Since there's quite a few of these dark mode extensions with very variable features and compatibility/robustness, I feel like there's space for a comparison chart type thing. With side by side screenshots of how they handle certain websites and how they influence performance (that might be tricky). If someone want's to steal that idea go ahead, otherwise I might whip something up somewhere over the next weeks.
Dark Reader provides all 3 possible modes:
- Static: simple and fast.
- Filter: simple, but uses GPU very much and usually inverts already dark parts.
- Dynamic: complex, but tries to achieve the best visual results. There are some known issues and the work on it is in progress.
In my very personal opinion, anyone who willingly decorates their home with networked IoT devices, especially those talking to a external service, has already lost. With the increasing number of gizmos it's more or less inevitable that one of them (or rather all of them) ships with a gross, easy to exploit (an definitely wormable, because you know it'll be) oversight compromising your network because you're one of a million people getting owned by a bored skid.
You want less timeboms in your home, not more. It's silly. Scale back, stop trying to mitigate around it and just don't buy this crap. You wouldn't keep a hand grenade with a toothpick for a safety pin on your desk because it'll be fine as long as everyone is really careful with it.
But like I said, that's just the very angry voice in my head shouting into the void.
Isolation is key if you use any device like this. Separate VLAN for them means stuff like this won't even work and even if they get hacked, they'll have no special access into your network.
Although, religious aspects aside, there are many valuable tenets to be found in there, which will be directly opposed by those who want to get angry about it.
Yes, it's meant as a joking stab at those who seemingly cannot live without having a CoC everywhere. Especially in projects they do not actually participate in. Now watch as this gets blown out of proportion, because this will make some people really, really angry.
Id be very surprised if this stays up actually.
Because if you take it as a satirization of the adoption of CoC's, it's saying "we don't think CoC's address real problems and we'll do it with a general set of ideals that do nothing to solve problems".
Which ignores the very real problem of harassment in tech.
Given the context, I don't think they are mutually exclusive. It could be both a religious text and satirising other CoCs which are essentially religious in their own right.
Why? Why are people so concerned with "enforcement", which is basically "punishment"?
A code of conduct should be nothing more than a set of guidelines which contributors should aspire to meet. It's not a legal text, and it's not a religious text. We are free participants in projects, not unwilling subjects to be disciplined.
We've gone from projects where one was expected to behave properly, and if not would be politely admonished, and maybe kicked out if this continued over a long period, to this, where the CoC is to be used as a blunt instrument to punish transgressors. It's not an improvement, and I dislike the assumptions of bad faith and requirement for punishment. It's unnecessary, and sets the wrong tone.
People who hold religious beliefs that people following this code spent hundreds of years trying to stamp out with violence probably have a different context that people to whom it is merely irrelevant.
> First of all, love the Lord God with your whole heart, your whole soul, and your whole strength.
> Deny oneself in order to follow Christ.
> Prefer nothing more than the love of Christ.
> Put your hope in God.
> Attribute to God, and not to self, whatever good you see in yourself.
> Fear the Day of Judgment.
> Be in dread of hell.
> Know for certain that God sees you everywhere.
> When wrongful thoughts come into your heart, dash them against Christ immediately.
> Devote yourself frequently to prayer.
> Daily in your prayers, with tears and sighs, confess your past sins to God, and amend them for the future.
> Obey in all things the commands of those whom God has placed in authority over you even though they (which God forbid) should act otherwise, mindful of the Lord's precept, "Do what they say, but not what they do." (!!!)
> Do not wish to be called holy before one is holy; but first to be holy, that you may be truly so called.
I see the religious part of this CoC as purely incidental to the source material (it being 15 centuries old and aimed at christian monks). It's clearly not meat to be taken serious, even though I'd agree with a lot of the common sense points listed. Now, being a bit annoyed at the religious implications is not being really angry and blowing things out of proportion. Being annoyed still leaves room for discussion. What I meant is the major poop flinging through major publications that will undoubtedly follow over the next few days, activating large swaths of those people I mentioned. Those who thrive on nonconstructive anger. In general I'd agree with you, just leave religion out of it, even when it's (or especially?) in a joking manner. Edit: Typo
I see the religious part as being the entire point, since it comes from a religious order. The very first rule is about loving a particular deity. If we were to go back in time and find these people, what do you think would offend them more, “I hold grudges” or “there is no god”?
I daresay that a difference in opinion like that would probably not trigger most people back in that age in the same manner it seems to do so now (on both sides - I'm not picking on one side here).
While there have been people who have done things like this in all ages (and also over believing there is NO God, as opposed to just the wrong one), your statement is not as accurate as it could be in most cases if you take into account the context of those wars.
That said, Benedictine monks would not be at or near the top of my list for people who would get all triggered, angry, and go to war over you disagreeing that God exists.
Yes, people fiercely defend what they love and believe. But it's possible to do so graciously and firmly without being angry or freaking out that someone disagrees with you (I am not referring to you specifically, but you, myself, our readers, mankind, etc).
Given that the lead of the SQLite project's personal website has references to an organisation that translates religious Scripture, I'm not sure it really is a "joking stab".
> this will make some people really, really angry
Suggesting that a text written by Christians is a good basis for an OSS project's CoC, when Christianity has a pretty fucking horrific track record when it comes to most of the people who, without Codes of Conduct are pushed out of or never welcome in OSS projects, and you're surprised that people might be angry?
Tracking is just one of the many reasons why it should be considered common courtesy to communicate in plain text (and attachments if necessary).
My email based workflow and toolchain has been plaintext only for years and I think I've been better off for it. The recent efail vulnerability just made me shrug. Plain text mail is all around more reliable, more accessible, less obfuscated, more to the point by the nature of the medium, easier to implement [...].
Did that in my childhood on wooden stairs in my parents house. Rounded edges, kid of hazardous in general but great to slide down like this. Kind of want to try this again, but I also value the integrity of my bones.
Stair surfing - I've still done it as a middle aged guy.
I would like to learn to do it hands free, one foot in front of the other (forward and down to the next step). I can surf a bit without grabbing the rails, but only rarely make it to the bottom. Definitely needs the perfect wooden stairs to get maximum flight time!
I've done two at time descending for the longest time until stumbled over another fun way to do this.
One at a time, but you let one leg drop free while you pull the other leg forward to hit the next step. Somewhat hard to describe in a manner that makes sense. Think of hitting a drum with sticks. Only works with shallow stairs though. You know it works when your legs just kinda do their own thing and pull you forward. Obligatory don't try this in public warning.
1 False, there is no persistence in the absence of power
2 False, the hidden/unknown has no transformative effect unless it is revealed
3 Missing information, what are 'irrational facts'?
4 Highly debatable, situational
5 False, creativity is not bound to either health or tolerance but modified through their experience.
6 Flowery way to say we like to shift perspective unto flaws that are not our own? We certainly have a track record when it comes to this behavior. Still not universally true.
7 You cannot be forced to learn. Context dependent.
8 Universal observations? Movement as in 'through life' (experience)? Our observations are contextualized by past experiences. Unsure about this sentence.
9 The person who has never tried anything literally died in the womb.
10 Missing context.
11 Being in pain is painful, 'imagined pain' makes no sense.
12 What, missing context.
13 What is 'the inherent experience of the universe'? Can the unexplainable touch anything?
14 Correct, being temped can be interpreted to be done unto you, not falling for temptation is the act of resisting it. There is *a difference*.
My personal believe is that neither work out in a way we'd like it to.
Censorship can, under the right circumstances, be effective but requires either a very delicate hand and be more or less invisible or oppressing the opposition until it exhausted itself one way or another. Sometimes it seems to work out only to end up reinforcing believes, leading to a deeper internalization and radicalization.
Education requires focused, continued, honest effort. It requires rolling that damn boulder up the hill until the hill itself starts to erode under your feet. It's a excruciatingly slow process. And it's so easy to forget that it needs to be a dialog no matter how much you think you're right.
I'm a strong advocate for the latter, but it's easy to see why so many gravitate to the former.
A corp establishing a effective monopoly on a share of everyday life should be held to the same scrutiny as a government. Especially if it intermingles with it.
edit: word
I'm sorry, but social media and even internet access are not rights nor are they provided to you by the government.
The reason you can say whatever you want on the internet is tolerance. Not because its an inalienable right.
A corporation should be held accountable similar to the federal government? That is a nonsensical sentiment. How would that even be enforced? Corporations are accountable to shareholders, not the citizens of any nation.
Please think critically for a moment about what you're suggesting, keeping in mind you clearly are only suggesting this for one specific company, out of all social media companies. it's blatantly out of spite.
