He / They

  • 23 Posts
  • 841 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 16th, 2023

help-circle


  • I’m extremely wary of any law that can be used to censor or otherwise remove material online, but one gripe i have with the Techdirt article is their assertion that hash matching is expensive or difficult.

    Generating a SHA hash of an image when uploaded is very inexpensive in terms of processing, and there’s already going to be a db somewhere that stores the image metadata, so it’s not like putting the hash there is hard. Similarly, a simple No/SQL lookup for a known hash is incredibly simple and non-intensive.

    The real issue is the lack of an appeal mechanism, the lack of penalty for, or legal mechanism to, ignore false reports (which should probably be about spam/ volume of requests, rather than single requests), and the lack of definition around what exactly a site must do to show good-faith, reasonable compliance.





  • Ubisoft has never been a mod-friendly publisher, and none of their titles support modding to any extent that I’m aware of. The mods that exist for it are pretty limited in nature (i.e. they modify existing values and textures, and don’t really expand the game afaik). I like FarCry 2, 3, 5, New Dawn, and 6, but the series has definitely written itself into a corner. Removing the guns makes it not work (e.g. Primal), but they’ve literally ended their timeline with 5 and New Dawn, and 6 just makes it feel like they don’t know where to go and are doing offshoots. 6 felt more like Just Cause than Far Cry, to me.



  • Here you go:

    1. She was never very progressive, which made her less appealing in an open primary like 2020 (to actual voters) than other options like Sanders

    2. She was still too progressive for the DNC to back her, until Biden dropped and they were left with the prospect of a snap primary they couldn’t exercise control over, at which point they backed Harris running with a platform that was significantly less progressive than her 2020 primary platform

    After Biden dropped out, if she had been more progressive, more voters would have backed her, but if she was more progressive the DNC would never have backed her. You need both the voters and the party to back a candidate for them to win. The DNC refusing to move leftwards towards voters is why they’ve lost 2/3 of the previous elections.




  • He was, but it wasn’t without Hillary controlling the DNC to weigh everything against him, including by using the funds that were meant to go to whoever was the elected candidate, during the primary. But don’t take my word for that, that’s straight from Donna Brazile, who became head of the DNC at the end of the 2016 election cycle: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774/

    “Wait,” I said. “That victory fund was supposed to be for whoever was the nominee, and the state party races. You’re telling me that Hillary has been controlling it since before she got the nomination?”

    Gary said the campaign had to do it or the party would collapse.

    “That was the deal that Robby struck with Debbie,” he explained, referring to campaign manager Robby Mook. “It was to sustain the DNC. We sent the party nearly $20 million from September until the convention, and more to prepare for the election.”

    The agreement—signed by Amy Dacey, the former CEO of the DNC, and Robby Mook with a copy to Marc Elias—specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party’s finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff. The DNC also was required to consult with the campaign about all other staffing, budgeting, data, analytics, and mailings.

    I had been wondering why it was that I couldn’t write a press release without passing it by Brooklyn. Well, here was the answer.









  • One thing to note is that the campaign to make him into a ‘broken’, ‘damaged’ individual is well underway in the media. There’s nothing positive about being well-adjusted to a harmful system, and being broken by a harmful system is not a personal failing.

    Is he going to be a perfectly polite, mild-mannered person in court? Maybe not. But don’t let yourself be tricked into the narrative that this discredits his reasoning, or into thinking his actions are the result of some personal failing rather than a reasonable reaction to a harmful system.