towerful

joined 1 year ago
[–] towerful@programming.dev 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Holy shit.
Like, I can see a brief of "thrust stage with 3 screens, entrances between the screens, and access to the screens for manual pointing" might lead to this stage design. The cutouts at the side might be able to be justified for camera access.
But that cutout triangle in the middle would be a pain to engineer and a health & safety nightmare to justify. So the cutout triangle is absolutely deliberate, and will have been discussed in depth. The only reason to keep it is because someone knew.

Edit.
Also, considering their logo is star shaped, I'm surprised the center thrust isn't more star shaped. Seems odd to go from 5 points and many sides to 4 points and 4 sides. Especially considering they are fine with the engineering and h&s justification of a triangle cutout mid-stage

[–] towerful@programming.dev 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

I guess it's the "ai shotgun" approach.
Holistic ai: apply it to everything, celebrate the few that hit

[–] towerful@programming.dev 3 points 5 months ago

People hate having their favorite brand associated with vile or unethical things.

True. But not ads, which this quote is taking about. People hate ads. It's the ads people hate, not the context of the ads.
If your favourite brand hired some neo-nazi as their new spokesperson, that's a bit different than some garbage ad sitting beside some garbage AI content.
The only reason "ads beside garbage content" is ever leveraged (ie a news story) is as a way to either hurt the garbage content or hurt the company the ad is for.

Like with shitty twitter content, consumers can pressure twitter to deal with the content by alerting companies that they are being seen next to shitty content. Companies then leverage the fact that they are paying twitter to get their ads away from that content. If enough companies do this, twitter might change their content policy to prevent this kind of shitty content.
Like with YouTube, it has loads of demonitizing policies to ensure companies who advertise there don't get negative press due to association with the content, which means YouTube should have a majority of quality content.

But, no. (The majority of) People don't hate their brand advertising next to particular content. People just hate ads.

[–] towerful@programming.dev 19 points 6 months ago (9 children)

For some people, the walled garden and the "it just works" is a feature, when compared to the potential mine-field of building your own PC (or the increased cost of a pre built).
Some people have some money but not time, so a console a couch and a TV is easier to get into for the few hours a week they have.

Value for money, a build-your-own PC is better.

I don't get why people buy iPhones. But if you go all-in on apple, the ecosystem is very attractive.

[–] towerful@programming.dev 56 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The xkcd explained brushes near it.

Many of the passengers would suffer extreme injuries from the changes of velocity (up to 230 mph based on a loop radius of 3 x ship length) and rotation (unlike rollercoasters, or even airplanes during simple take-off and landing, passengers aren't normally strapped down).

[–] towerful@programming.dev 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The certs are still valid.
They are just not implicitly trusted

[–] towerful@programming.dev 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I mean, you made a lot of aggressive comments and exploded back at commenters before you actually explained your stance/position.
And it all read like "have pity on those beach front home owners when the tides come", as opposed to "yeh, beach front home owners are assholes, I wish they would do something to actually help. Unfortunately the regular population are essentially hostage to ever increasing rent, insurance and food prices making moving anywhere safer more and more difficult each season"

Maybe it's cause it's text.

[–] towerful@programming.dev 8 points 6 months ago (3 children)

That took 2 comments of rage-bait bullshit for you to say that?

Like, at no point did you actually say you are a helpless victim in this.
It read like "I have and enjoy MY house on the beautiful coast. Why is everyone going to be so mean to me when the bill comes due?!"

[–] towerful@programming.dev 0 points 6 months ago (7 children)

So, is public accessibility actually required?
Does it need to be exposed to the public internet?

Why not use wireguard (or another VPN)? Even easier is tailscale.
If you are hand selecting users (IE, doesn't actually need to be publicly accessible), then VPN is the most secure and just run a reverse proxy for ease & certs.
Or set up client certificate authentication, so only users that install a certificate issued by you can connect to the service (dunno how that works for 3rd party apps to immich)

Like I asked, what is your actual threat model?
What are your requirements?
Is public accessibility actually required?

[–] towerful@programming.dev 2 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Probably more expensive than you think...

[–] towerful@programming.dev 2 points 6 months ago

"free Ubers for life".
Absolute bargain to get your own laws

view more: ‹ prev next ›