Great write up, thanks for sharing. I run some of the services mentioned, but got some good ideas from the article and the comments.
One suggestion in place of MPD is lyron (https://lyrion.org/). I’ve used MPD for years but recently switched to lyrion and for me, it’s a lot easier and suitable when you have many clients. It’s nice to have a single (nice) UX/UI for my music and all the “speakers” on the local network.
Tons of people have scripted Beets to autotag music as they're downloaded or appear in a directory though. So in that sense it's an automatic, non-manual workflow
> When election officials bring ballots to their USPS site for delivery, either the entire batch of ballot envelopes or a sampling will be physically scanned – depending on where the ballots are being dropped, according to the whistleblower. If just a single ballot envelope scan does not align with the information in the portal, USPS will refuse to deliver the entire batch of ballots while the discrepancy is being sorted out.
The article certainly reads like someone took a checklist of worst practices and lessons learned during the SDLC, and decided that’s how this should be rolled out.
There's no "seems to" about it, any benefit of the doubt went out of the window years ago. There's a significant portion of the US Republican party that doesn't just have reasonable questions about when government is the right answer but considers it their explicit purpose to dismantle government institutions which do work well on principle.
> Why can't we expect some level of privacy in a public place? There are some countries that confer that, to certain levels.
The US used to be one of those countries, then 9/11 happened and the loudest folks (or at least the folks with the most money to influence law) started eroding privacy and now more folks just accept our current state and views like OP’s.
It’s really interesting…you can even watch a TV crime drama series, like Law & Order, and see the privacy erosion in the TV show. That transition is basically a reflection of what happened in the US.
That's an erosion of privacy where you have (had?) an expectation of privacy. In the US, you could always be recorded in public, excluding narrow exceptions for things like voyeurism or harassment.
It’s neat the amount of care and thought that used to go into just an icon or a one off dmg background screen.
I can remember styling my Windows XP and Linux machine back in the day, I didn’t have the money to afford a Mac but I could make my machine look like one or even nicer than Aqua, and it was all because the many great artists freely sharing their works (like Louie Mantia mentioned in the article).
So many great artists on Neowin and AquaSoft, I believe some even went to work for Apple.
So where is the police? They're running turbines they haven't been granted permits to run, if Average Joe did so the police would show up and literally grab the hardware from him, one way or another, or disable it at least. What the fuck are they waiting for?
One would think if there is even a suspicion (even if it hasn't been ruled in court yet) about large-scale harmful toxic emissions, the police and relevant authorities would at least quickly do some samples or what not, to figure out if they need to put an immediate stop to it until the courts ruled either way.
But seemingly it's still ongoing and no harm no foul?
Do you know the difference between civil law and criminal law? The police don’t care if they’re not violating a criminal statute. If you want to test how it works, build a brand new house in a city without pulling any permits.
I do indeed. Do you know that severe violations of civil law sometimes amount of up to criminal law, especially if there is evidence of criminal intent or "knowing" violations of the law but proceeding anyway?
This is the case for lots of things. Negligence can turn into "reckless disregard for human life", breach of contract could amount to fraud, and many other cases.
Indeed, but they do amount to "suspicion" and are worth investigating instead of saying "Lets wait years until the courts decided if it is or isn't actually polluting" and not shutting it down until they've clearly demonstrated it being safe or not.
If this Baltimore Sun article is accurate, it's worse than that as it sounds like the FCC is overriding a law passed by Congress and not just (re)setting a rule.
> The 39% cap was established by Congress in 2004.
Congress already did something -- it wrote the law. It's the courts that rule against lawbreakers. However, it's the executive branch that takes action against lawbreakers, and that branch is currently utterly corrupt.
The key is who has standing in such a case. Likely broadcasters are the ones most likely to be impacted. Also depending on how the statute is written markets with total monopoly could have standing, individuals to cities.
It’s not just the executive branch who is able to sue in court. Everyone and every company can. But you have to demonstrate you suffered harm and are a legitimate plaintiff.
For changes like this I suspect there’s a lot of people and companies with standing.
I explained the roles of the branches. This throwaway comment doesn't refute what I wrote. And the way Congress "speaks" on our behalf (that is, they are supposed to represent us) is through legislation.
No way am I giving the GOP-controlled Congress a pass on its numerous failures to oppose corrupt appointments or to impeach corrupt officials--including of course Carr--but that's not germane here ... an understanding of how the government works is, and clearly many people lack that.
Also, while the GOP is corrupt through and through, including the GOP-dominated SCOTUS, saying that the "branches" are is inaccurate -- the lower courts are still a bulwark against corruption. This simplistic throwaway handwaving in no way invalidates my entirely accurate comment about the roles of the branches. I won't waste more time commenting on this.
This article is syndicated from The Epoch Times, a hard-right Falun Gong mouthpiece pretty well known for spreading conspiracy theories and extremely partisan reporting.
reply