I remember a large part of the fun was that we couldn't just look something up on the web - it didn't exist in our home in the eighties. Instead we'd pore over BASIC on floppies. Changing a thing, for example GRAVITY=0.1, and finding out the banana now flies almost straight up.

Or meticulously typing over the source code printed in hand-me-down magazines. Evenings of me and friend one typing the other reading out loud. Then way more evenings of finding all the typos and bugs. And then one or two evenings running the game we just "wrote" and get bored immediately. And start changing things.

This is how I learned programming and what has paid my bills for over 25 years now. There were few university careers for programming, but mostly, young-arrogant-me was like "well, I have learned myself programming, so I'd better follow a university program that teaches me stuff I don't already know XD".

The tinkering and creative part has been lost by now for me. I lament that. So I've put aside a fund, finishing off some contracts now and from this summer on, will do unpaid work of "creative coding". Making "art" with software - something I now do in spare time, fulltime. Because that tinkering is what drew me in. Not the scrum-rituals, spagetti-code-wrangling or layers of architectural enterprise abstractions. But the fun of nesting nested loops and seeing my name fly over the screen in weird patterns, or the joy of making the matrix printer play a "song" by letting it print weird ascii strings.

I've been working professionally now for over a decade, but got started long before that as a child. Despite the endless negative things I could say about the modern era, I don't feel like any of it impacts my enjoyment of my work or gets in the way of my creativity.

I think this is because the closest I've ever been to truly being alone with the machine is writing programs for my TI calculators, but even then I still had ticalc.org. Some programs on there were brilliant, but most were awful. It was the perfect balance for people my age at the time. Despite what people believe today, especially with their LLMs, I don't think the landscape has changed much in that regard. There's still a lot of awful code with few brilliant examples. That leaves room for me to work on new interesting stuff or improve what's there without having too much help spoiling it.

Aside from political or social reasons, X is a terrible platform.

More often than not, I get a blank page, something didn't load.

If I get content, it's (randomly) behind a registration-wall.

Or it shows confusing cookie banners that half the time don't even work. (Dev console full of js errors)

So I don't even bother anymore. This service is technically so fragile and unstable, it's not worth the click.

Aside from how it's socially and businesswise broken. Because I have looked into some of the errors and issues and they'll only occur for "anonymous users" and not for twitter users. They're oftencaused by (normal vanilla) adblockers or privacy protection.

So I dare say they're either malicious, deliberate. Or lack of interest/resources for non-registered and/or privacy-aware users

I don’t see any similar attempts to transparently live fact check on any other platform.

I've seen so many right-wingers self-own themselves when asking Grok to either debunk a left-supporting article or back up a right-supporting one. I've seen people refer to Grok as Elon's Little Nazi Bot, but aside from that one afternoon where it referred to itself as "Mecha-Hitler", that label is far from the truth. Grok tends to actually be pretty factual.

How does that not decrease your trust? I can't understand the thought process.

I don't all the time, because that would take forever, but every month or so I'll do a deep dive on the sources of something I'm reading about. Strongly recommend that people periodically do this, especially on topics where you catch yourself having a strong reaction such as anger or immediate validation of your view point.

My concern wouldn't so much be that general information is incorrect, but that anything Musk has opinions on - which seems to be a great number of topics, many of which are completely detached from his companies etc. - has an unacceptable chance of being deliberately manipulated. This is easy to spot when he tries to convince people of his "white genocide", but we don't know what other topics he's "fixed", and you specify that you don't verify all the time.

How do you know you're not being fed another "white genocide" if you don't verify? I wouldn't be as concerned with other AIs because we haven't seen as explicit manipulation as we've seen with Grok, but that seems to be explicitly built to distribute Musks opinions.

I appreciate Community Notes and Grok for the closest thing to a real-time ability to call it out that exists.

My default AI query on any topic or story is, "Please validate the details of this story and compare to other sources to identify any critical information from other publications that was missing from this source. Highlight those differences."

It gives me a validation, a comparison and helps me to identify the bias/context framing that's going on pretty quickly. I haven't seen many AI sources that can fact check things in real time like Grok can, like Maduro news the other day.

That's my point. That's the problem I am addressing.

You present that as a solution. I presented it as a problem.

It's so serious, that you should really back it up with some evidence or at least some foundation. Got any?

In this very thread you can find lots of comments excusing the censorship because it’s being used to censor the “wrong ideas”.

I totally agree these comments contain discussion of controversial cases, but your claim is surprising to the point of being unbelievable without any kind of support.

To give the most optimistic take: Perhaps in your country, one political party is much more pro-censorship than another, so an anti-censorship stance seems aligned against that party? That’s believable; it happens in many countries (probably including mine; it can be hard to tell, since pro-censorship is a very common stance here).

Or hearsay. Or quotes from tinfoilhats or conspiracy nuts even.

Without any of these, you are seriously discrediting people and projects. And without any of these, there's no way for me counter any. Or even authorize any (ie a random russian troll, vs a journalist with reputation to lose)

Which is very cultural dependent as well. "Not being able to log in on TikTok if you are under 16" is not "preventing free speech". And "having no access to pornhub" is not preventing free speech either. Edit: TBC: this is not me defending these laws or rules.

E.g. Freedom of speech in the US, is rather narrow. It merely states you may "speak, write, and print with freedom" but not that you may do so anywhere, on any platform, on private property. It doesn't state that such speech, writings or printings must reach everyone.

The UNHCR article 19 goes further, though. But it doesn't automatically apply to the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human... It includes `... and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers`.

And all these only apply to governments. Many of the examples you mention, aren't government-imposed but imposed by private entities (who, granted, often pre-emptively self-censor). E.g. certain words used on Instagram or in Yourube videos will hurt monetization, or will cause it's discovery or promotion to severely degrade; which is why people use phrases like "unalived". So let's not pretend the US is any good in this.

Dutch culture used to be rather free with nudity in movies and on TV. Every Dutch movie from before the era of US streaming services had at least a pair of naked boobies bouncing around. But this, and in it's wake the entire culture has become more prude-ish. A form of cultural colonialism by the US. Not terrible, but a good example of private companies imposing self-censorship even in places where it really is not needed. IANAL, but I'm quite certain youtube would be allowed to run videos with nudity just fine in most of (nothern?) Europe. But they don't.

Right. It's having to profile yourself under the excuse of not letting kids use TikTok or PornHub.

Discussion and images of the protests around migrant hotels were age restricted because they contained adult content (racist content, fighting and burning things).

This age restriction meant that only logged in, age verified, users could see the content. Loads of adults are not age verified.

This is censorship of the news and political speech.

> The UNHCR article 19 goes further, though. But it doesn't automatically apply to the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human... It includes `... and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers`.

I have no idea why you think that Article 19 goes farther. It does not say that you may speak anywhere, on any platform, or on private property, and it doesn't say that that speech must reach everyone, which is a bizarre requirement anyway. It isn't a demand that all media carry all speech, and hasn't been treated that way by any of its signatories.

Worse, the text doesn't say that all information and ideas can be expressed, and it doesn't put any restrictions on governments in restraining the types of information and ideas that can be expressed.

The only thing it absolutely guarantees is the freedom to silently hold an opinion, a thing which it never had any ability to restrict.

The 1st Amendment is an actual right of free speech against the government. I'm not sure why you think that an actual, binding restriction on the government is weak compared to nothing. It's the only thing that keeps the US from passing the laws on speech and expression (that many people in the US would desire) that Europe passes regularly.

The US has to do stuff like connecting speech to other crimes as an aggravating factor, applying speech restrictions to places where the rights of citizens don't apply and the government is granted a lot of latitude, or applying speech restrictions to government contracting guidelines. And any of these things are liable to be struck down at any moment as unconstitutional by an adverse court decision.

But back to the Declaration, it's important to remember, of course, it has absolutely no legal force. That's reserved for the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which basically copies Article 19 but adds:

  The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

  (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

  (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

Then, just for kicks, Article 20 in the Covenant is simply two more mandatory restrictions on speech:

  Article 20

  1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

  2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

-----

* Other than what has been called incitement to "imminent violence" which means that you're literally coordinating a violent act between a group of people which will happen right now.

Because I've written my share of javascript-from-scratch in my time - before npm and such. And even if my use-case was limited, in order to get edge-cases and details working - issues long solved by their HTML/CSS counterparts - we needed more and more JS. Many of which handwritten polyfills, agent-detection, etc.

Seriously, things like scrollbars (because the client insisted on them being consistent across user-agents) or dropdowns (because they had to be styled) "visited" state on links, in pure JS are thousands of lines of code. Maybe not today, anymore, IDK, with current APIs like the history API or aria labeling. But back then, just in order to make the dropdown work with screen readers, or the scrollbars react well to touchpads -in the direction the user was used to based on their OS- took us thousands of lines of JS, hacks, workarounds and very hard to follow code - because of the way the "solutions" were spread out over the exact right combination of JS, HTML and CSS. Edit: I now recall we got the web-app back with the comment "When I select "Language" and start typing "Fr" I expect French to be picked and "enter" to then put the language in French". We spent another few days on functions that collect character inputs in memory and then match them with values. All because "flags in front of the names were of crucial importance".

So, maybe this is solved in modern HTML/CSS/JS. But I highly doubt it. I think "some straight-forward ... JavaScript" is either an `import { foo } from foobar` or a pipe-dream in the area of "programmers always underestimate hours"

Now, I think part of the problem is that such elements weren't architectured properly when invented. Like many other HTML elements, they should've had some way to style and/or improve them.

E.g. an H1 Header, I can apply CSS to and change it from the default to something matching the business style. I can add some behaviour to it, so I can bookmark it's id anchor. I can add some behaviour to turn the H1-6 into a nice table-of-contents. Or an image can be improved with some CSS and JS to load progressively. But most form elements, and the dropdown in particular, is hard to improve.

And, yes, I am aware of the can of worms if "any element is allowed inside an <option>". Or the misuse designers will do if we can add CSS to certain <options> or their contents. Though I don't think "webdevs will abuse" was ever the reason not to hand power to them. It was mostly a disconnect between the "designers of the specs" and the "designers/builders of websites".

Because that "abuse" is never worse than what is still done en-masse: where we simply replace the "select" with hundreds of lines of CSS, divsoup, and hundreds or thousands of lines of JS. Where entire component libraries exist and used all over the place, that completely replicate the behaviour of existing (form) elements but with divs/spans, css and js. And despite the thousands of hours of finetuning, still get details wrong in the area of a11y, on mobile platforms, on obscure platforms, with a plugin, with a slow connection and so on.

It's truly insane how large typical share-URLS for content on instagram, youtube or any other large platforms are. URLs that could've been example.com/t/some-large-enough-id?time=13337 are stuffed with hundreds of characters, just to gather more data on people using these links.

To keep in your analogy, if you have a 3KG naildriver with a 2m handle you'll quickly find out that driving nails into a drywall with that leaves you with no wall. And that it's a bad idea to use a "Naildriver" to drive these "spiralled-slothead-nails" (aka screws) into wood.

But with a common language, such as design patterns, you can easily learn where they are good, what their limits are, in what cases other patterns fit better, and what pitfalls to avoid and so on.

If I search the web for "why is it so hard for my naildriver to drive in spiralled-slothead-nails" I'll get zero results. But when I search for "why is it hard to hammer in a screw" I'll get good results. May sound like a silly example, but for me that sillyness illustrates how obvious designpatters should be.

And it doesn't mean at all that everybody should learn the whole encyclopedia of tools by heart. But having it formalised somewhere is useful: as soon as someone tells me "what you're trying to do sounds like this design pattern", I can start searching and reading about it.

Of course if that someone tells me "you suck, you should know that there is a design pattern for that because you should read about design patterns every night before you go to sleep", it will be different :-).

I think Julian Assange once said he would refer to things in discussion just as "Tomato" (or similar), in discussion to have a shortcut for something unnamed with some meaning. We do this all day in programming, we give a complex component a name and it means a lot more then just the actual word. The problem is that this specific meaning is often not universal, it's contextual.

If you take a hammer, an integer and design patterns, the latter is the least universal thing. They depend on domain, context and conventions, and can change quite a lot depending on the language. Removing hammers and integers from the world would cause collapse, removing design patterns would do almost nothing.

I guess the active celebration of design patterns as a catalogue of general wisdom is my primary issue here. I'd welcome any project/team/company that maintains a catalogue of their individual "patterns". But a universal source of truth has too much bible flavor to me. (Oh it also dictates OOP by default which renders it's inherent "wisdom" completely useless in many languages)

But formalising concepts with words makes sense. If your company maintains a catalogue of their patterns, and someone happens to know that this specific pattern is usually called a "singleton", I would find it weird to call it a tomato.

Some patterns have different names in different contexts or languages, and that's fine. I don't find it weird to have a discussion around "in this language there is this pattern that they call X, does that ring a bell for you working on that other language? The idea is [...]", and maybe the answer is "yep we have it too" or "oh, we call that Y, but that's pretty similar".

I've had some debates with junior devs who really wanted to enforce their newly-learned patterns, and my experience there is that passed a certain point, there is no convincing anymore: if they really insist about overengineering something with their newly-learned concept and the hierarchy doesn't allow me to prevent them from doing it, anyway they will do it. So instead of fighting I just let them, and if it turns out to be a waste of time in the end... well that's not my problem: I was not in a position to prevent it in the first place.

It's not only patterns though: some juniors have a way to try to use every exciting framework or library or tool they just discovered.

Probably a bad habit trying to stop them, they need to learn walking before they can sprint. The question is always how to put limits on them? I say it's overengineered, they say it's modern code and I am old. So what do you do if they send you a PR that is just plain wrong? I mean it seems like you delay the conflict from upfront design/planning to pull requests.

* Functional teams (established companies): enough seniors are here to tell the juniors when they are wrong, and the juniors naturally accept the criticism because it's expected in that environment.

* Dysfunctional teams (startups): most devs are juniors anyway, there is no clear hierarchy, managers are still at their first job so they have never seen a functioning team or had a competent manager themselves.

In the second case, there was absolutely no way I could win an argument: the "high energy kids with big egos" never believed me, I was the "old guy" as you mention. I remember an example where the "kid" failed and gave up with their "right" way after 3 months and I solved it in 3 days, exactly how I had suggested they did it in the first place. Next discussion, nothing had changed, they still knew better.

I can't really blame them, because the whole environment was like this. Everybody was always right, knew better, etc, even though it was their first job.

What I've learned is to protect myself and move away from that. Either by changing job, or by changing project. In startups I have been pretty successful at saying "I can help with this project if we do it this way, but if we do it that way, I can't help and I will work on something else". Of course it meant that I could not work on the most exciting project, but they made a mess out of them, so all in all I feel it was better working on my boring, stable, maintainable components.

If you switch from CF to the next CF competitor, you've not improved this dependency.

The alternative here, is complex or even non-existing. Complex would be some system that allows you to hotswap a CDN, or to have fallback DDOS protection services, or to build you own in-house. Which, IMO, is the worst to do if your business is elsewhere. If you sell, say, petfood online, the dependency-risk that comes with a vendor like CF, quite certainly is less than the investment needed- and risk associted with- building a DDOS protection or CDN on your own; all investment that's not directed to selling more pet-food or get higher margins at doing so.

Needs an ASN and a decent chunk of PI address space, though, so not exactly something a random startup will ever be likely to play with.

If it turns out that this was really just random bad luck, it shouldn't affect their reputation (if humans were rational, that is...)

But if it is what many people seem to imply, that this is the outcome of internal problems/cuttings/restructuring/profit-increase etc, then I truly very much hope it affects their reputation.

But I'm afraid it won't. Just like Microsoft continues to push out software, that, compared to competitors, is unstable, insecure, frustrating to use, lacks features, etc, without it harming their reputation or even bottomlines too much. I'm afraid Cloudflare has a de-facto monopoly (technically: big moat) and can get away with offering poorer quality, for increasing pricing by now.

The issue is the uninformed masses being led to use Windows when they buy a computer. They don't even know how much better a system could work, and so they accept whatever is shoved down their throats.

Eh.... This is _kind_ of a counterfactual, tho. Like, we are not living in the world where MS did not do that. You could argue that MS was in a good place to be the dominant server and mobile OS vendor, and simply screwed both up through poor planning, poor execution, and (particularly in the case of server stuff) a complete disregard for quality as a concept.

I think someone who'd been in a coma since 1999 waking up today would be baffled at how diminished MS is, tbh. In the late 90s, Microsoft practically _was_ computers, with only a bunch of mostly-dying UNIX vendors for competition. And one reasonable lens through which to interpret its current position is that it's basically due to incompetence on Microsoft's part.

I've said to many people/friends that use Cloudflare to look elsewhere. When such a huge percentage of the internet flows through a single provider, and when that provider offers a service that allows them to decrypt all your traffic (if you let them install HTTPS certs for you), not only is that a hugely juicy target for nation-states but the company itself has too much power.

But again, what other companies can offer the insane amount of protection they can?

It teaches people to trust "Currently NonEvil Company™" to do the good thing.

First, and obvious problem is that this "trains" us to rely on brands to protect us. And to keep doing this. Companies may have different interests than their consumers. Ideally and sometimes these interests are aligned. But nothing guarantees this remains so. Companies will "Become evil", if only because they are sometimes legally forced to by governments or shareholders.

Second, is that this teaches people not to be responsible but to leave that to companies or technology. Which works if e.g. Apple and Meta are the only providers. But falls apart the moment Focebook glasses, Apelle Gear or Rang Doorbell is available on temu. And becomes worse when HP, Dell, Samsung, IBM and other legitimate producers start competing in the space. We've now been trained that what the first companies did was "The Good Thing", but lack the social structure, laws, or even common sense to manage a world in which this self-constraint of the companies no longer applies.

Overall why are we not up in arms about all the video cameras that record in all cities everyday which companies like Clearview and others have our public images in their databases yet we are up in arms about smart glasses?

THis is a solution to this public debate and Apple hasnt released their glasses yet and they are a privacy company and heavily market themselves as such. As the poster notes smart glasses adoption is rising and will only continue to do so... so this debate in time will continue to fade into the background as there is no same amount of debate about all the cameras in cities that are already recording us. With that in mind the smart glass privacy debate is an odd one to me where corporations are already recording us in these same public places.

...for now. What happens if they end up with a future CEO who is more like Zuck?

Reminds me of my 24 year old niece in which her and her friends hate chatGPT/AI. Hippies fighting technological progress futilely. Like the iPhone haters of 2007 to 2010!