>It sort of feels like browsing for gems in a used bookstore and stumbling onto authentic, personal writing
I don't know that I've heard a better description of the thing the so-called small web is about than that. It's the clearest answer to the "why" of having a small web of discoverable personal blogs and sites.
It's a good question, and I think worth trying to answer. I think the key thing is that discovery is derived from a curated index rather than social link posting and voting, and the darwinian race to the bottom/popularity/campaigning that drives link aggregators is replaced by a more deliberate human curation with all of its good and bad. You find new things, you feel a slower pace, but maybe get bored more frequently too.
Love this! I very much appreciate the inclusion of a lightweight version, as I think lightweight discovery for blogs and the small web is where good tools and apps are needed.
Also, given that the lightweight version is very hn styled format it naturally leads my brain to imagining a version with upvotes and commenters (which may be a good or a bad thing) but with the link submission part automated. Not necessarily the intent here but it was the first time that particular combination of possibilities occurred to me as a way to do things.
Also curious about how these blogs are indexed/reviewed. Is the list ever pruned over time due to inactivity?
Thank you. The initial list was from blogroll.org (mentioned in the about page, and I emailed the person who built that). From then on, I review every submission that happens via the form.
The scheduler flags blogs that fail and doesn't try to fetch after a few tries. I'm still working on an effective way to re-review and prune. Open to any feedback.
I'd say a periodic job that looks at the last update of all your blogs, and removes those that haven't updated in over a year would be generally agreeable.
If you want to be exceptionally kind, you can also email the submitter and tell them their blog has been removed due to inactivity, so they'll remember to submit if they start blogging again.
I suppose my dream would be that the protocolization of this from back in the day gets revived in some way. Like a google pagecrawl style index built up from blogrolls (though I don't know if the blogroll itself was ever literally protocol-ized), combined with some checking of RSS feeds for activity. Or webrings, or something else.
Though in some respects these are less smart than what you're already doing, but I would like to think there's an elegant way to make an index emerge organically to minimize the editorial burden of any one person.
I don’t see this article showing that. They query for extensions that could be used to do that, and that likely already is illegal, but those queries could solely be used to uniquely identify users (grabbing more bits makes it less likely to get collisions)
Those being in the list doesn't mean that's what they're looking for. Take a look at the database of extensions, there's far more extensions that don't seem limited to any particular group. The author just called those out specifically because they're perfect for implying nefarious intent.
It does suggest that’s what they’re collecting. That is per se a violation in many jurisdictions. It should trigger investigations in most others to ensure it wasn’t mis-used.
The claim I replied to is “They try to profile for things like political beliefs”.
I wasn’t contesting that they query extensions that can be used for that purpose, or that they use query results for that purpose, but indicated that the fact that they make such queries doesn’t necessarily imply that they try to do such profiling.
>LinkedIn scans for Anti-woke (“The anti-wokeness extension. Shows warnings about woke companies”), Anti-Zionist Tag (“Adds a tag to the LinkedIn profiles of Anti-Zionists”), Vote With Your Money (“showing political contributions from executives and employees”), No more Musk (“Hides digital noise related to Elon Musk,” 19 users), Political Circus (“Politician to Clown AI Filter,” 7 users), LinkedIn Political Content Blocker, and NoPolitiLinked.
>Each of these extensions reveals a political position. If LinkedIn detects any of them, it has collected data revealing that person’s political opinions. Article 9 prohibits this.
Yes, I've also read material outside of that article from NASA's own staff and literature.
Statements like this:
"Put more simply, NASA is going to fly Artemis II based on vibes, hoping that whatever happened to the heat shield on Artemis I won’t get bad enough to harm the crew on Artemis II."
Are just so intellectually dishonest and completely ignore the extensive research and testing that's gone into qualifying this flight.
So did they! And they showed their work. So far you're just beating around the bush.
What would would help is if you said something like "Maceij says modeling a different entry approach on computers is no substitute for a bona fide re-entry testing a new design, but that's incorrect because _____."
That's not even remotely true. They talked in great detail about heat shield fragmentation Artemis I, it's failure modes, the prospect of it getting worse with new designs and a number of other things at much greater detail than you are. Your comments show a fraction of the effort and detail of the thing you're criticizing and you could have made your best argument five comments ago if you were ever actually going to instead of beating around the bush with these substance free drive bys.
Either theres a functional literacy issue here keeping you from understanding what it means to express a substantive thought or you overestimate other people's toleration for writing checks promising unmade arguments that never cash. You can't keep buying time with nothingburgers.
You are obviously very invested in the fact that someone who is going against the grain of the obviously bad, overly buerocratic government agency MUST be correct (otherwise, in the case you actually gave a fuck about the truth, you would be researching statements from NASA and comparing the reports)
If that is so, put your money where you mouth is and place a bet on polymarket. If you are too scared to do so, then admit it to yourself, and understand that you don't believe this shit anyway.
Because you being a cuck for a contrarian for the sole reason that he is going against the grain is basically the same as Joe Rogan being anti-vaxx because its trendy and cool to think government=bad.
"Maciej says modeling a different entry approach on computers is no substitute for a bona fide re-entry testing a new design, but that's incorrect because _____."
Maciej says modeling a different entry approach on computers is no substitute for a bona fide re-entry testing a new design, but that has no correlation to whether NASA engineers did due diligence on reviewing the design and determining if its safe, because he does not know the explicit technical discussions, reviews, or other analysis that went on behind the scenes, or more generally, hasn't analyzed the evidence counter to this claim.
The most clear cut indicator of intelligence is the ability to present both sides of the coin, and even more so state the conditions which make either side true or false.
I don't think "you're being contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian" pairs particularly well with "if you're so convinced then just bet on in bro" as an argument.
I never said he was being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. I said he was being contrarian because its trendy. There is a difference between hating big government because of facts, and hating big government because its trendy.
Don't love it but (1) it's addressing a serious problem and I'm not sure what the alternative is and (2) if you all remember the starting place, it was staggeringly, dramatically worse, practically a death sentence for F-Droid and seemingly testing the waters for if they could simply power through and do it despite objection.
This is a major course correction that doesn't kill F-Droid. A one time 24 hour hoop to jump through and then never again is monumentally better than losing F-Droid forever.
Is it a serious problem that you can run whatever software you want on your computer? Should we make it so that no one can do that without permission to protect them?
I recommend Cory Doctorow's talk on why this is a serious problem for society:
Yes, lots of vulnerable users get harmed by modern tech. E.g. people have lost their minds using AI, their livelihoods using smartphones, their life savings using the Internet. In general, I prefer a solution where any mental health issue (age-related infirmity, ADHD, etc.) result in protection from modern exploitative tech like this.
Every application use for such people should be supervised by a government official trained to ensure you are not hurting yourself.
This way people who want to use AI, smartphones, or the Internet can do so if they’re healthy and the mentally disabled can be protected. We know that this need exists because even on this “Hacker” News forum everyone gets very upset when a mentally disabled person gets injured after AI use.
Not enough people give a shit about "general purpose computing" to matter. They use computers for a few things and as long as they can do those things they're fine with it. My wife loves all her Apple gear. It provides her with a wonderful, curated experience. Okay, maybe it hasn't been so good with recent iOS releases but it still beats Android or Microslop. Being able to hack, modify, or install arbitrary stuff on your device is something only a minority of a minority care about, statistical noise in the quarterly sales figures. When you compare that to the harm done by malware, illegal or indecent material, and the negative blowback to YOUR OS's reputation—or worse, the "felony contempt of business model" enabled by a general-purpose OS (piracy, ad blocking, etc.)—it's a no-brainer to implement restrictions.
Could you try to put more of a effort into keeping the specifics in view and not turning the whole conversation into a view from 10,000 ft filled with drive by generalities? You might as well be linking to a Wikipedia entry on 1984.
We have moved away from an existential threat to F-Droid to a speed bump which lets it live. As is often the case, it's a both can be true situation in that I don't like the ratcheting up of restrictions, but think possible without contradiction to note how the change over time has impacted F-Droid compared to prior iterations of the proposed policy.
It disappoints me that people on HN aren't sufficiently in control of their own attention to the point of being able to show up to that conversation, as the fate of F-Droid has been central to this saga if you've been following it over previous HN threads.
It's pretending to address a serious issue while giving Google significant power to limit distribution of apps Google doesn't like, which could sometimes include legal apps that certain governments don't like such as the recently famous ICEBlock.
Google says they don't intend to do that, but even if I believe that's their current intention, they have a strong incentive to do otherwise in the future. Incentives predict outcomes more reliably than intentions.
I say it's pretending because scammers are good at shifting tactics. If convincing users to install malware ceases to be the path of least resistance, they'll convince users to install legitimate remote access utilities, hand over credentials directly, or some other scheme I haven't thought up because I'm not a scammer.
> they have a strong incentive to do otherwise in the future.
The reality is far worse than that. Remember FBI vs Apple? That defense came down to Apple not having software in place that could facilitate the demand being made of them. If they'd had such a system they would presumably have been required to comply.
The government can presumably get an illegal app forcibly removed from an app store but at present you could still install it yourself. With this system they could compel Google to block it entirely.
F-Droid has spent many years trying to step out of the "only for technical/power users" into the "This is a tool that normal phone users should have and use". A one time 24hr wait moves back to the "F-Droid is only for technical users" big time.
Bought a new phone? Moved from iPhone to Android? Want help from your friend/family member/librarian/other to setup your new phone for getting apps? Sorry, you need to come back a day later before you can actually use it.
Guess what the normal/non-tech user does in this 24hr period? Go to Play Store, install a bunch of apps, forget that you had the desire to use an alternative.
This indeed does make F-Droid no longer a tool for normal people, but only a tool for those willing to do a bunch of "Advanced" things on their phone. By definition, not regular users.
Electric utilities are "natural monopolies" that get to monopolize territory in exchange for being well regulated. It's preferable to having 3, 4, 5 utility poles stuck at the same corner all running wire for competitors. But it means you don't have market conditions driving optimization between competitors.
Moreover electric transmission and distribution gains from limiting solar investment and there's a history of utilities being in tension with solar power and lobbying against it. Solar skips the power lines and utilities need people to need power lines.
Right, they actually have siting advantages over ground mounts for that very reason.
And let's not forget that they are investments, not just stranded costs (it's baffling to see them discussed that way to and down the thread). You get something back for having built them and the barrier to entry is the upfront cost, which is easier to overcome if you're a state spending on infrastructure.
I don't know that I've heard a better description of the thing the so-called small web is about than that. It's the clearest answer to the "why" of having a small web of discoverable personal blogs and sites.
reply