Brave is the one run by transphobes who also love crypto.

How would you drive the adoption of such a protocol in an environment that is largely hostile towards attempts at demonetising things?

‘Calling out lies’ isn’t fact-checking - at best it would have turned into a ‘your word against mine, who will people believe’ mudslinging contest. Fact-checking puts the onus on the person telling the lie to correct it - ‘this is false and here is a source that says so’.

To run a debate with Trump and without live fact checking was just plain stupid. You know he’s just going to run his rehearsed talking points without so much as trying to answer even mildly uncomfortable questions. They not only let him get away with serial lying, they basically laid the groundwork so he could get away with it.

Fact checks after the fact never reach the people that need to see them.

That’s the thing. Apple has that track record already. This years iOS update will be available for phones released as far back as 2017. And that’s not a recent development - 4+ years have been the norm with iOS devices for a long time, while many Android phones have suffered from much faster obsolescence.

Google have yet to prove that they can fulfill this promise.

I’ll touch base with you in 7 years to see how that’s going.

*from the manufacturer

Does your Android phone get 5+ years of software support?

What’s giving me dementia is the fact that so many Americans want this guy to be president. Again.

The difference is, Devops isn’t a bubble that everyone is waiting for to pop. I’ve been in that field for over ten years now, and properly implemented it is a net gain for everyone who does it. The reason companies are falling over themselves trying to hire ‘Devops’ is because they still haven’t properly cottoned on to the concept but are afraid of falling behind. And yes, I can absolutely attest to the fact that Devops is a tough market to hire in at the moment, that there are a lot of places who don’t have the first clue about what Devops really is, and - similarly to Agile - think they can add some buzzwords to their toolchain and call Bob their uncle. And there are a lot of candidates who somehow acquired a Devopsy title in all that chaos, but all their CVs have are tech buzzwords, and when you interview them they’re clueless. That doesn’t change the fact that Devops is a solid concept with high benefits for those who understand it.

AI, and more specifically GenAI and LLMs - is more like crypto, in the sense that people are trying to get rich from it without having the first clue what it is. It’s this shiny new thing that everyone is rushing to get on board with, but I have yet to see someone propose a use case that actually makes sense, couldn’t be implemented better without AI, and is a net gain for those using it. Right now it’s all this nebulous bullshit, everyone just slaps their own coat of paint onto ChatGPT and calls it a day. Useful AI-adjacent concepts like Big Data and Machine Learning have been around for much longer than the tooling underpinning the current hype, and already have a lot of very valid use cases.

By the way, I work with a bunch of high aptitude Devops engineers and none of them are thinking about adding AI to our pipelines, not even to pad their CV.

So not only do they want AI to take your job - you also won’t be able to get another job if you don’t wholesale buy into this shit.

I love the future.

The worst is when they say they’ve found a solution, without adding any information or elaborating further. Makes me want to flip my desk.

Fuck this kid. He should be rotting in a jail cell - certainly not sauntering around giving speeches on uni campuses.

I’d say this is a mess of Trump’s own making. Nobody forced him to perform the actions that got him into this legal trouble. If you can’t afford the penalty, don’t do the crime.

What the shit? That article is utter, utter tripe. They’re not even celebrating an ‘independence day’, which out of the things described in that garbage writeup would have been one of the easiest things to accomplish.

I have great respect for Gysi, and always did since I first listened to a campaign speech from him in the mid-90s. He’s a politician who has stuck to his principles and prevailed through adversities where many other people would have just given up. But, even if you disregard his flaws, blind spots around Russia, and the poor handling of the internal crises which have now led to a split of his party, he has hardly ever been in a position where he could truly make a change in politics. His party may have been part of the government in some German states, but he himself never has been. And this may sound cynical, but it’s relatively easy to be a principled politician when there’s not much at stake. It’s when you actually have some power and influence, that the wheat separates from the chaff - when you actually have to handle all kinds of pressure from all sides and see what your principles are worth to you.

This is not a defense of any other politicians - I wish there were way more who didn’t give up their principles at the first sign of pressure. I’m just saying that Gysi has rarely been in a position where he had to do that.

I am unfamiliar with the other two, but I would say similar concerns may apply there.

Gysi would have a valid point, if you assumed that Putin is a rationally thinking leader who is interested in a good relationship with the West. But that is not the case. Putin is clearly out to provoke and challenge the West and NATO, though to what end, I can only speculate. I also don’t think Putin is in any way rational.

The problem with the modern Left especially in Germany is that they have a huge blind spot when it comes to Russia (and, really, anyone else who they consider to have been part of the historical struggle against imperialism, colonialism and fascism, no matter if they have since turned into tyrants or dictators). It is a huge problem, but they can’t seem to liberate themselves from that.

The problem with politics is that it tends to chew up and spit out people with a modicum of honesty, integrity and a moral compass. They either give up, or become corrupted to the point that they can no longer fulfill the purpose that they went into politics for.

That’s assuming Republicans have a moral compass or consistent ideological positions. That’s not the case though. It’s all just about what benefits them and their donors.

The people of the US have the choice to not only elect their parliaments, but also the president. They also elect DAs and Sheriffs in many places. The people of the US have more democratic rights than most other people in countries considered democracies.

The fact that they’re having more elections does not mean they have ‘more democratic rights’.

I for example fail to see the point of the US mid-term elections. It doesn’t make the US system more democratic, just more complex.