Welcome to Incremental Social! Learn more about this project here!
Check out lemmyverse to find more communities to join from here!

myliltoehurts

@myliltoehurts@lemm.ee

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

A supermarket trip may soon look different, thanks to electronic shelf labels (www.npr.org)

Grocery store prices are changing faster than ever before — literally. This month, Walmart became the latest retailer to announce it’s replacing the price stickers in its aisles with electronic shelf labels. The new labels allow employees to change prices as often as every ten seconds....

myliltoehurts ,

I get the convenience part so the staff doesn't have to go around do it by hand, but it just seems infeasible to do it for the other examples mentioned.

E.g. you go in, pick up item listed for $10, finish shopping in 20 mins, item now costs $15 at till.. probably leave it (so now the staff has to re-shelf it) and start shopping at a place that is not trying to scam you.

For the other example, if there are a few packs of something expiring and they reduce the price for all the items on the shelf, everyone will just take the ones which have a reasonable shelf life left leaving the expiring ones.

Both of these just seem stupid.

myliltoehurts ,

I feel like anyone who already had a know-how to change their DNS will just change to one of the other hundreds of free servers and the people who couldn't be bothered to switch to google DNS will already have been "blocked". Or they are using a VPN already..

myliltoehurts ,

Everyone who has not regarded crypto as a scam will certainly do, once he's done with the pump and dump he's setting up here.

myliltoehurts ,

What I expect will happen: have his followers buy in at current high price point -> price goes higher -> him and his rich whale friends sell -> price goes down -> the people who just invested because he promised big stonks but realistically can't afford to leave their money in for years panic and sell -> price goes down -> him and rich friends buy in again.

Sure, it's mostly his followers getting scammed, but if this does happen I can't imagine them not vocally blaming BTC for losing their money - which would likely fuel the crypto is a scam narrative.

Maybe his words are not influential enough to actually sway the price and nothing will come of it though, but based on the previous things he has done (his NFTs, the truth social stocks) if he has the opportunity to take money from his supporters, he certainly will.

myliltoehurts ,

I didn't say crypto was a scam, but it is regarded as a scam in general and as you said, it's pretty easy to get scammed trading it or using it if you don't know what you're doing - which would definitely be true for anyone buying in on a public figure's advice.

It's also an incredibly volatile market which is relatively easily influenced by large players without much regulation. If he does have the influence to manage to impact it, I am pretty sure he would happily take his gains from his followers. If he doesn't, well let's just hope all the people who buy in without any research don't lose their money by selling as soon as the next crypto winter comes for a massive loss.

myliltoehurts ,

Sorry, but I think you're reading into my words something they didn't say or imply. In fact I tried my best to avoid wording it in a way that implies crypto is a scam (because I don't believe it myself).

What you've quoted strictly implies 2 things:

  1. There are people who consider crypto a scam
  2. Everyone will regard crypto as a scam after trump's future actions.

The 2nd is definitely an exaggeration, but neither of them claim crypto is a scam only that it has an image that it is - which I maintain it does with a significant portion of people.

I do think trump picked crypto as a target for his attention because it's a volatile and under regulated market he may be able exploit to try to make money off of whoever listens to him. I hope I'm wrong though.

myliltoehurts ,

No problem!

Your thinking seems more insightful than mine.

My reasoning that he is mainly after the money is that in the past year he has been paying a lot of legal fees and fines, while trying to run a campaign. He had his NFT collection which made him a quick buck to then immediately floor in value, same for trump media stocks - except they then skyrocketed again, and now flooring again. So.. Just seems like something he'd do.

The 2nd reason is that crypto is a very divisive topic with loads of people hating on it - including banks and some other financial institutions. I'd expect it's a double edged sword for supporters, but maybe he's gaining more from it than losing in terms of votes.

Considering that it's been a few days since he made his statement and there hasn't been massive movement on BTC price, he's either not influential enough to impact it or I was wrong.

/shrug

myliltoehurts ,

Honestly, even if you don't terminate SSL right until your very own app server, it's still based on the assumption that whoever holds the root cert for your certificate is trustworthy.

The thing that has actually scared me with CF is the way their rules work. I am not even sure what's the verification step to get to this, but if there is a configured page rule in a different CF account for your domain that points at cloudflare (I.e. the orange cloud), you essentially can't control your domain as long as it's pointing at CF (I think this sentence is a bit confusing so an alternative explanation: your domain is pointing DNS at your own CF account, in your CF account you have enabled proxying for your domain, some other CF account has a page rule for your domain, that rule is now in control). The rule in some other account will control it.

It has happened to us at work and I had to escalate with their support to get them to remove the rule from the other cloudflare account so we can get back control of our domain while using CF. Their standard response is for you to find and ask the other CF account to remove the rule for your domain.

This is a pretty common issue with gitbook, even the gitbook CEO was surprised CF does this.

Linus Tech Tips (LTT) release investigation results on former accusations (x.com)

There were a series of accusations about our company last August from a former employee. Immediately following these accusations, LMG hired Roper Greyell - a large Vancouver-based law firm specializing in labor and employment law, to conduct a third-party investigation. Their website describes them as “one of the largest...

myliltoehurts ,

Yea idk.

After having dealt with some audits (although not this exact topic), in general they followed the same format. "Assert that we do the thing we claim to be doing". So if the thing they claim to be doing is a low bar, the audit means nothing. If they dont release any evidence, or a report of what they were ascertaining it means very little IMO.

I can't remember if the employee released any evidence with her claims either though, but in general I'd prefer my odds with assuming her story is closer to the truth against a company which has had other mishaps recently, underpinned by evidence. All of which they tried to brush under the carpet.

So yeah. I'm pressing X for doubt.

myliltoehurts ,

Release an actual report of the investigation by the third party rather than a statement.

What claim was investigated, what proof did they find if any, what evidence did they have access to etc.

Finding no proof of wrongdoing or proof of no wrongdoing is a big difference.

myliltoehurts ,

Good point, thank you for pointing it out.

Maybe a better way to phrase it is that a report from the investigator could qualify what they considered/found when they said the claims were false, baseless etc, and any evidence they found/data they had access to. (E.g. if they could look at all internal communication but their data retention policy is 6 months and this happened 7 months ago, its not the same as not finding anything)

For example, "allegations of sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed" is a wide range. It could be there were no allegations recorded from the employee (as in, they weren't reported), or they were addressed by a slap on the wrist or a "just don't do that again" to introducing workplace behaviour training, forcing the perpetrator to go through it, suspending them without pay and so on.

You are right it's not proof of no wrongdoing, but it would serve as proof that they handled things in a generally suitable manner, rather than that they managed to twist things around to check a box for the investigator.

myliltoehurts ,

So they filled reddit with bot generated content, and now they're selling back the same stuff likely to the company who generated most of it.

At what point can we call an AI inbred?

myliltoehurts ,

I have never seen contributors get anything for open source contributions.

In larger, more established projects, they explicitly make you sign an agreement that your contributions are theirs for free (in the form of a github bot that tells you this when you open a PR). Sometimes you get as much as being mentioned in a readme or changelog, but that's pretty much it.

I'm sure there may be some examples of the opposite, I just.. Wouldn't hold my breath for it in general.

myliltoehurts ,

Agree that it's misleading, but to add there is another significant concern given how glassdoor is already "pay to win" from the companies perspective: they could just offer identifying the users as a paid service.

It would be digging their own grave if that starts happening, but that doesn't seem to be stopping many companies..

myliltoehurts ,

If that were true, there'd be a riot every time a very famous person goes outside for any reason.

I'm sure she'd be approached and photographed and her privacy violated as much as people can get to her in a private lounge, but unless they were to advertise she is going to a certain airport at a specific time, it's incredibly unlikely she'd be mobbed. Ironically, flying publicly would make her movements harder to follow.

She can certainly afford to pay for 10 extra first class tickets for her staff, it'd most likely be much cheaper than owning her own jet. I'm sure the airports would also be thrilled to offer a private entrance and area for her/other famous people to be able to avoid even walking to her VIP lounge. Maybe they could help subsidize the airports instead of average people's taxes paying for their private airports in part.

myliltoehurts ,

Yes, an airport limits the amount of people, has a very high coverage of surveillance and a high ratio of security staff as well as an entry barrier and dedicated VIP areas. A generic place outside has none of that. Although feel free to elaborate on how an airport is worse for security than just being on a street, anywhere.

To your second point, sure she doesn't need to own them like nobody else does, but the issue (for me) is not primarily that she (or anyone) owns one, but that they [private jets and private airports] exist, and they're subsidized by us as it was pointed out above. If anything, they should be priced outrageously so using them would come down last resort or emergency situations, and the money from that could help balance the cost of the "public" infrastructure. This is a failure of the government, but equally so of the rich who choose to continue using them for their luxury.

myliltoehurts ,

As mentioned above, airport and airlines are heavily subsidized, this includes private airports and jets. For a limo, taxes pay for the road - but everyone can drive on it, so it'd exist with or without them. Maybe a better comparison would be if she had a bus that she travelled in alone, compared to the average person that'd be equally ridiculous.

The emissions of a limo is pretty much in line with the emissions of a family car. Most people wouldn't have a small car and a family car for when they're alone, so even if someone is alone on a limo, they're probably not doing much more harm than the average person.

A private jet's emissions are significantly more per passenger than a commercial plane. Even if a private jet always flies at max capacity - which I'd bet rarely happens - it'll cause significantly more emissions per person than a commercial plane (it's difficult to link a source here as I've not found an exact number. The estimates I've found range between 10 to 43x. Even assuming just 10x that's quite a difference)

myliltoehurts ,

I'm not sure how to respond to this, your answers lack detail or arguments to respond to. What difference does chartered Vs private make for emissions? It's the same types of jets, just changes who actually owns them. It also makes no difference to the entire tax subsidized argument either.

As to "how many times", as I said above I haven't found a clear answer, but different sources claim between 10x and ~40x, even assuming the very low end of 10x, that's a big difference. I assume the per passenger emission is hard to measure since the number of passengers on a plane make a big difference.

Either way, I believe I made my points in detail several times now, and as I said your responses don't really raise points or include much detail to further things, so I'm going to leave it here.

myliltoehurts ,

Jellyfin is a fork of emby from the time when emby went closed source. They are very similar, emby has a similar thing to Plex pass (emby premiere) to monetize for extra features, but it's not enshittified (yet, maybe - who knows).

I'm not sure if it's available without premiere but it has the intro detection and skip feature, which is one of the main things I miss from jellyfin. I also prefer the app on android TV for some small reasons (over jellyfin). I'm not sure if it's overall better, especially if you hadn't already paid for it - I got a lifetime pass on it for cheap once.

myliltoehurts ,

I've been looking for plexamp alternatives for jellyfin/emby - if you're interested https://symfonium.app/ seems pretty cool (it costs like $5 for a lifetime purchase but has a trial). It also works with Plex.

UK law that could ban Apple security updates worldwide is an unprecedented overreach (9to5mac.com)

UK law that could ban Apple security updates worldwide is an unprecedented overreach::Proposed amendments to the UK’s Investigatory Powers Act (IPA) which could ban Apple security updates worldwide are an “unprecedented overreach,”...

myliltoehurts ,

If they forced the maintainer of some FOSS software to merge in some code, even if the maintainer isn't even allowed to speak about it eventually someone would notice (since open source), fork the project and just cherry pick out their crap. Then it's whack-a-mole of trying to keep people from multiplying it.

Or they could claim the software is illegal and have no way to enforce that either.

So basically as long as said software is useful for more than a handful of people, it's infeasible to try to enforce it (e.g. see how it goes every time some software gets a cease and desist, they end up even more popular than before)

myliltoehurts ,

You joke but I do actually drink my rum with a few drops of water

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • incremental_games
  • meta
  • All magazines
    •