As a former child, I'm not sure I would have wanted the adults mimicking my behavior. Back then I loved the occasions where the adults and us kids got together, such as festivities, and I got to hear their stories. They were all interesting and serious people though, with interesting lives and jobs (I was born in the 1970s and many of the adults had experienced WWII, or, the parents, the hard years following it - I am [East] German). No strange opinions about science or politics.
I think that's similar to when politicians try to "be like the people". I think "normal people", and children, prefer that their "betters" are actually examples of something better.
Agree. Your role as a parent is probably to serve as an example to them—even of old-fashioned, crufty ways. (Surprised/not-surprised to find my kids are curious about film cameras, vinyl, audio cassettes, MUDs, BBS'es…)
It's not a question of mimicking, it is interesting what is current within the teenage/student community. Adult population runs out of steam at some point.
IMO "just reporting what they see" is a solution at all. I tried looking at messages through that angle, and too often there is very important context that you need, or the message's content does not make sense, or becomes something different.
For example, we have plenty of "journalism" that reports exactly what some entity says. That just makes them a PR channel. If they added context that politician's or company's message's content's meaning would turn on its head and would be exposed as a lie.
Similarly, a lot of news would greatly benefit from larger context that just is not there, and that the vast majority of "consumers" of the news are simply not aware of, through no fault of their own.
"Just report what you see" IMHO is part of the problem, not the solution. It's trying to "solve" the reporting problem by removing most of the role of journalists because they are seen as unreliable, for good reasons, but I don't think that works at all. It is similar to trying to solve all problems by adding ever more rules for everything, to remove the uncertainty and unreliability of individual decisions.
This is just like at work, where the capital owners and bosses would love to replace all those pesky annoying opinionated humans with something more controllable and predictable. If the intelligence can be moved from the people into the process, the latter become replaceable and much cheaper, and the company gets much more control. But it is not just the owner class that does not like having to rely on and to deal with other humans.
I think the direction of development of the role of journalists has actually gone way too far in exactly the direction of them using less and less of their own brains, and having less influence and ability, for most messages, the very few deeper pieces notwithstanding.
Although, none of that will do anything as long as the news source owner structure is the way it is, with a few billionaires controlling most of the big news sources.
Only doing "just reporting what they see" is a problem as well (and even AP (https://apnews.com/) does analysis, and their more on the "just reporting what they see" side than most news providers), but opinions being presented as facts is far more common (at least from the mainstream AU media, I don't know what the situation is elsewhere), hence trying to clearly demarcate the two is better than being unclear about what you are presenting. You need facts and analysis, and them labelled as such.
Personally, I find a good example of this is the different election broadcasts: the commercial TV broadcasters tend to have their staff take both the role of election analyst (i.e. result prediction) and commentator, whereas the ABC (one of the public broadcasters) has tended to have clear separation of roles (enough such that the election analyst who just retired has a cult following), with an election analyst who is giving detailed predictions and calls the election, political journalists providing context/analysis, polling experts covering what the polls missed/got right, and politicians from the major parties giving their opinions as well.
Which may already be a sign of ability to pay? Not that I will argue against the right of US Americans to have a country that gets more and more divided by "class" defined by money, an interesting if not very ethical experiment for sure.
The very well-known in Germany satiric news website "Der Postillion" had an interesting provocative piece just yesterday (German, but auto-translate takes care of that): https://www.der-postillon.com/2023/12/weihnachtsmann-ungerec... -- "Schlimmer Verdacht: Bevorzugt der Weihnachtsmann die Kinder reicher Eltern?" ("A disturbing suspicion: Does Santa Claus favor the children of wealthy parents?")
Being able to get to places by car is one of the most basic needs in the US. I think it leads to cementing the monetary status quo and monetary class affiliation when that becomes even more dependent on how much money one can spend on it. A nicer car being more expensive is fine in that regard, it does not get you from A to B much or any faster than the cheap one. Being able to choose roads or lanes that will take you there much faster is different.
It removes one's personal "hard work" contribution to success if more and more of it is out of your control - after all, how much money you start the game of life with is nothing one has control over. Maybe making that kind of mechanism worse is not the best idea in the long term. Unless we are really aiming for what all the dystopia movies and anime have been showing us.
There are also tons and tons of indirect effects. For example, I would make the claim that wealthy shareholders benefit a lot more from roads than poor people, even when they don't drive, since the companies they own and the entire economy needs them. The poorer people driving to work "paying their share" does not look so clearly justified to me, unless one believes that their salaries are perfect indications of their role in value creation.
> The very well-known in Germany satiric news website "Der Postillion" had an interesting provocative piece just yesterday (German, but auto-translate takes care of that): https://www.der-postillon.com/2023/12/weihnachtsmann-ungerec... -- "Schlimmer Verdacht: Bevorzugt der Weihnachtsmann die Kinder reicher Eltern?" ("A disturbing suspicion: Does Santa Claus favor the children of wealthy parents?")
Canadian stand-up comedian Casually Explained (I don't actually know if he stands up to record his videos) had basically the same joke a few days before them.
It is not CloudFlare that is ruining the Internet, but the spammers and attackers. On the second level, that catching and punishing them is impractical or even impossible depending on their location.
Businesses were perfectly fine to accept the low security of 1990s email, webserver, and all the other configurations and software. They did not suddenly out of nowhere ask for more restrictions (such as email sending restricted to using the email server "officially responsible" for that domain- it used to be you could do the same as with physical mail, where you can drop letters into mailboxes writing a "From" address that was not in the same city as the mailbox location). They certainly did not volunteer to make everything much more difficult -- and expensive -- to set up and use. It also leads to a lot more work for their IT staff and a lot more user problems to respond to.
All these annoying restrictions were forced to be implemented by attacks of all kinds.
Because it is so difficult, compromises needed to be made. CFs methods are of course full of them, such as taking country and IP ranges into account. Feel free to make practical and implementable and affordable suggestions for alternative solutions. You may even get a reward from CF if you can come up with something good that allows them to cut back on restrictive policies while at least maintaining the current level of security. It is in the interest of CFs customers to be as accessible as possible, after all.
I run a little wiki and, holy shit, the bots have gotten advanced. Like, it used to be no big deal, then like a year and a half ago, it exploded. It's basically quadrupled the costs for me to run the site. It's not even worth it to ban IPs anymore, because they are routing their traffic through different IPs -- in different countries -- just to scan my site, repeatedly, every damn day. It's an obscure golf course wiki, but no... better check every other day to see if anything has changed!
At the same time, the bots are dumb as hell. I have honey pots that basically are as simple as "if you visit this obscure, hidden URL you're banned" or "if the same obscure page for a course is visited for four different courses in a row, then ban all the IPs that were part of that." But they keep coming... like, an infinite number of IPs. I genuinely don't want to use Cloudflare, but I understand why people do. It's absolutely crazy out there.
> It is not CloudFlare that is ruining the Internet, but the spammers and attackers.
Spammers have been around since forever and it used to be the webmaster/sysadmin's responsibility to deal with spam in a way that would not hinder user experience. With Cloudflare all that responsibility is aggressively passed on to the user, cumulatively wasting _years_.
As for attackers, I wonder if Cloudflare publishes data showing how many of the billions of websites it "protects" have experienced a significant attack. They don't offer free protection to save the internet, but rather for control -- and no single company should have this much control.
Is the fallacy here not obvious? Yes, spammers have been around since forever, but it's not the same amount of spammers. Whether it's two spammers or two million spammers does make a difference.
I think we're long past peak spam. A lot of them seem to have given up due to the rise of SPF and DKIM, and also because people don't really use email so much anymore as a serious form of communication.
I remember some clients in the mid 2000s. They got several spam emails per minute on some accounts. Not kidding. I haven't seen anything like that in recent years.
I've been on the Internet since 1992, directly connected at home (student dorms at the time) vial ethernet cable and university ATM backbone since 1994.
At that time I was an admin of said student network, and at the same time built TCP/IP based network and email infrastructure at a subsidiary of a large German company as a side job.
So I was an admin of routers, switches, various services (email, Usenet server, webservers, fax server).
Funny enough - we only added a firewall in front of the student network to protect against our own student's experiments rather than against outside intrusions, at least initially (for example, one person setting up their own Usenet server brought down DNS by flooding it with queries)!
We never had any problems with spam or attackers. "you just didn't notice the attacks!" - NO. When you go online today you get an eternal stream of automated intrusion attempts, visible in all your log files.
Today does not even remotely compare with the easy-going Internet of the 1990s.
Usenet, forums, email - they were all very much usable with minimal or zero spam, and very basic user management. Today, with such a basic setup like we used to have, you would be 100% and chock-full of spam shortly after putting such a server online.
The responsibility now lies on the user, who has to click through confirmations to prove they are human, thus making their experience a lot worse. It has been my experience the last ten years.
> It is in the interest of CFs customers to be as accessible as possible, after all.
But since in reality there is friction, there is no magic mechanism to make those interest force CF to implement a better system as, for example, the customers might not have enough knowledge / tech expertise to understand they're losing 1% due to crude CF filters and ask for a fix
The data Cloudflare shows people in the number of requests it "protected" you from and the number of requests it thought legit. There is no indication of the number of false positives, and IIRC of the number of people asked to pass a captcha. The wording implies zero false positives and I think many people simply assume its negligible.
> It is in the interest of CFs customers to be as accessible as possible, after all.
Well this is where your argument goes a little wrong IMO. When you're on something more niche (eg Firefox on Linux) they just don't care as much about making it work for you because there's so few of us blocked in the process.
And this problem should really be solved with a proper solution, not this fiddly black magic ruleset stuff. The email thing you mention is a good example. DKIM and SPF are good things that makes things more secure in an understandable way. Specifying your legit mail handlers is not a workaround, it's good security. In some ways Altman has a good idea with his WorldCoin eyeballs. But I don't support it for obvious reasons. I don't want my internet identity tied to a single tech bro and some crypto. If we do this kind of thing it has to be a proper government or NGO effort with proper oversight and appeals process.
I've tried to make my Linux Firefox identify as edge on windows and that makes it a lot better on some sites (especially Microsoft breaks a lot of M365 functions on purpose if you're not using the "invented here" browser). And many sites don't give me captchas then. But in some cases Cloudflare goes even more nasty and blocks me outright which is really annoying. If I use Linux a lot more sites break but Cloudflare sticks with captchas.
Anyway I think the age of the captcha is soon over anyway. AI will make it unviable.
> All these annoying restrictions were forced to be implemented by attacks of all kinds.
Ps it's not always attacks but also to block things that are good for consumers but bad for the sites' business model. Like preventing screen scraping which can legit help price comparison sites.
>It is not CloudFlare that is ruining the Internet, but the spammers and attackers
That's unaccountability thinking. If I have pests in my rosegarden and as a reaction I napalm the backyard of everyone in my neighbourhood, that is not the bugs' fault.
From Germany: Two redirects, one for tfd.com, one for the redirected www.thefreedictionary.com. That's the choice -- and fault -- of the domain and webserver owners to have this full redirect instead of serving from the short domain directly.
>That's the choice -- and fault -- of the domain and webserver owners to have this full redirect instead of serving from the short domain directly.
You should choose one so things like caching will work properly, also search engines really want you to keep to a single domain hostname for the same content.
I find it strange you didn't latch on to the original comment, which has the exact same problem you complained about, but reacted to the response. The best action is to ignore threads and sub-threads you don't care about and leave others who do to their fun.
Because Polish has avoided to use diacritics in many cases, many Polish words are much longer not only than their Cyrillic equivalent, but also than their Czech equivalent, where the Polish double letters are replaced by letters with diacritics.
We don't need automation for that, we "achieve" that through our processes already. Specifically, software creation processes of large teams with many changing developers over long periods. Example (but they are not the only one): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18442941 -- changing or adding anything becomes increasingly burdensome.
I would like to post that every time somebody warns of the dangers of AI for maintainability. We are long past that point, long before AI. Businesses made the conscious decision that it is okay for quality to deteriorate, they'll squeeze profits from it for as long as possible and then they assume something new has already come along anyway. The few business still relying in that technical-debt-heavy product are still offered service, for large fees.
AI is just more of the same. When it becomes too hard to maintain they'll just create a new software product. Pretty much like other things in the material world work too, e.g. housing, or gadgets, or fashion. AI actually supports this even more, if new software can be created faster than old code can be maintained that's quite alright for the money-making oriented people. It is harder to sell maintenance than something new at least once every decade anyway.
You have a gigantic confounder of general progress, much of it technological.
Just recently I made a post here in some thread to point out that even wein backwards East Germany made huge gains - my grandfather, born early 20th century, lived much, much better even by the end of the GDR compared to when he was born in the Weimar Republic.
Especially food became a non-issue in the modern world, productivity increases were gigantic. The Haber-Bosch process, very important at the start of that development, was not a US invention, nor contingent on anything US related.
It would be hard to disentangle US influence, but one can assume even if the US had not become so dominant, much of those developments would still have taken place, lifting up much of the entire world.
I think that's similar to when politicians try to "be like the people". I think "normal people", and children, prefer that their "betters" are actually examples of something better.
reply