• 0 Posts
  • 176 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 18th, 2023

help-circle



  • Custom domains mean that if the alias provider enshittifies, you can switch to any other provider near-instantly. As long as you never use the domains to host illegal or dodgy shit it’s extremely unlikely you’ll ever lose them — far less likely than losing a gmail or whatever.

    With SL you can avoid spam by using the “beta” (been beta for 3+ years lol) “auto create” option instead of a catch-all, meaning that you can direct emails to different inboxes (or do nothing) based on specific regex strings you control — up to 100 of them. I had a catch-all regex (.*) as my # 100 and it took 2 years to receive catch-all fishing spam. Then I removed it and now have only random strings (e.g. .*fgyu.*) so new emails must have them if they want to get somewhere. Everything else bounces. All previous emails continue to work until you disable them individually.

    I use a mix:

    • SL-domains: anything I don’t give a shit about.
    • Non-PII domain: anything I would want to persist if I changed provider, but don’t need my identity, or can give out a unique email in-person.
    • PII-domain: banks and all other services tied to my identity.
    • Top-Secret-PII-domain: critical services that could compromise all others (password manager, email/OS accounts, domain name registrar).


  • Notice how you’re angry at the people who released the info instead of the people who were corrupt and deplorable? PsyOps mission accomplished!

    My understanding is that, while it’s likely the source of those leaks was Russia, it’s never been proven wikileaks withheld info about Republicans. I’ve seen the claims dozens of times, but never the evidence, so please share if you do… Otherwise, it’s insane to hate a journalist for withholding information they don’t have, just because it hurts your preferred political party.

    EDIT T+2hrs: 35% downvotes and zero replies or supporting evidence. FYI I asked the same thing on Reddit about a dozen times over the last decade, and the result was always the same — If your position is “I can find no evidence for my claims, and don’t know why I hate WikiLeaks or Assange. I just do.” then you’re probably a psychological warfare victim…









  • The hilarious part is people believe the historic global human rights abusers of the US intelligence community are different today, despite zero evidence of any reforms since they were overthrowing democratically elected governments to benefit multinational corporations, murdering activists who stood up for non-whites and the working class, operating “black” torture sites, caught backdooring the worlds hardware and software information systems no different to the KGB or Gestapo, conducting biological and chemical weapons tests on its own citizens, etc etc etc.

    Yep, I’m sure the historic sociopaths have learned their lesson… From all those times they suffered zero retribution, and benefited to the tune of trillions of dollars!!


  • The obvious solution to me is sponsorblock switching to sampling pixels out of each frame, like that project that encoded data into video streams (yet resilient to compression), there are algorithms that could fingerprint any ad with an extremely high degree of accuracy. It’d be more complex than the current implementation, but it’d also be more resilient. I’d settle for it hiding the video and suppressing the audio for the ads duration, possibly displaying a countdown timer, vs actually watching the ad. Then Youtube would get paid, but have no way of knowing you haven’t seen the ad, and the metrics around their ad effectiveness would ultimately suffer, so users still win.

    You could even go so far as to have the client cache the video, several minutes in advance, dropping all the ad frames, so it’s a seamless experience for the user. I got money, but will spend 10x as much ensuring Google gets less from me. It ain’t about money. It’s about sending a message!



  • One standout statistic was that projects with clear requirements documented before development started were 97 percent more likely to succeed. In comparison, one of the four pillars of the Agile Manifesto is “Working Software over Comprehensive Documentation.”

    Requirements ≠ Documentation. Any project with CLEAR requirements will be most likely to succeed. The hard part is the clear requirements, and not deviating.

    One Agile developer criticized the daily stand-up element, describing it to The Register as “a feast of regurgitation.”

    The inability of management to conduct productive meetings is even more well-known than their inability to conduct a decent hiring process, and we all know how broken that is.

    The study’s sample and methodology are not linked so I suspect a huge bias, in that the projects succeeding sans-Agile have been successful without it long term, while the Agile projects chose Agile because they were unsuccessful pre-adoption — you don’t adopt agile if you were already successfully delivering projects.