Nate Cox

The vitriol over this topic is humorous. We charge our phones and watches daily, nobody is losing their minds over that. However, asking for the mouse to be plugged in one night a month is outlandish and absurd.

The best part is that this minor issue overshadows the real issue: the ergonomics are terrible. I have large hands and simply can not hold onto the thing properly. Narrow and flat is poor design for something you need to get a grip on to slide around.

Now if only they could add “swipe to go back” to their Linux client. Only thing keeping me off of Vivaldi these days.

The cult of Stallman continues to baffle me. The man is venom in the veins of the free software community and people just adore him.

I love the ideals of the free software movement but RMS is so toxic that I won’t associate myself with it while he’s tolerated.

This is so common it has a name, it’s called banner blindness.

One of the important aspects of interface design is supposed to be not showing alerts for everything, so that when they pop up you feel compelled to pay attention.

Not long ago a nurse killed an older woman by giving her the wrong medicine; she took accountability but called out that the software they use provides so many alerts that (probably unofficial) policy was to just click through them to get to treating the patient. One of those alerts was a callout that the wrong dosage was selected and she zoomed right by it out of habit.

It’s hard to have a discourse on a topic if you insist that the scope of that topic must by default be infinite.

X isn’t being threatened with litigation because they’re freedom fighters bringing literature to the huddled masses; they’re being threatened with litigation because they are a billion dollar business sustaining themselves by selling ads along with content that Brazil argues was misinformation and hate speech.

On the topic of freedom fighters bringing literature to the huddled masses: it may be moral in some extreme examples to defy the government, but there are means of doing that completely removed from the scope of microblogging on a corporate behemoth’s web platform. For example, there is an international organization who’s sole purpose is perusing human rights violations.

I don’t think it’s the responsibility of X to know the laws of every country; I expect them to respect the wishes of other countries when it is brought to their attention if they want to continue doing business there.

Also, I think we both know that the misinformation we are talking about here has nothing to do with religious beliefs. The context of the linked article clearly indicates that harmful mistruths leading to harmful actions is the subject here.

I’m not sure why it’s so tempting to think of internet content as a special entity that defies otherwise established rules. Maybe it’s simply because no special effort is needed today to get the content across the border?

Regardless, we aren’t talking about your geocities page, we’re talking about billion dollar businesses. Would it be appropriate to take your physical storefront across international borders and insist that the government there should have zero say as to what products you sell? If not, why is it appropriate to do the same with web content? X is selling content in the form of ad distribution, countries should get to decide if that content is appropriate for distribution.

I’m going to challenge your assertion that you’re not talking about what should be considered harmful by pointing out that you are loading your argument substantially by asserting that people need “help” protecting them from “harmful” censorship. Remember that the issue addressed in this thread is Brazil banning X for its promotion of misinformation and hate speech.

Censorship isn’t harmful by default. It is ok to ban people from shouting “fire” in a theater for example, because the shout may result in real harm. Now you can argue that some censorship may be harmful because of its impact on society, such as the removal of books from school hampering fair and complete education or banning research texts that expose inconvenient truths.

But, again the issue here is specifically an attempt to ban misinformation and hate speech; are you going to make an argument that these things are a positive to the community and should be defended as a moral imperative? Frankly it’s a pretty silly stance to take.

Define “harmful censorship”. I would argue—strongly—that censoring hate speech and misinformation is a public service.

I also think that any service (twitter) refusing to abide by the laws of a country (Brazil) has no place in that country.

We routinely censor content to placate China; like, all the time.

I believe each country should get to have a say in what is permissible, and content deemed unacceptable should be blockable by region. I don’t think it’s reasonable to say “well it’s on the internet so it’s untouchable” simply because the server is in another country.

Disinformation campaigns are specifically designed to undermine the reasoning capabilities of people by inveigling them into believing (usually emotionally provocative) falsehoods, turning them into misinformation conduits in the process.

It’s like saying that meth should be legal because reasonable people should just chose not to use it, ignoring the social and mental health issues that drive people to consume it against their best interest.

Sometimes the right thing to do is to cut off the head of the snake before it can bite you.

Anyone can be lonely at any time, even surrounded by people who love them.

I’m happily married, I love my wife very much, she is my favorite person and I would be devastated and lost without her. Still, sometimes I feel lonely.

Sometimes I think about my dad who isn’t with us any longer and I feel lonely. Sometimes I think about work stress and I feel lonely. Sometimes I feel lonely for no damn reason at all.

None of that has anything to do with how much I love my wife, or her ability to “provide”; people are just complicated.

They’re being downvoted because one platform being shitty doesn’t excuse another from it.

See: Tu Quoque

I’ve been making an uneducated guess that the screen alignment may be a hard-to-solve problem. Holding my Libra and Libra color next to each other you can see a noticeable difference in the clarity of black and white text.

Not a nurse but I worked a lot of manual labor jobs that had me on my feet moving all day (e.g., home renovation work) and I can say that your body eventually gets used to that kind of work and the soreness becomes a persistent dull ache that honestly isn’t bad. Kinda like if you just work out daily.

Nursing may be different, and my experience may not apply, but I would think that you will get used to it.

Honestly the only thing I never got used to was standing in one place at retail work. Standing all day in the same spot is not natural and the body rejects it.

I have one of the kobo Libra color ereaders, the saturation is definitely muted and there is a bit of a screen door effect but overall it’s pretty cool.

I did hate the screen door at first though, like a lot. Curious to see one of these in real life. The online reviews of the Libra basically overlooked the negatives and now I’m skeptical of everything haha.

I don’t think KDE has a native way to do this, I’ve also heard of Koi for this but I haven’t used it. I’m mostly a Mac user where this is just a default option.

Cool

All I want is “follow system theme” for us light mode at day, dark at night fellows.

People pissed at Firefox might not be as receptive of an article straight from Mozilla. Know your audience.