Yes. There is also reason to believe that the ecosystem is on the path to migrating to one where human developers are an afterthought at best. In the current phase we have lots of more stuff in markdown and other human readable formats and programming languages for sure but there’s little reason to believe that they will stay that way as humans get further from the code in general and the primary consumers and producers are AI. It would be strange if it remains optimized for English-speaking humans for very long.
Open source development has become buried in an avalanche of AI generated code as well so the character of a lot of hobby programming in that domain has changed drastically.
Oh, you’re right. The US has gun rights so the only sane thing to do is for law enforcement to smash through the same home weekly heavily armed with guns whenever there’s an anonymous tip with no corroborating evidence. There are no better ways to spend law enforcement budget in a city like Milwaukee.
All the commenters responding to you are so clueless that they can’t see there are no better systems from a cost benefit analysis. Law enforcement is barred by the laws of man and physics from taking prior history into account when assessing risks and every repeated tip of violent crime without any evidence must necessarily be responded to as legitimate at a level requiring military style intervention on the basis of anonymous testimony. There are just no better approaches
Iceland and Finland have only 4x fewer guns per capita and they don't have this problem. It's a big absolute number difference, but effectively means the availability is still really widespread.
I’ve seen similar wording from colleagues on the ASD (with Asperger’s).
It can be hard for some people to navigate the nuances between usage of a tongue-in-cheek usage of the phrase which is more socially acceptable or humorous from the version that reads as arrogant
> The reply I received a few days later did me the favour of putting the violation on the record. Their position, in their own words, was that "in order to receive marketing / offers, it is a condition to be a member of the customer club." That one sentence is the whole case. They had taken a right I am entitled to exercise for free and turned it into the price of admission.
I don’t understand… it would be one thing if it said “receiving marketing/offers is a condition of being a member of the customer club” but that’s not what is being stated above… rather that being a member of the club is required to receive marketing — perhaps something has been misworded or lost in translation?
It is a translation thing - what they said in Norwegian was that it is required to accept marketing activities if you want to be part of the loyalty club - but the machine translation did it literally instead of changing the structure to match common English.
No, the sentence order has nothing to do with it. "It is a condition to be a member of the club (in order) to receive marketing offers" and "In order to receive marketing offers, it is a condition to be a member of the club" mean the same thing. The problem is that the explicit markers of purpose ("in order to...") and requirement ("condition") appear to have been applied to the wrong things. If you rearrange them, they'll still be applied to the wrong things.
I think the "marketing/offers" means discounts? To be eligible for the discounts or special offers, you have to be a member of the club, and if you are a member of the club you have to be willing to receive the email messages, and somehow under EU law you're entitled to all discounts I guess?
Yea, I don't get it either. Receiving being a condition on membership means (in my understanding) only that non-members can't (shouldn't) receive anything, not that members will or must receive something. Which sounds perfectly normal and sane to me.
He was an Elkjøp/Elgiganten customer club member. He wanted to keep the club membership and discounts/offers, but stop the marketing emails. Elkjøp’s setup told him the only way to stop the marketing was to cancel the club membership altogether.
To me, Elkjop seems perfectly reasonable here. But EU policy disagrees.
According to the article, that is not what Elkjøp told him. You're making the assumption that what the article says must make sense, which is unfounded.
Which is exactly the point - under Article 21 of the GDPR every person has a legal right not to be subjected to direct marketing so any forced direct marketing is unlawful and consent cannot be bundled (it must be specific under the GDPR) so bundling consent to direct marketing along with consent to join the Club is not lawful.
The point in this subthread is that your article says the opposite of what you appear to have meant. You don't provide anything other than what is apparently a very bad English translation. The rest of the article makes it pretty clear that you meant to write something different, but it threw me for a loop when I read it and clearly I am not alone.
This is why, when I'm reporting my translation of something in a foreign language, I tend to include the original text too.
I think you might gloss over the fact that marketing content implies extensive data collection, sale and sharing of personal data with third parties.
The company was selling the data without checking if buyers would offer similar levels of protection (LOL, in that case). It was found the members weren't properly informed SO the consent was not freely given, they basically extorted and lied to their customers. I'm very happy they were fined.
I'm very happy you're not in charge of privacy laws, but seriously, I don't see how would a consumer ever want more surveillance? Unless you're not a consumer.
You might well think it is reasonable, but the law doesn't permit this, it is explicit that the person has an absolute right not to be subjected to direct marketing activities (Article 21 of the GDPR) and Article 5 of the GDPR requires that any processing of personal data must comply with all other relevant laws in order to be lawful under the GDPR - ePrivacy Directive (Article 13) governs Direct Marketing in the EU and requires consent - but that consent must meet the requirements of Article 7 under the GDPR in order to be valid (freely given) and any consent which is bundled and is a condition of access to a service where such processing is not necessary to provide that service - is not considered as freely given.
This is not new, we have a lot of case law and regulatory guidance on this.
Just want to note that OP was in Australia, not Austria, but the broader point stands that it can be helpful to ask foreigners what they need rather than assuming your norms will translate over.
And yet, this was still a very generous gift and perhaps even greater value in sharing the experience and starting these discussions
Is the uuid generated in the frontend or backend? If frontend, I’d wager the likeliest explanation is that the client code or request was messed with to inject a previously known uuid rather than an entropy issue.
I’m not familiar with the author but something about this post just seems mean-spirited and petty.
Deno might not succeed as a project, especially with strong competition from Bun as an alternative to Node, but I would say that Deno has been more a force for bettering the ecosystem than not.
Many of those at Deno, including Ryan as well as some of those who have apparently left or been let go have been major contributors to the web development ecosystem. Thank you all for your work — we’re better off for your contributions.
Isn't it reasonable bitterness? He invested a lot of his own life on a promise that didn't pan out, and there's probably a lot of people in that community. Leadership comes with responsibility and consequences.
Content marketed at wannabe startup founders tends to be encouraging and panglossian. It's good to see here what you're signing up for if you succeed with some degree of traction.
Deno basically popularized the idea of a standalone JS runtime that primarily relies on standard Web APIs over "in-house" APIs like Node, although we can say that those standard APIs didn't exist yet when Node was created and for most of its rising period.
I don't think I'd go as far as "copying" but Deno was the first to aggressively push for web standards in server-side runtimes and certainly helped accelerate getting them adopted in that environment.
I work at Cloudflare on Workers (but infrequently work on our runtime) and I've always been pretty impressed with Deno. Their recent-ish support for built-in OpenTelemetry is something we've been wanting to do for a while and have been working on, but Deno was able to build a good implementation of that in that time.
(I love cloudflare workers and thanks for that), but I do think that credit is where its due and Deno's push for server side web standards also helped the general ecosystem.
I think it’s fair to say that work on the experimental-strip-types option in Node was inspired/energized by a desire to try to catch up with the DX improvements found in Deno for Typescript-first development that is now the norm.
I always thought Deno was more or less trying to copy the Cloudflare (edge) runtime, but decided incompatibility was a good idea. The ecosystem bifurcation was the mistake, which they came around on, but it was already too late by then.
Bun to Deno is what Zig i to Rust: a much simpler, much easier way to overcome its common predecessor's shortcomings. Not nearly as thoroughly and revolutionarily, but still.
moreover h* is just broken whenever dealing with more dynamic content — it simply can’t reasonably be made to work according to accessibility recommendations — and the accessibility guidelines around never skipping a level themselves are ridiculous given the practical reality that dynamic content exists and we have only h1, h2, etc. to work with — the readers and specs are what need to adapt here, not the entire internet
there should really be one header tag and its level should be based on some nesting depth
and don’t get me started on the maintainability mess that is z-index… better we have a system to centrally maintain an ordering list than a distributed one which only works reasonably consistently if you already know everything in the whole system
I like how z-index works, currently. And though I agree with the article, it should apply to all elements by default, I'm not sure how you'd do stacking differently in a way that'd work any better than the current situation?
You can't do away with stacking contexts, you need those to isolate content you don't control to prevent it from breaking the stacking order of content you do control.
I completely agree with you about h* tags, though. I wish html5 sectioning hadn't been killed by the browser vendors. As is there's no safe way to put headings inside custom elements. We almost had it, it was specified and everything.
The problem with trying determine heading depth automatically is the depth is not something that can be deduced just by the structure. If headings are siblings, for example, the may be on the same level semantically or not.
One way I've dealt with this in react is combine a Heading component with ContentGroup component. Each content group needs exactly one heading, and heading can't exist without it. Content group can contain other content groups. The tag for heading can then be determined by how many content groups are in the tree above it.
This works pretty well ime, but it can be hard to get devs to use (or think about accessibility at all).
That's how html should have been designed from the start. HTML is originally designed as a very flat hierarchy, e.g. h1 p p p h2 p p h2 p p h3 p h2 p just following each other. When really it would make much more sense to have h{p p p h{p p} h{p p h{p}} h{p}}.
That's what sectioning elements [1] like <section> and <article> where once introduced.Opposite to just using <div> elements their purpose was to create a real document outline, where it would have been possible to only use <h1> and their level would be determined by how deep the section is nested, but this approach was never really adapted.
> There’s already more human produced content in the world than anyone could ever hope to consume, we don’t need more from AI.
Even if you think the harms of AI/machine generated content outweigh the good, this is not a winning argument.
People don’t just consume arbitrary content for the sake of consuming any existing content. That’s rarely the point of it. People look for all kinds of things that don’t exist yet — quite a lot of it referring to things that are only now known or relevant in the given moment or to the given niche audience requesting it. Much of it could likely never exist if it weren’t possible to produce it on demand and which would not be valuable if you had to wait for a human to make it.
Just happened to me yesterday. I realized I'd really like to watch a long-form video on Huygens Clock. Something between a short (god damnit) and Quicksilver. Thought there must be something detailed. Nope, at least Youtube let me down. Or the search algo, who knows. Since they removed the "20+ minutes" button it has become basically useless to search on YT.
They're pushing Shorts so fucking hard it makes me sick.
Even worse is that we're banning TikTok because it's bad for the kids (short form algorithmic content), Snapchat (similar thing + strangers creeping) and Instagram Stories (algorithm again).
BUT there is NO WAY for a parent to allow their kid to use Youtube AND block Shorts. (yes there are browser plugins etc, but how do you enforce them on a child?)
And from what I've seen the AI slop on Shorts is so fucking bad that it seems we just collectively forgot about Elsagate...
The generated content is wasting the time of maintainers. How would you solve that?
For your winning argument, what would you use to prevent slop filling up your feed when there is more AI generated content, any sort of protocol that you have?
Open source development has become buried in an avalanche of AI generated code as well so the character of a lot of hobby programming in that domain has changed drastically.
reply