Technology
Hey Beeple and visitors to Beehaw: I think we need to have a discussion about !technology@beehaw.org, community culture, and moderation. First, some of the reasons that I think we need to have this conversation. 1. Technology got big *fast* and has stayed Beehaw's most active community. 1. Technology gets more reports (about double in the last month by a rough hand count) than the next highest community that I moderate (Politics, and this is during election season in a month that involved a disastrous debate, an assassination attempt on a candidate, and a major party's presumptive nominee dropping out of the race) 1. For a long time, I and other mods have felt that Technology at times isn’t living up to the Beehaw ethos. More often than I like I see comments in this community where users are being abusive or insulting toward one another, often without any provocation other than the perception that the other user’s opinion is wrong. Because of these reasons, we have decided that we may need to be a little more hands-on with our moderation of Technology. Here’s what that might mean: 1. Mods will be more actively removing comments that are unkind or abusive, that involve personal attacks, or that just have really bad vibes. a. We will always try to be fair, but you may not always agree with our moderation decisions. Please try to respect those decisions anyway. We will generally try to moderate in a way that is a) proportional, and b) gradual. b. We are more likely to respond to particularly bad behavior from off-instance users with pre-emptive bans. This is **not** because off-instance users are worse, or less valuable, but simply that we aren't able to vet users from other instances and don't interact with them with the same frequency, and other instances may have less strict sign-up policies than Beehaw, making it more difficult to play whack-a-mole. 1. We will need you to report early and often. The drawbacks of getting reports for something that doesn't require our intervention are outweighed by the benefits of us being able to get to a situation before it spirals out of control. By all means, if you’re not sure if something has risen to the level of violating our rule, say so in the report reason, but I'd personally rather get reports early than late, when a thread has spiraled into an all out flamewar. a. That said, please don't report people for *being wrong*, unless they are doing so in a way that is actually dangerous to others. It would be better for you to *kindly* disagree with them in a *nice* comment. b. Please, feel free to try and de-escalate arguments and remind one another of the humanity of the people behind the usernames. Remember to Be(e) Nice even when disagreeing with one another. Yes, *even Windows users*. 1. We will try to be more proactive in stepping in when arguments are happening and trying to remind folks to Be(e) Nice. a. This isn't always possible. Mods are all volunteers with jobs and lives, and things often get out of hand before we are aware of the problem due to the size of the community and mod team. b. This isn't always helpful, but we try to make these kinds of gentle reminders our first resort when we get to things early enough. It’s also usually useful in gauging whether someone is a good fit for Beehaw. If someone responds with abuse to a gentle nudge about their behavior, it’s generally a good indication that they either aren’t aware of or don’t care about the type of community we are trying to maintain. I know our [philosophy posts](https://docs.beehaw.org/docs/) can be long and sometimes a little meandering (personally that's why I love them) but do take the time to read them if you haven't. If you can't/won't or just need a reminder, though, I'll try to distill the parts that I think are most salient to this particular post: 1. Be(e) nice. By nice, we don't mean merely being polite, or in the surface-level "oh bless your heart" kind of way; we mean be *kind*. 1. Remember the human. The users that you interact with on Beehaw (and most likely other parts of the internet) are *people*, and *people* should be treated kindly and in good-faith whenever possible. 1. Assume good faith. Whenever possible, and until demonstrated otherwise, assume that users don't have a secret, evil agenda. If you think they might be saying or implying something you think is bad, *ask them to clarify* (kindly) and give them a chance to explain. Most likely, they've communicated themselves poorly, or you've misunderstood. After all of that, it's possible that you may disagree with them still, but we can disagree about Technology and still give one another the respect due to other humans.
The free version regularly scans your device for remote connection tools such as TeamViewer which are commonly used by scammers to get on your computer and steal your personal information. It also blocks all of these websites. This version is why I'm posting because I want people to be protected from scams that my own family have been victims of. The premium version is only 2 dollars a month and has other features such as blocking thousands of scam websites and notifying select family members if your loved on tries to install one of these connection tools. If you have elderly or vulnerable family members, consider installing the free version! It's so quick and could protect everything they have someday. Seraphsecure.com (Crossposted to other tech communities and Reddit, trying to get the word out!)
Can anyone recommend an e-commerce platform that they like, somewhere I can sell both physical and virtual goods, isn't too expensive, allows some degree of design customization, isn't too hard to use, and (gasp) is even open source? The last part is probably asking too much. I currently sell ebooks on Gumroad, which has actually been pretty good, but they lack customization options and the ability (as far as I can tell) to do something like a blog (although they do have a mailing list which is something I definitely need!). There is an old Wordpress.ORG site I have that was made by someone else who is no longer able to update it, and is something of a black box to a clueless oldster like myself. I've heard enough negative things about Wordpress that led me first to Ghost.org, which, as far as I can tell, is really just for blogs and nothing else, and then Webflow, which may have too many deisgn option (as well as fuzzy pricing), and finally back to WordPress.COM which was very pushy about me upgrading (and then upgrading again) before I could even try out their Woo Commerce plugin (also their site just plain doesn't work; if I watch their tutorials and then try to follow them, I'll end up on screens that have buttons and drop down menus that appear in the videos but not on the site itself!). So anyway, I'm in search of recommendations. I need something that can sell physical and virtual items, has a blog, a mailing list, monthly billing, at least some ability to customize, and, if at all possible, is open source. Would be much obliged for any suggestions. EDIT: Anyone tried [Thirty Bees](https://thirtybees.com/)?
www.theverge.com
It's not like they couldn't put a stop to blackouts before, as seen with the third-party app fiasco, but Reddit has now made that tactic entirely impossible. Mods will now need to get permission from Reddit admins before they can make a sub private. Makes me wonder if they're about to do something controversial again soon.
YouTube: https://youtu.be/w5ebcowAJD8 Invidious, alternative YouTube link without YouTube: https://inv.nadeko.net/watch?v=w5ebcowAJD8 --- Video description: How do QR codes work? The checkerboard patterns taking over the world, demystified. Go to Saily.com/veritasium and use the code ‘veritasium’ to get an exclusive 15% off your first purchase. Special thanks to Mashiro Hara and Yuki Watanabe. 00:00 I was wrong 00:49 How Morse Code revolutionized communication 03:57 How barcodes work 10:34 How QR codes store information 18:16 Why damaged QR codes still work 29:54 Why are QR codes so common? 31:21 How safe are QR codes? 32:25 The future of QR codes
gregdavill.com
cross-posted from: https://feditown.com/post/705775
techcrunch.com
[archive.is link](https://archive.ph/zLX76) a few interesting ideas in here, but also a few weird ideas and ideas i don't think are going to work at all. (also i'm not sure it's actually possible to build a "good" dating app.) > What sets the app apart from the rest of the dating app scene is that After requires users to share why they have unmatched a person before they are allowed to keep swiping. The idea behind the feature is to get rid of abrupt disconnections and confusion. > If two people match on After and start a conversation, but one person stops replying, they will be nudged to respond. If the person still doesn’t message the other user, the match expires. Before they can use the app’s features again, they need to choose a reason why they let the match expire. > Users can choose from a list of reasons to explain why they decided to stop responding. For instance, they can say distance was an issue or that the vibes didn’t match. After will then create a kind message and send it to the other person, and remind them that this isn’t a representation of who they are or their worth. > After will soon include opt-in mental health check-ins where you can reflect on your mood and feelings. And if the app thinks you have been using it too much, it will suggest that you take a break.
Video Description: --- Hello and welcome! My name is Anton and in this video, we will talk about 10 exciting studies that won the Ig Nobel prize in 2024 Links: * psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037/h0045345 * linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022030241954061 * sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2468785523002859?via=ihub * science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abj7918 * tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15592324.2021.1977530#abstract * academic.oup.com/brain/article-abstract/147/8/2643/7664309?redirectedFrom=fulltext * cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(22)00709-6?_returnURL=https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0960982222007096?showall=true * arxiv.org/abs/2310.04153 * biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/704080v3 * Placebo video: youtube.com/watch?v=ByA4i8PlfFs&t=0s #ignobel #nobel #science ``` 0:00 Levitating frogs 0:40 Ig Nobel Prize 1:30 These are actually important studies 2:45 Pigeons in missiles 3:32 Cows cats and paper bags 4:11 Hair whirls and direction 5:04 Drunk worms 5:32 Mimic plant 6:58 Placebo and pain 7:48 Dead trout and swimming 8:10 Butt breathing mammals 9:05 Probability and lots of coins 9:50 Old people may be not so old ```
I’m not sure where else best to post this, so please direct me if there is somewhere more appropriate. I’m looking at getting cable again and still have a DOCSIS 3.0 modem. It looks like the biggest limiting factor is the speed but there are other mentions of “improved latecy and power comsumption.” If I’m not get a speed that exceeds 1Gbps, is the latency that much better for $160? I game a little online but hadnt noticed an issue in the past. For that matter, is an AC wireless router is fine? The AX or Wifi 6 looked neat, but I’m just not sure the benfits are worth the cost. Any input is appreciated.
cross-posted from: https://jlai.lu/post/10771035, https://jlai.lu/post/10771034 > Personal review: > > A good recap of his previous writings and talks on the subject for the first third, but a bit long. Having paid attention to them for the past year or two, my attention started drifting a few times. I ended up being more impressed with how much he's managed to condense explaining "enshittification" from 45+ minutes down to around 15. > > As soon as he starts building off of that to work towards the core of his message for *this* talk, I was more-or-less glued to the screen. At first because it's not exactly clear where he's going, and there are (what felt like) many specific court rulings to keep up with. Thankfully, once he has laid enough groundwork he gets straight his point. I don't want to spoil or otherwise lessen the performance he gives, so I won't directly comment on what his point *is* in the body of this post - I think the comments are better suited for that anyways. > > I found the rest to be pretty compelling. He rides the fine line between directionless discontent and overenthusiastic activist-with-a-plan as he doubles down on his narrative by calling back to the various bits of groundwork he laid before - now that we're "in" on the idea, what felt like stumbling around in the dark turns into an illuminating path through some of the specifics of the last twenty to forty years of the dynamics of power between tech bosses and their employees. The rousing call to action was also great way to end and wrap it all up. > > I've become very biased towards Cory Doctorow's ideas, in part because they line up with a lot of the impressions I have from my few years working as a dev in a big-ish multinational tech company. This talk has done nothing to diminish that bias - on the contrary.
I'm sure everyone in this community is already familiar with the concept that this video is presenting, and might even already know all of the examples he gives. But I got a laugh out of it, and I love his presentation style.
arstechnica.com
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/20028344 > >Despite US dominance in so many different areas of technology, we're sadly somewhat of a backwater when it comes to car headlamps. It's been this way for many decades, a result of restrictive federal vehicle regulations that get updated rarely. The latest lights to try to work their way through red tape and onto the road are active-matrix LED lamps, which can shape their beams to avoid blinding oncoming drivers. > > > >From the 1960s, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards allowed for only sealed high- and low-beam headlamps, and as a result, automakers like Mercedes-Benz would sell cars with less capable lighting in North America than it offered to European customers. > > > >A decade ago, this was still the case. In 2014, [Audi tried unsuccessfully](https://arstechnica.com/cars/2014/06/laserbeam-headlights-not-in-the-us/) to bring its new laser high-beam technology to US roads. Developed in the racing crucible that is the 24 Hours of Le Mans, the laser lights illuminate much farther down the road than the high beams of the time, but in this case, the lighting tech had to satisfy both the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Food and Drug Administration, which has regulatory oversight for any laser products. > > > >The good news is that by 2019, [laser high beams were finally an available option on US roads](https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/06/the-2019-audi-a7-might-be-all-the-car-anyone-ever-needs/), albeit once the power got turned down to reduce their range. > > > >NHTSA's opposition to advanced lighting tech is not entirely misplaced. Obviously, being able to see far down the road at night is a good thing for a driver. On the other hand, being dazzled or blinded by the bright headlights of an approaching driver is categorically not a good thing. Nor is losing your night vision to the glare of a car (it's always a pickup) behind you with too-bright lights that fill your mirrors. > > > >This is where active-matrix LED high beams come in, which use clusters of controllable LED pixels. Think of it like a more advanced version of the "auto high beam" function found on many newer cars, which uses a car's forward-looking sensors to know when to dim the lights and when to leave the high beams on. > > > >Here, sensor data is used much more granularly. Instead of turning off the entire high beam, the car only turns off individual pixels, so the roadway is still illuminated, but a car a few hundred feet up the road won't be. > > > >Rather than design entirely new headlight clusters for the US, most OEMs' solution was to offer the hardware here but disable the beam-shaping function—easy to do when it's just software. [But in 2022, NHTSA relented](https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/02/the-us-will-finally-allow-adaptive-beam-headlights-on-new-cars/)—nine years after Toyota first asked the regulator to reconsider its stance.
arstechnica.com
> Hopper's famous 1982 lecture on "Future Possibilities: Data, Hardware, Software, and People," has long been publicly unavailable because of the obsolete media on which it was recorded. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) finally managed to retrieve the footage for the National Security Agency (NSA), which posted the lecture in two parts on YouTube.
cross-posted from: https://feddit.org/post/2989211 > [Mastodon Toot.](https://fosstodon.org/@rudo/113161889347653944) > > [Project.](https://rudokemper.github.io/google-maps-places-to-organic-maps/)
Technology
!technology@beehaw.orgA nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.