To help me keep the spellings straight, I pronounce them as "pie pea eye" and "pie pie" respectively. That's also the PyPI project's preferred pronunciation.
> The original iteration of the service was a mass collaboration platform designed for the digitization of books, particularly those that were too illegible to be scanned by computers. The verification prompts utilized pairs of words from scanned pages, with one known word used as a control for verification, and the second used to crowdsource the reading of an uncertain word.
Sometimes I feel guilty about using an ad blocker on sites I like. A few times, I've felt guilty enough to turn it off for a site I use a lot and trust, only to find the page completely clogged with ads that block the UI and generally make an awful experience. At this point, I've learned my lesson.
Not to mention that malvertising is still an issue that affects even major sites. In my view, browsing the web without an ad blocker is like hooking up with strangers without using PrEP - it's just not a good idea.
The main problem with static ads is that the advertiser can't obtain any analytics as to whether their ads are effective, or whether the publisher is outright defrauding them by claiming to show ads but not actually displaying them to real users, faking the number of clicks, etc.
With newspapers and magazines, picking up a copy and estimating the distribution of the paper via a 3rd party (such as Nielsen) answers all these questions.
I'd like to hear about a solution that addresses that. It seems fundamentally incompatible with the conditions of "hosted locally" and "static images or text" (which means you can't run JS to verify whether the ad was actually displayed).
It depends on the ad and what you're measuring. If it's eyeballs then yeah, you can be lied to. If it's a conversion happening on your own site then no, you can't fake that.
> If it's a conversion happening on your own site then no, you can't fake that.
The problem with this approach is that it's a "he said, she said" situation where both parties can claim that the other is producing fraudulent numbers. It can only be resolved with litigation, which is not what anyone wants when all they wanted to do is get some sales numbers up.
Also, if you're familiar with the state of advertising fraud, faking conversions with botnets and residential proxies are an absolutely real thing.
What would you do if all of your favorite sites switched to subscription models? Would that be a win in your book? Always honestly intrigued by such world views.
> What would you do if all of your favorite sites switched to subscription models?
I have very few truly "favorite sites". Most of them are completely disposable. Eg, I don't see myself ever paying for a website that provides song lyrics -- it's a fully optional service, and entirely fungible.
I think it's possible a limited return to an "old internet" model to some extent, where some random person might just posts lyrics of their favorite band just because they like it.
For the very few actual favorites, probably.
> Would that be a win in your book? Always honestly intrigued by such world views.
Extremely so. First, no ads. Second, a site that must please its users or go bankrupt. That's a win/win in my book.
Such a change likely comes along with improvements in the site's quality. Eg, paid Youtube competitors don't want to feed me hogwash all day in hopes I watch more ads. Bandwidth is expensive, they're not getting any more money from me, and there are no ads to pay for increased consumption. So their priority becomes a smaller amount of high quality content.
In practice it seems be go subscription, and then make things that used to be free to everyone require not just the basic subscription but a premium one.
I always took "information wants to be free" as a "water flows downhill" kind of statement -- it describes the natural tendency and that you need to do a lot of work against it to contain it, and even then it's probably not going to be fully successful.
It's not about what "ought" or any sort of morality, more of a factual statement of how the world works.
> Sometimes I feel guilty about using an ad blocker on sites I like. A few times, I've felt guilty enough to turn it off for a site I use a lot and trust, only to find the page completely clogged with ads that block the UI and generally make an awful experience. At this point, I've learned my lesson.
I don't get it. The sites that you like will go bankrupt, and you won't be able to read them anymore. Or do you have an agenda, and you are okay to sacrifice the sites that you like?
If I like a site, and I want it to exist* I disable my ad blocker, and bear with the ads. But probably we visit different sites, or I have a higher tolerance against ads.
* my morals have gotten so low I would happily steal from the people that provide me value, but I won't do that because I am afraid they will close their businesses
> I don't get it. The sites that you like will go bankrupt, and you won't be able to read them anymore.
Well, if I turn off the adblocker, the resulting deluge of ads makes that site a site I that I don't like, so it doesn't really matter to me whether I can read them anymore because it won't be in the set of "Sites I Like To Read".
There are many more people who want their content be read, even for free, than there are people available to read that content.
Because we have have oversupply of content, a significant quantity being good, is there any reason to expect that the price for that content will not be driven downwards?
It's why the majority of competent artists don't make much money from their art and have a job in addition to their art: there's an oversupply of guitarists, painters, sculptors, poets, authors, singers, dancers, songwriters.
Currently there's also an oversupply of blog sites, news sites, news aggregators, learning resources (How to code sites, recipe sites, etc), with the most popular ones being the ones which had the most capital (for SEO, blog-spamming, etc) to get the most visitors, and that capital is grown by degrading the quality of the site with ads.
I imagine a net where the amount of capital you have means nothing because ads don't make a difference to the bottom line, and every site is a net expense. This would result in only very cheap sites, which means mostly static hosting (because it's cheap).
If the people who care to make money of the site but don't care about the content can't make any money, the only ones who are left are those who care enough about the content to take a small hit to publish that content.
Before somebody comes in here railing about government overreach, she was ordered to get treated or stay in isolation in January 2022 and hasn't complied, instead going out in the community and putting others at risk. Moreover, this was her 17th court hearing, so it's not like this was their immediate reaction.
From the article:
> But, the department seemed to reach a breaking point this January. In addition to the woman's defiance hitting the one-year mark, on January 11 she was involved in a car accident as a passenger. The incident clearly showed the woman was violating her self-isolation order, which put the driver at risk of infection. Additionally, the woman went to the emergency department a day later complaining of chest pain and did not tell doctors about her active tuberculosis case, putting them and other hospital staff at risk. When they did lung X-rays, they initially suspected she had cancer. But in fact, the images showed that her tuberculosis case was worsening.
Germ theory was also pretty new at the time and not something most working class people would know about, nor did Mary have symptoms.
Contrary to today, germ theory is taught in elementary schools and is well understood by basically everyone. And this woman was clearly experiencing symptoms bad enough to require an ER visit! Visiting the ER likely also means that most of the common religious reasons such as being a Christian Scientist are out the window.
At a certain point it becomes willful negligence and not ignorance.
She is a walking biohazard. If you want to be in society there is a minimal level of responsiblity, otherwise go to the forest and build a lean-to and live out the rest of your tb shortened life.
The question isn't the immediacy, it's your right to choose. "Take these drugs, or else" is the choice being offered to her. Constitutionally speaking, one might argue she have an option to live her life unimpeded.
I don't disagree with the court's sentiment, she's absolutely a public health hazard. But I also don't think people should have a right to bear arms, freely insult others beyond the point of harassment etc, etc.
The supreme court has said repeatedly that she has the right to refuse treatment but not the right to be free while doing so. They can force isolate her indefinitely until she’s not a public hazard.
I mean that a lot of speech that goes to court and gets defended by the first amendment should possibly be actionable. There are plenty of extremists who walk this line but the Westboro Baptist Church are the first that come to my mind. There's also plenty of hypocrisy when applying these laws. A lot more brown people seem to get prosecuted for radicalisation than white "Christian" extremists.
IMO: It's okay to hold the opinion, it's okay to air the opinion, but picketing funeral processions? You're being a dick. Straight to jail.
I think that's a problem with freedoms in general is that there's no scope to measure people being a dick to people who aren't. The law should have leeway in both directions for outliers.
Just my take, anyway. It probably is worse than outright freedom but it might feel fairer for a few minutes.
I understand the need for protest, and I would defend most of it. But the last few years has also seen a lot of protests that go too far; people hiding under the skirt of protest when they're actually just there to riot, instigate violent confrontation.
Is it okay to superglue yourself to a road to protest oil? Is it okay to break shit, block or delay thousands of normal people to get a message across?
The law doesn't do "sometimes" very well, and people don't do "balanced and unbiased" very well. I'm not sure what's right.
The facts you quote are orthogonal to the notion that this is government overreach. If it’s government overreach to order her to get medical treatment it doesn’t matter how much notice she’s been given.
Throwing someone immediately into a sanitarium for having tuberculosis vs. throwing them in jail after 17 court visits because they wouldn’t stay away from other people is a massive difference.
Ignoring all details and focusing on just the end result as if that’s all that matters leads to foolish ignorance.
Furthermore, they didn’t order her to get medical treatment. They ordered her to stay away from potential victims if she didn’t get treated.
> Throwing someone immediately into a sanitarium for having tuberculosis vs. throwing them in jail after 17 court visits because they wouldn’t stay away from other people is a massive difference.
A “massive difference” in many contexts but not for those who oppose mandatory medical treatment.
Who else would possibly argue that this is government overreach than people with that belief?
This isn’t about mandatory medical treatment because the medical treatment in this case isn’t mandatory.
I would absolutely be against mandatory medical treatment. But that’s not the truth here.
It’s the same old chestnut: people who wrongly think their freedoms are more important than everyone else’s freedoms. They are upset at the idea of being confined to their home when they have tuberculosis or covid or whatever. They don’t value the lives of the rest of their community and so they see themselves as victims.
The article is clear that this is about mandatory treatment:
“Sorenson ordered a civil warrant for her arrest, to be enforced on or after March 3, and again ordered her to jail to undergo involuntary testing and treatment until health officials deem it safe to release her.”
separate from the very long saga leading up to this, I generally share your concern about that. But that does not invalidate everything that came prior.
However, what’s the practical solution? What do you think they should do to protect the jail staff and population if she refuses treatment? Maybe we just drop her off on a deserted island?
Exaggeration aside, I’m truly curious. How do we protect everyone else’s freedom to be safe and secure from her without impinging upon hers?
This is often the point where people start bending reality rather than recognizing the hypocrisy of their beliefs. They’ll start to suggest that covid or tuberculosis isn’t actually that dangerous, or perhaps isn’t real at all, so we aren’t actually faced with this predicament.
I do not have, and have never taken, a position on the order.
You yourself have taken a stronger position in your prior comment: “I would absolutely be against mandatory medical treatment.” Does that mean you are now against this order, now that you are aware that it forces medical treatment?
Good question! I’m against mandatory medical treatment. But I’m also pragmatic and recognize that having a belief doesn’t mean that belief must be enforced at all costs.
Any predicament that boils down to “one of these parties’ freedoms needs to be impinged” demands flexibility of values. The world isn’t perfect like that.
If she refuses to cooperate and find a compromise (like staying away from people if she continues to be a risk to their lives), then regrettably, the least evil option is probably mandatory treatment. But I’m truly eager to find an alternative. Any alternative. As long as it isn’t “just let her hurt people.”
P.S. I appreciate this discussion. Please don’t think I’m coming after you— just the argument.
> I’m also pragmatic and recognize that having a belief doesn’t mean that belief must be enforced at all costs.
But you said two comments ago you were “absolutely” against forced medical treatment. This clearly has softened?
I bring this up not to dunk on you but to acknowledge a prior point you made which I think is a strong one: “people start bending reality rather than recognizing the hypocrisy of their beliefs”
I hasten to add I’m also not calling you a hypocrite! But I quote that, and in particular the “bending reality” part, because I think this goes both ways, not for just one party in a debate.
One lesson from me from Covid was that no one side in a debate has a monopoly on the practice of subordinating hard facts to emotion or prior belief and that we all have to bend over backwards to point out flawed reasoning even when it supports a position we are inclined to like. That was the whole point of my very first post in this thread.
To my understanding the current law of the land as affirmed by the supreme court many times over the last 150 years is you can not be compelled to be treated for an infectious disease but you absolutely can be isolated against your will if you are a danger to others, as well as other sanctions like fines.
This doesn’t relate to what I said. The point is that for those who believe this is government overreach saying “she had plenty of notice” is a non sequitur.
If you believe something is a right, giving more notice before abrogating it does not factor into whether it is a rights violation.
Everything I’ve said here, by the way, is true regardless of your position on the court’s action (on which I’ve stated no position). If people believe (six people here and counting, and I’m not saying you’re one of them) that they need to downvote a basic factual observation because it vaguely seems to contradict their opinions, maybe they should examine why they so lack confidence in their opinions.
It does actually. Under the framework of the government in the US the Supreme Court decides what’s over reach, not your internal feelings. One could argue the existence of a government at all is over reach and they’re in many ways right. But they’re also irrelevant opinions because they have no authority. Ultimately those who hold the guns and prisons decide the scope of their power and we have collectively agreed that scope is the interpretation of the supreme court and the constitutional laws passed by the legislature. So, until you can provide something that is the opinion of the Supreme Court, you’re just factually wrong. Your opinion of right and wrong, while you’re entitled to it, is completely irrelevant.
The notice is relevant because it’s indicative of due process and an attempt to respect her individual rights and balance it with the public good, which she has repeatedly ignored and results in the escalation to the rightful isolation.
It's not that she's been given notice many times; its that she's continued to take actions that threaten the health of the community - which have led to those notices.
The comment of mine you’re replying to is specifically about notice as it relates to the notion of government overreach - it is replying to a comment that is also about those things. (That’s about all I have opinions on here, so I render no judgment on your point)
One of the jobs of government is, in fact, to protect innocent people from the bad behavior of others. The government shouldn't force her to get treated, but the government can protect others from exposure to potentially lethal and costly disease because of her violation of public health directives.
This is not overreach, it's the exact right touch to restrict harm to the other individuals in the community.
I don't think OP was trying to preempt concern that it's government overreach to order her to seek treatment or self-isolate: very few people would seriously argue that the government can't require someone with an active case of tuberculosis to stay out of the supermarket.
Jailing her is what could be interpreted by a reasonable person as overreach, and for that concern the amount of notice she was given is absolutely relevant.
> very few people would seriously argue that the government can't require someone with an active case of tuberculosis to stay out of the supermarket.
The linked article seemed to me to clearly state if she goes to jail it’s to isolate and definitely also to get treated (“ordered her to jail to undergo involuntary testing and treatment until health officials deem it safe to release her”). Hence my focus on people who are against forced treatment - I don’t think notice and warning ameliorates their concerns at all.
Yeah, I'm generally not a fan of React, I prefer the larger backend frameworks like Django that the author mentions, and I think SPAs are way overused, so I feel like the author might even have a point that I'd agree with, but I just can't make myself wade through all the self-righteous, weirdly inflammatory rhetoric to find it.
That's not what that means. That's a pre-emptive argument in case Google tries to say that individual employees were responsible for preserving evidence.
> Google may argue that it relied on individual custodians to manually preserve history-off chats. But that argument should be rejected for two reasons.
> First, it is and was Google’s obligation to suspend auto-deletion policies; it is no defense to suggest that individual custodians—Google employees—owned that obligation. Samsung, 881 F. Supp. 2d at 1137 (“[I]t generally is recognized that when a company or organization has a document retention policy, it is obligated to suspend that policy . . . .”) (cleaned up) (italics added). Google designed the chat systems and document preservation policies at issue here.
> And Google elected to set the default to history off for many chats. Indeed, Google maintained the “off the record” default despite employee complaints that the default caused them to lose important conversations.19
> Second, Google cannot escape sanctions by shifting the blame to its custodians. For spoliation purposes, destruction of evidence by Google’s employees is attributable to the
company. See, e.g., E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 803 F. Supp. 2d 469, 506‒07 (E.D. Va. 2011) (“A party may be held responsible for the spoliation of relevant evidence done by its agents.”). Courts commonly sanction corporate litigants for the spoliation of their employees and executives. See, e.g., Borum, 332 F.R.D. at 42 (emails deleted by employee). Accordingly, Google violated its duty to preserve potentially relevant evidence on a daily basis from May 2019 through the present.
What does that even mean? Is Ubuntu just Debian with another repo on top? Either way, it doesn't change the fact that Pop ships with different functionality and is controlled by a different company that has made a lot fewer user-hostile choices than Canonical in recent years.
Ubuntu tends to fork Debian's unstable branch then freeze it, patch it, rebuild it and call it their own. Pop_OS! is simply adding some software on top of Ubuntu.
If Debian makes a change, Ubuntu is unaffected until they resync. They then have time to patch it and test. If Ubuntu changes a package, that change is immediate in Pop_OS! unless they ship their own version of the package.
I agree that Pop_OS! is doing a great job with their DE modifications and other defaults, but I don't view that as them being in control. Unless a lot has changed since I used it last, Ubuntu and their infrastructure is still building most of the distribution.
A lot of this is really where you want to draw lines in the sand. What makes a distro a distro and not just another derivative?
Unlike Ubuntu, Pop doesn't really have full control over their users' experience, because their users are configured to consume directly from Ubuntu's repositories.
It's definitely happened. The biggest example that comes to mind has to be Lil Nas X's "Old Town Road". I guess he was 20 when it blew up, so not a teenager, but close enough. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Town_Road
https://firefox-source-docs.mozilla.org/devtools-user/networ...
https://stackoverflow.com/a/46075339/6417784