Isn't "information diet" perfect usage here? The medical doctor's information diet probably consists of different information than the tech enthusiast's, or the STEM PhD's, and the journalist's information diet may consist of more politics and contemporary events. I thought it was a pretty creative and apt word choice
IANAL, but only the owner can consent through the TOS. The owner does not collect or process the data, so it's entirely on LG to ensure proper consent, not the owner. Breaking a TOS is not a crime, and can only be punished by restricting or disallowing access to a service, but collecting personal data without consent is a huge problem in the EU.
It’s clearly unreasonable to assume that LG can know and procure consent from everyone you choose to allow into your living room.
It’s reasonable to push the burden of procuring that consent onto whoever controls entry to the space, with terms like this.
As a thought experiment, let’s take a service like Zoom where you can record video of participants. It’s reasonable to say “you’re operating the camera, if someone appears in the background, it’s your responsibility to make sure they’re informed and consent to the recording”. In fact, trying to establish the identity of the person in the background for the purposes of procuring consent is probably a greater intrusion on privacy than not.
The problem here is different. The problem is that the volume of data being collected is clearly unnecessary for achieving the purposes it’s intended for.
> It’s reasonable to push the burden of procuring that consent onto whoever controls entry to the space, with terms like this.
I don’t agree. I think if consent can’t be obtained, the only reasonable action here is to not collect the information.
The comparison to a zoom meeting is not 100% because if you’re walking past such a camera, you’re pretty likely to notice it and have the option to not step into view or obscure your face.
I think the legal argument would be that the owner of the recording device (in this case the TV) was informed and therefore responsible for informing others.
The question I think would centre on two things: is burying the information in a ToS acceptable for “informing” and is the amount of data collection proportionate for providing the service. I think the answers to both those is no.
I agree with your framing of the two problems, but I’d add a third: It is a large mistake to assume that the person installing the TV (thus agreeing to the ToS) is going to be present whenever it is being used around new people. It just assumes too much about the way people organize their lives, homes, purchases.
> It’s clearly unreasonable to assume that LG can know and procure consent from everyone you choose to allow into your living room.
If only they had a big interface to ask the user to push [AGREE] to consent to be spied upon. I would call it a RemoteVision and put the button in a wireless TeleControl so the user can easily agree every time they turn on the device.
We might not have the technological capabilities for this, but one can dream.
I<3ANAL but even if the owner agrees to the TOS, there’s no way other users or guests are verifiably consenting or any way for LG to verify before collecting data.
I could hit someone and say it was someone else’s fault, but delusion isn’t a legal defense.
It's not really around Omarchy, but around DHH due to his political beliefs. I'm not deep into this, but I think the majority of the controversy stems from this article:
Wow. I just read this one now, and DHH really makes it hard to defend him. It's definitely possible to make this argument without likening groups of people to wolves and sheep...
> Cue the gypsies in Copenhagen, and their increasingly brazen behavior, after the city legalized overnight sleeping in parks and other green areas last year. Because "it shouldn't be illegal to be homeless" ...
> This has predictably led to these foreign vagrants setting up camp ...
> Copenhagen is the Danish capital. It's repeatedly been named the safest city in the world in recent years. Partly because it didn't tolerate vagrants ...
It would be easier to ask how this is a normal way of speaking? Gypsies is already a derogatory word, vagrant implies something criminal rather than cultural about their behaviours, and he's making an issue of them not being local vagrants (what?). The decisions he's incredulous about came about democratically and the debates involved were carried out by public representatives and are publicly actually. The incredulity is just rhetoric and the implication that they're dangerous because they're foreign or live transiently surely has no place in a modern society.
> When wolves get out of control, you shoot them.
How is this in any way a non-extreme metaphor to use?
It is. The Romani aren't vagrants and they're doing nothing illegal. Calling them vagrants is charged and misleading.
> Vagrants and transients are often dangerous and mentally ill.
That can be true. Again the Romani aren't vagrants and using the word to describe then implies a level of danger and/or mental health issues that isn't evidenced.
> It is reasonable to use state violence to suppress crimes.
No-one has asserted otherwise.
> the control of dangerous animals being similar to the control of dangerous people is not extreme.
It's generally accepted the dehumanising a people or culture is extreme, I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise. There are any number of alternative metaphors that could have been used (not to mention that the argument could have been built on its own weight) that wouldn't have involved comparing an entire people to a pest that needs to be controlled with lethal force.
You see nothing extreme with dehumanizing a group of people and comparing them to wolfs being killed?
> When wolves get out of control, you shoot them.
There isn’t more extreme than that. If you think that’s a normal way of talking about humans, I’m sorry but you’re very far down a radicalization rabbit hole
“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.”
One of the fascinating things about these ancient stories is to see how they reflect the current culture of wherever and whenever they are recounted. For example, Alexander the Great has been recounted as a Greek hero, a Macedonian hero, or even a Muslim hero. Stories have always been malleable. Scribes would make small (and sometimes large) adjustments to stories, which over time could lead to entirely different plots. People recount stories from memory, and often make up details they can't recall.
I personally believe that stories like the Iliad and the Odyssey were more like a performance art. Someone would tell a story, while the audience would come with suggestions "he killed the Cyclops!" "the wine was poisonous!" "they hid among the sheep!", and they would change the story according to the mood of the room. Similar to how DnD works today. If this is true, there can't even be a definitive true original story. This opens up many cans of worms like "who decides the cannon? The author or the audience?".
Nolan's movie is in many ways a good adaptation (it's fun and engaging to modern viewers), while also being a great reflection of current Hollywood (casting, substitution of religious plot for natural plot).
I haven't had the pleasure of reading Wilson's translation yet, but it's good to see that she's trying to improve her work. One of the major criticisms leveled against her is the overuse of the word "slave", which is very loaded in today's vocabulary. There were many different types of unfree work, and attitudes toward them would be very different from today. Grouping them all into slaves would definitely remove a lot of nuance. Really nice to see that she is working on this problem; I think she will be respected a lot more if she solves it.
What features did you end up implementing? I assume tree-sitter based highlighting, lsp, and maybe fuzzy search? Did you implement anything different that you didn't get out of existing editors that you tried?
Very few features on purpose. Every editor I tested had all the features I added and more.
It is worth noting that KTextEditor is a fully-featured library. Like, line numbers+gutter (for eventual git status icons), undo/redo, save, warn on exit for unsaved changes, syntax highlighting, color theming. It does 95% of what we'd all call "editing". But it doesn't do things like tab interface, project explorer, terminal pane, output windows, etc.
What the library didn't have were LSP features, of which I only implemented a few (error squiggles under things that fail the type check, go to definition). Notable absent are completions and hover features for things like help. I also only added (and tested) LSP servers for typescript, Rust and Go.
My plan has been: do as little as possible until I need something, then ask Fable to add it.
edit: I guess one thing I added I didn't see everywhere else was a built-in Markdown preview. But many editors have that (VSCode definitely does) so it isn't special.
Not a criticism just an interesting sign of the times that this is ambiguous and before vibe coding it would have been obvious from the context which you mean (deliberately minimal) but now it could just as easily mean that Fable implemented features without asking you
The volume of commits is quite crazy. For example, he wrote a +486/-51 commit in 20 minutes (33287cb) with quite dense rust code. That's about 25 changes per minute -- very impressive! The docs also smell of LLM output, for example describing the app as native despite using egui/wgpu.
What about egui and wgpu is not native?
Those are both generally what is considered running something natively. Both even mention running "natively" in their descriptions.
I guess what you mean is "OS-provided controls". In that case, ye that is not what this is.
I was about to come here and say that egui is a terrible choice for web. Everything is rendered in a canvas, so accessibility and extensibility is thrown out of the window. Basic browser functions like pinch-zoom don't work, it has some very wonky visual bugs when resizing the window, interactions have a very noticeable delay, no browser extensions work with this.
This is really not a good solution for web apps, and if you're vibe coding your apps anyway, there isn't any reason not to have a native browser application.
OOP is sold on the promise that everything is modular. Since everything is neatly encapsulated with clearly defined API surfaces, you can easily swap out any part for any other. This should make developers interchangeable, because anyone can go in to the code and swap out parts as needed.
In reality this seems to make coupling even worse. Now you have to dig 8 classes deep just to find the business logic for a particular feature. Changing it is even harder because the rest of the program expects this part to behave in a very specific way.
reply