the majority of the population doesn’t identify this as being nazism.

That’s a big claim for no citation.

Taxonomy.

• A cat is [animal]
• A dog is an [animal]

The nazi’s did such a good job of distinguishing themselves they created their own (colloquial) taxonomic branch.

So [nazi] could be considered a parent grouping of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party and also potentially a parent grouping for the republicans.

I think they key here is separating the nazi party from the [nazi] category

As you pointed out all [nazi]'s are [fascist]'s but not all [fascist]'s are [nazi]'s

• National Socialist German Workers’ Party were [nazi]'s
• The American Republican Party are subjectively showing enough similarities (both in type and progression) that they get the provisional label of [nazi] as it’s the closest existing definition.

Might turn out that they don’t quite fall in the same branch, might turn out they do. Until then [nazi] is an easy shortcut for describing the types of behaviour displayed.

Even if they were just a direct descendent ( taxonomically ) rather than a sibling of the original nazi party there would still be an argument to claim they were nazi’s

Like :

• animal -> mammal -> cat
• nazi -> nazi party -> republican

Come back in a few years and you’ll probably get your definitive answer either way.

You don’t have to agree with any of that of course, but it does demonstrate how someone might have an opposing opinion to your own.

Well, at least they aren’t pretending to accept longer passwords but actually truncating it, like they used to in hotmail and live.

They were silently truncating the passwords to something like the first 16 characters, the rest was ignored.

Apologies, i cannot divulge that information as per the NDA i signed at the time.

/s

My experiences are similar to yours, though less k8’s focused and more general DevSecOps.

it becomes a battle between custom-fitting and generalisation.

This is mentioned in the link as “Barely General Enough” I’m not sure i fully subscribe to that specific interpretation but the trade off between generalisation and specialisation is certainly a point of contention in all but the smallest dev houses (assuming they are not just cranking hard coded one-off solutions).

I dislike the yaml syntax, in the same way i dislike python, but it is pervasive in the industry at the moment so you work with that you have.

I don’t think yaml is the issue as much as the uncontrolled nature of the usage.

You’d have the same issue with any format as flexible to interpretation that was being created/edited by hand.

As in, if the yaml were generated and used automatically as part of a chain i don’t think it’d be an issue, but it is not nearly prescriptive enough to produce the high level kind of model definitions further up the requirements stack.

note: i’m not saying it couldn’t be done in yaml, i’m saying that it would be a massive effort to shoehorn what was needed into a structure that wasn’t designed for that kind of thing

Which then brings use back to the generalisation vs specialisation argument, do you create a hyper-specific dsl that allows you only to define things that will work within the boundaries of what you want, does that mean it can only work in those boundaries or do you introduce more general definitions and the complexity that comes with that.

Whether or not the solution is another layer of abstraction into a different format or something else entirely i’m not sure, but i am sure that raw yaml isn’t it.

AFAICT MASD is an iteration on MDE which incorporates parts of MAD but not in a direct fashion.

Lots of acronyms there.

These types of systems do exist, they just aren’t mainstream because there hasn’t been a version of them that could be easily used for general development outside of the specific mid-level niches they are built in.

I think it’s the goal, but I’ve not seen anything come close yet.

Admittedly I’m not an authority so it may just be me missing the important things.

so, MASD(or MDE) then ?

Not sure how versed/willing you are to selfhost but I’ve heard good things about tube archivist.

There are also a bunch of ui’s for yt-dlp, though i can’t vouch for quality.

It’s somewhat of a catch, that’s generally how monopolistic moats work but you really shouldn’t be relying on google as a backup service for obscure videos you wish to keep.

I’ve no idea of the amount of lectures, guides, documentaries and other non-entertainment media that is available exclusively on youtube, but again it isn’t an archiving service.

They can, will and have deleted whole channels for various reasons, most of which were bullshit, if you find something you absolutely have to keep, download it.

That being said, the process of downloading, archiving and curating content on anything more than a trivial scale can be much more involved than it seems, especially if you want backups/redundancy.

I’ve never been a big youtube user so my opinion on this is coloured by the fact that i don’t have that much invested in the platform.

Literally any other form of entertainment.

Though the statement was to stop using it, not replace it.

It is, as well as being 3/4 of the provided usages and a large proportion of the examples.

TIL

I shouldn’t have anything to hide, but I’m part of a group the current fascist leadership in government want’s to eradicate, so hide I shall.

I agree and i think a lot of people who espouse “nothing to hide” as an approach haven’t actually thought it all the way through.

Then there’s the fascists, dictators, oligarchs and other all around shitbags who just want the control.

That said, I also feel like people acting like the remote server they are connected to is tracking what you do on it as some kind of surprise is so stupid. “Facebook is keeping track of the pictures I uploaded to it!!!” There’s a lot of stuff to complain about Facebook, google, or whoever, but them tracking stuff you send to them willingly isn’t one of them.

This always surprises me, i originally thought it was because people didn’t understand how these things work or how capitalist companies work.

More and more it seems like people don’t care until it affects them, which is somewhat understandable, it takes effort to care about this stuff and a lot of people will never be directly affected by the consequences.

What i do still think is that the general population has no idea the extent of what can be done with all of the information they are volunteering.

That’s very slowly changing but the usages of the data are also increasing at a much more rapid pace than before.

Oh yeah, the whole article could be reductively summed up as

“DeepSeek and all the other LLM services are almost as bad as each other, but we think deepseek is worse…because the Chinese government are known for doing bad things”.

The title is factual, if a little clickbaity.

Obviously keystrokes you submit to a website are submitted to the website.

This though, it’s not technically accurate, a lot of forms and input are done client side and then the resulting information is parceled up and sent to the server.

The actual keystroke data isn’t normally sent.

Though this article doesn’t go in to what kind of keystroke data is sent, if it was something more than just which keys in which order then that’s perhaps an indicator that it’s actively being collected for a reason, rather than just incidentally.

If you want to get really paranoid about such things it’s known that you can you can do interesting things with actual keystroke data.

Also, afaict none of the the non-chinese services have specified that they don’t do this.

i mean…yes? that is generally how search platforms work.

I wouldn’t recommend anybody use any google based stuff directly (or at all, if possible) but if you do, then sending the search query is generally what would happen.

Also fair.

If you’ve got nothing to hide you don’t have to worry ?

edit : For clarification, i consider “If you’ve got nothing to hide you don’t have to worry” to be a naive argument, at best, in any privacy conversation, but I’m not averse to a well-reasoned argument to the contrary.

The wording here was unclear, what i mean to ask was:

“do you believe If you’ve got nothing to hide you don’t have to worry ?”

See, now that’s a more thorough explanation of your position.

I disagree with pretty much all of your assertions (though the witch hunt stuff can be true sometimes) , but at least i know I’m disagreeing with an opinion formed using the whole of the information provided.

This “context” added doesn’t move my post a centimeter IMO.

It shows you read the initial information in it’s entirety and still came to the conclusion you did.

That removes the possibility of responses such as “Did you even read the initial tweet?”.

Well… it should remove that possibility, in practice it just means you can safely ignore those responses because clearly the people making those responses haven’t read your response in it’s entirety.

If all he said was literally “i approve of this pick for this position” you’d be correct.

What actually happened was he approved of the pick and also claimed the republicans are now actually the party that stands for the “little guy”.

Then followed up with a non apology that claimed what he said was not intended to be a “political statement”.

by all means, argue that you think there’s a fuss over nothing, but if you leave important context out seemingly because it doesn’t suit your narrative it weakens your argument substantially.

2/2

I agree completely, which is why I say it’s not the right word. I am totally against people saying homosexuality is a mental illness because it implies it’s something that needs to be corrected. I do see it as something that deviates from the norm, but in a way as harmless and inconsequential as left-handedness.

And i don’t disagree (aside from the discussion on “norm” as stated above).

I thought I had done a good enough job of establishing upfront what I meant when I said that I was pro LGBT and was coming at this from a point of trying to understand, but I the backlash clearly shows that was not enough.

That’s not necessarily true, people are going to disagree and misunderstand especially on a subject such as this, all you can do is engage in good faith and work with the results of that.

If you want to refine your explanations, that’s fine also, but you aren’t going to get 100% success rates, especially on the internet.

I find it frustrating having to tiptoe around topics like this and always try to explain myself because people are so quick to look for the bad, but I suppose that is the current world we live in.

All we can do is our best, if that’s not enough for some people, so be it.

This kind of communication is a skill, it’ll get more refined over time.

It’s a sad fact that there are a lot of people trying to opress anyone who is different, and I can’t exect strangers on the internet to know me or what I believe in.

True, so manage your expectations accordingly.

If you go in to it with an understanding of the potential outcomes you won’t be blindsided.

I’ve done a lot of explaining myself, but I’m still not conviced my original assumption is incorrect. I still think that homosexuality has a biological/mental aspect because gay people say that they were born that way, it’s not a choice, it’s who they are. I didn’t choose to be straight so that makes perfect sense to me. I also know that the people who feel that way are in a minority, therefore something is happening mentally, biologically, I don’t know, to a small subset of people making them an abnormality.

The conversation about a potential biological/genetic component to homosexuality is incredibly charged for various reasons but mainly because of the consequences of either outcome.

If it turns out there is a genetic component then think of all the things the fundamentalist nutjobs would want to do with that information.

And given that fundamentalist nutjobs aren’t know for their clear headed and rational thinking they wouldn’t understand (or would wilfully ignore) that you probably can’t just point to a “gay gene” as a means of identification so not only would they being doing stupid shit, they’d be doing stupid shit that doesn’t make any sense.

What I HAVE learned is I need to be more cautious of using the word abnormal which goes full circle to my question on if this is an issue of language. Most people really don’t like words that black and white say they’re different, because while it may be true, it can be used by people who do not feel like deviations from the norm are acceptable, and they will attack them for being the “other”. This is just a very polarizing topic and can cause people who say they’re on the same side to get at each other assuming the worst, which is unfortunate.

I think it’s more complicated than just language, though language is a major component on the internet.

There are sometimes ways to present the same information in a similar way that makes use of linguistic and societal context to convey the meaning of what you were saying while downplaying some of the the negative aspects of how it could be received.

I suspect an issue you might be having is that at a glance they’d probably both look the same to you, so with a choice between four words and two sentences the more concise seems like the better option.

Though i might be projecting.

I don’t actually think that’s the issue here however, i agree it’s just a charged subject and people are people.