Snap) BAE Systems General Dynamics (SATCOM) Thales Alenia Space

0 views
Taranis 1 months ago

So what happens now?

I couldn't talk about this until I was no longer with my former employer, but I now am able to announce what I'm going to do next: Like many of us, I've been concerned for some time that social media has been sliding toward becoming a collection of unwelcoming, even tangibly dangerous, hellsites. As the Trump administration has pushed these companies to capitulate to his regime, we've seen both internal changes with them being forced to abandon internal DEI programmes, as well as adopting trust and safety policies that accommodate (or are at least less unfriendly to) fascist hate speech. This is disenfranchising a substantial proportion of the population, making it less and less safe for them to participate in public life. In extremis, if Project 2025 is fully deployed, many minorites, including but certainly not limited to queer and trans people, will be pushed entirely off the internet, and likely much worse. This also makes many allies extremely uncomfortable – no decent person likes to support fascism even tangentially, but many people, myself included, depend on social media for much of their social contact. It's not good enough to pick platforms that are less fascist. We all know which platforms are the worst offenders, I need not repeat them here, but the 'better' platforms many of us drift toward are still basically run by the same cohort of billionaire and billionaire-adjacent people, and are located and controlled in the US. We need and deserve something better than this. I'm going to build it. My vision for Euravox is that it will be a fully-featured social network platform, at least as capable as any legacy platform, so nobody will feel that they are missing something by moving to it. It will support posts and chat in a way that will be familiar to Facebook users, but with richer support for things like typography and inline images. It will (eventually) support other media types too, including music, podcasts, ebooks, audiobooks and of course video. I also want to enable it to support a creator economy, with a large proportion of income redistributed fairly to creators. There will be three kinds of account: free accounts that are ad-supported, low cost ad-free paid accounts, and (still pretty low cost) creator accounts whose content is monetized. Anyone will be able to sign up for any account tier – I won't make people jump through ridiculous hoops in order to become a creator The need to carry advertising is not something I can avoid. For the system to be self-funding, in order to have a user tier that is free at the point of use, ads are the only way to do this. When free tier users consume content, I need to be able to pay the creators, and that money has to come from somewhere. Most of it will in fact go to the creators, with the rest supporting the platform infrastructure, salaries, etc. Trust and safety will be central to the platform. Hate speech will absolutely not be tolerated. Though membership will be open to anyone, the focus is on people who have been displaced from legacy platforms, so this will be reflected in the trust and safety policies and terms of use. To be clear: Euravox will not tolerate transphobia, homophobia, racism, fascism or any other similar abuse. This is not negotiable and is an immutable founding principle. As hinted by the name, the company will be European, with our main operations in Europe. I see European privacy legislation as a selling point, not a threat to our business model. Our users will own their own data and are free to download and/or delete it at any time. Users will need to grant the bare minimum of (non-exclusive) rights in order to enable the platform to legally operate, and no more. They will own and retain their copyright. My intention is to primarily use hardware directly owned by the company and to run it in multiple, geographically distributed, colocation datacenters. This is the most cost-effective way to scale the service, and dramatically cheaper than, for example, deploying on AWS or Google Cloud. It also keeps our technology owned by us from the bare metal upwards, which is very important for data sovreignty – I can't trust cloud provider(s) not to hand over our user data to bad actors. Currently the business is just me. Bluntly speaking, I'll be coding my ass off for a while getting this thing running. I'm hoping to have a closed alpha by roughly the end of the year, and a more open beta in the early new year, followed by a (minimum viable product) public rollout probably toward the end of Q1 2026. Once there is revenue, I'll be looking to hire. You'll hear about it when I do, so there's no need to bug me about it just yet. It's a bit unclear exactly how and where I'll hire people, though where legally feasible, I'll help people move from dangerous locations to Europe. I'd like to keep most roles fully remote, but I'll probably need at least something somewhere, probably in mainland Europe, in order to stage hardware before moving it out to DCs. I'm not sure where the DCs will be yet, but very likely Germany, Spain and one of the Nordic countries (TBD). I've started a very basic corp website at corp.euravox.eu – there's a bit more there, with more details about the membership tiers, etc., as well as a manifesto that makes the motivation behind doing this stuff clearer. Note that the sign-up button is disabled right now, there being nothing to sign up to just yet! I'm not looking for business partners or investors at this time. I am not willing to dilute control over the business, because I see retaining that as absolutely vital in order to be able to deliver this to the people who need it the most. I've done some careful numbers, and it should be self-supporting fairly quickly. For this same reason, Euravox will be a company, not a nonprofit, because the latter would potentially be an attack vector for someone powerful enough who wanted to weaken our user protections. The fash will hate this, and IDGAF. It's not for them. They literally have the whole rest of the internet to spew their bile. I want somewhere that the rest of us can be safe. I want to found the kind of community that existed back in the early LiveJournal days, before algorithms driven by rage bait destroyed everything. I should probably talk a bit about The Algorithm. I am well aware that many seasoned social media users, particularly those of us who started in the LiveJournal world, Usenet and even BBSes, really appreciate a time ordered view of posts by people we care about. We're going to have that as a fully supported thing. We'll also have a discovery algorithm that can show you posts about things you commonly interact with, but this will be tuned specifically for that, not for user retention (this is what causes the rage bait on other platforms, and I just am not interested in that toxicity). I want people to use Euravox because it's a nice place to be, with nice people, not because they have been deliberately addicted to it by an algorithm that manipulates them into feeling constant fear, hooking them on dopamine. I also want to make Euravox a really good platform technically, which is why I want to support other media types like books, podcasts and audiobooks, things that have been entirely overlooked by legacy social media. And music, of course, is close to my heart because, being a musician myself, I am disgusted by the way that current internet streaming services pay almost nothing to creators. They will get a far better, fairer and more transparent deal on my platform, meaning both more money and a way to interact with fans that is completely missing from legacy streaming. Realistically, Euravox is not going to replace legacy social media, but if we can even take an appreciable fraction of their users, the project will be very successful. In order to compete with us effectively, legacy social media will be forced to shift its Overton window to the left – something that's currently implausible given their alignment with the Trump administration. So we'll just take our chunk of the market, and make a better world for ourselves in the process. Getting the thing to scale, and do so quickly, will be the biggest challenge. I have a plan for that. I'm not going to talk about it much, because for most people it's technical TMI, but I may post about it at a later date. Needless to say, this isn't going to be a LAMP stack. I know what works, and what doesn't, when scaling systems to enormous size, so I'm going to build this the right shape from the outset. I'll post updates as I'm getting closer to the alpha and then beta releases. I'm also very keen to hear from anyone who has strong feelings about how they would like social media to work – obviously I can't make any promises to implement anything specific, but I don't want to take decisions in a vacuum either. Some of you probably think I'm completely freaking insane trying to build something like this, essentially solo. You'd have a point! I definitely have WTF am I doing moments. However, I have all the technical knowledge and experience I need, and I'm certainly sufficiently determined. This is also far from being my first startup. I am intending to retain control as CEO, and if anyone suggests that I should hand that over to some 'more experienced' dude they will lose a testicle. This project is going to happen. Many people reading this will probably be wondering what they can do to help. I'm not looking to do a kickstarter/gofundme or anything like that. All I really ask is that, once the time comes, create an account and (hopefully!) enjoy helping each other create the community we all deserve. 😸

0 views
fLaMEd fury 1 months ago

The Long Play Podcast

What’s going on, Internet? I just finished listening to The Long Play, a four-part podcast series from The Spinoff. Each episode is aptly named Side A, B, C, and D - just like a vinyl. Researched, written, and presented by Charlotte Ryan with support from Duncan Greive, it covers the rise, fall, and revival of vinyl over the last century in Aotearoa. You can listen through your favourite podcast app or find the feed on The Spinoff’s podcasts page . If you’re in New Zealand, they’ve taken it a step further - in collaboration with Holiday Records, they’ve actually pressed the podcast onto vinyl and distributed it to more than 40 record stores across the country. I haven’t had a chance to get out to any of the local record stores for a hunt for a copy yet, been busy house hunting , but I’m keen to see if I can still track one down. What a brilliant idea. Hey, thanks for reading this post in your feed reader! Want to chat? Reply by email or add me on XMPP , or send a webmention . Check out the posts archive on the website.

0 views
Chris Coyier 1 months ago

Oregon Rocketry

My co-worker Robert is into model rocketry. I made a few rockets in my day, but the hobby stopped at Estes . I didn’t really realize people take rocketry much further until knowing Robert. His partner Michelle produced a short video piece for OPB on the community around it here. I’d embed the video here, but it looks like OPB hosts their own video and doesn’t offer an embeddable format. A move I think it probably pretty smart for an independent, nonprofit media organization these days.

0 views
HeyDingus 1 months ago

It’s on Apple TV

The madness just got madder. ‘ Apple TV+’ is now just ‘ Apple TV ’ . I noticed something was off right away when I saw Apple’s streaming date announcement for F1 : The Movie . They said the movie “ will make its global streaming debut on Apple TV on Friday, December 12.” I caught the lack of the “ +” immediately, and, knowing Apple doesn’t often make those kind of copyrighting mistakes, I wondered what it meant. Were they going to license the movie out to other streaming services that can be watched on the Apple TV box or in the Apple TV app in addition to their own Apple TV+ service? The answer is found at the bottom of the announcement (on their blog that’s still called ‘ Apple TV+ Press’ at the moment): Apple TV+ is now simply Apple TV , with a vibrant new identity. Ahead of its global streaming debut on Apple TV , the film continues to be available for purchase on participating digital platforms, including the Apple TV app, Amazon Prime Video, Fandango at Home and more. It’s an app . A streaming service . An entertainment box . A storefront . Are you getting it? These are not four separate products. Oh, wait — yes, they are — but we’re still calling them all Apple TV . You watch Apple TV shows in the Apple TV app on the Apple TV box. But you can also get Apple TV on Fire TV . And you can get Apple TV from the Apple Store. Or Apple Store app. Or the App Store. It’s Apple TV all the way down. Or, I guess, simply, it’s on Apple TV . Putting my cynical hat aside for a moment, I kind of get it. It seems clear to me that a major part of reason to drop the “ Plus” branding is that celebrities with titles on the service and normal folks alike simply didn’t remember it. I’ve heard more promotions for shows and movies that could be found “ on Apple” or “ on Apple TV ” than I ever have for “ Apple TV Plus”. I’ve done it myself when recommending shows to friends — it felt kind of nerdy to say, “ There’s this great show I love called Trying . It’s on Apple TV Plus.” (It totally is a great show.) I, the Apple nerd and TV+ fanatic, would shorten it down to “ it’s on Apple TV .” So, yeah, I get it even if I don’t love it. I am curious, though, about that “ vibrant new identity” they mentioned. I was just thinking the other day that while other streaming services has gone through change after change to their branding and visual/auditory design, I appreciate how Apple TV+ has stayed consistent since day one . Their network ident , that black and white fade in of the logo with the spotlight shining through the “ +”, along with the deep thrum sound signature — a play on the beautiful Mac startup chime — it really felt timeless. Something that could last. I liked it. And it worked so well alongside their (also great) Apple Original Films introduction reel . I wonder how much of that identity will stick around. Can’t wait to watch Apple TV on Apple TV in Apple TV I too have a vibrant new identity # AppleTV Genuinely excited to see what this means for the service in terms of growth and potential tiers, as well as the app, storefront and hardware. Is there room for an Apple TV+ tier that includes rental access, lossy audio, and more? Is there room for an Apple TV Pro? Unpopular reality check: Most people in real life just call it Apple TV . They know what they mean. “ The Apple one”. Renaming the service to Apple TV is cleaner, and totally a non-issue. Only nerds obsess about naming these things. Nobody in real life will ever say the sentence “ The TV app for Apple TV on Apple TV ” . Only people here do. Apple TV+ Apple TV Apple TV GO Apple TV Now Apple TV Max Max Suggested name revisions: Apple TV (hardware) ➡️ Apple HDMI box thingy Apple TV (app) ➡️ iTunes Apple TV (service) ➡️ Not Netflix, the Other One If the new Apple TV 4K is somehow named “ Apple Home Hub Max” I’ll flip a table Imagine if the hardware was called iPhone and it contained an app called iPhone, which was also available on Android, full of lots but not all of your content and you could buy an optional subscription with extra content …called iPhone I have acquired a + from an undisclosed seller and am now known as Matt+ HeyDingus is a blog by Jarrod Blundy about technology, the great outdoors, and other musings. If you like what you see — the blog posts , shortcuts , wallpapers , scripts , or anything — please consider leaving a tip , checking out my store , or just sharing my work. Your support is much appreciated! I’m always happy to hear from you on social , or by good ol' email .

0 views
Manuel Moreale 2 months ago

My issue with the two sides

One fairly common concept you’ll inevitably stumble upon if you spend any modicum of time reading discussions on the web is the idea of “two sides”. Some will tell you that the two sides are not the same and one is clearly better than the other, others will argue that not taking one side means that you’re tacitly supporting the other, while someone else will tell you that trying to argue that maybe more nuanced positions exist, in addition to the two sides, is wrong and you’re a bad person for doing that. All this is fair, and I’m more than happy to concede that, in some circumstances, one side is indeed clearly better than the other. I’m also happy to concede that again, in some circumstances, not expressing a preference for one of the two camps, when one is clearly better than the other, can be seen as tacit support for the worse one. I’m also more than happy to agree that sometimes dragging a discussion into the mud that is the infinite fractal world of the fine details is not really all that helpful. Having said all that, I still think way too often conversations on the web have the tendency to completely obliterate any level of nuance. Which is understandable, considering most conversations are taking place on social media platforms that aren’t designed to have nuanced conversations in the first place. There are ideas and concepts that demand more than 300 characters to be expressed fully, but unfortunately, sometimes even saying that can be seen as problematic in some circles. And that is unfortunate. It is unfortunate because progress can only be had if people have enough space and time to express themselves fully and then have their ideas challenged constructively. And yes, I’m already hearing you screaming that some racist bigots out there don’t deserve to have their views treated respectfully and be given time and space. I get it, and I understand it. The problem I see with this, though, is that the internet is a weird place. A lot of people aren’t vocal. Most of them are just lurking around, absorbing content and forming ideas in their head and maybe discussing things in person with close friends and family. And amongst them, there probably are a lot of people who would be more than happy to support and join the good one of the two sides, but are probably kept at a distance because of the insanity they see unfolding. I’m gonna pick a stupid example to make this point a bit clearer. Let’s imagine the topic of the day is “kicking puppies”. One camp is happily going around supporting the kicking of puppies because it’s a fun thing to do, and puppies are worthless and annoying, while the other camp thinks puppies are adorable—they are—and they are living creatures and deserve to not be kicked and instead loved and adored. It’s fairly easy to see that one camp, clearly, is better than the other, and if you are a sane and decent person, you should not have a hard time figuring out which camp is worth siding with. And sure, you might be one of those people who might argue that in some cases, puppies can be problematic because maybe they are puppies of a terrible invasive species that will destroy the solar system in 3 years if we don’t kick them all now. But, generally speaking you should find it easy to side with one of the two sides, even if only with some asterisk attached. But what if the pro-puppies camp you hear from online doesn’t stop at "puppies should be loved" but also argues that people who kick puppies should all die now and be dissolved in acid and their families be shot into the sun? You clearly are supporting the puppies' cause, but you are definitely not on board with all the rest of the nonsense. What do you do then, when someone screams at you, asking which side you are siding with? You clearly love puppies, but you also don’t want to support drowning people in acid. So you’re fucked. You could try to explain your position, but nobody got time for that. Chances are, you say nothing, and you silently move away from the public discourse space, never to be seen or heard again. I don’t know about you, but I think that’s bad. It’s bad when a lot of people are scared to express what they think because they are scared of the repercussions. Because you can’t have a healthy society without open dialogue. And I don’t even know how we fix this at the internet level. I don’t think there even is a way to fix this to be perfectly honest with you. It’s up to the individuals to go through the effort of giving other people time and space to express themselves and engage in dialogue. And if that's the only way out, well, shit. Thank you for keeping RSS alive. You're awesome. Email me :: Sign my guestbook :: Support for 1$/month :: See my generous supporters :: Subscribe to People and Blogs

0 views