Except that a tablet sized screen is not accomplishing the same goal as proper visibility

I never said that I was specifically advocating for that as the only solution. All that matters is if the same end is accomplished. If it is indeed true that the safety of a vehicle is only maximized when objects are directly visible to the driver, then so be it. If not, that is an unnecessarily specific and restrictive regulation. And, in any case, regulating a limit, and letting the market work within it, accomplishes the same end with the benefit of freedom of choice. An equivalent example would be regulating the maximum allowed emissions for a vehicle rather than mandating a specific design of the engine, exhaust system, etc.

I personally prefer the solution that maximizes liberty. If both routes, ie regulating compensation for lack of vision and prohibition of that which causes the lack of vision, accomplish the same end, ie the ensurement of safety, I would choose for former, as it maximizes personal choice and freedom.

This makes me wonder if there could be a regulation mandating front facing cameras on vehicles where vision is obstructed when moving at low speeds. Perhaps collision alert systems are sufficient. At any rate, there should probably be something that mandates some form of compensation for the lack of vision.

Very clever use case!

As of 2024-09-03T22:10:25.545Z, Starlink is now complying with Brazil’s X ban [1].

Not really as those are public things.

Would you mind citing an example of exactly what you are referring to? I feel like I’m presuming a lot of things in your statements here.

Dhcp is more of a issue.

I don’t know if it’s “more”, or “less” of an issue, but all these things are worthy of concern.

That would certainly also be worthy of concern.

have the machine pretend you’re in UTC.

That is a possible solution, though not exactly the most convenient, imo. That is, if I understand you correctly that you are talking about setting the OS timezone to be UTC.

could be defeated by doing an analysis of when the commits were made on average vs other folks from random repositories to find the average time of day and then reversing that information into a time zone

This is the first thing I thought of upon reading the title

It’s also in the post body.

Any given time zone there are going to be millions if not billions of people.

One more bit of identifying information is still one more bit of identifying information.

Git also “leaks” your system username and hostname IIRC by default which might be your real name.

This is only part of a fallback if a username and email is not provided [1].

A fake name and email would pretty much be sufficient to make any “leaked” time zone information irrelevant.

Perhaps only within the context where one is fine with being completely unidentifiable. But this doesn’t consider the circumstance where a user does want their username to be known, but simply don’t want it to be personally identifiable.

UTC seems like it’s just “HEY LOOK AT ME! I’M TRYING TO HIDE SOMETHING!”

This is a fair argument. Ideally, imo, recording dates for commits would be an optional QoL setting rather than a mandatory one. Better yet, if Git simply recorded UTC by default, this would be much less of an issue overall.

if you sleep like most people, could be defeated by doing an analysis of when the commits were made on average vs other folks from random repositories to find the average time of day and then reversing that information into a time zone.

I mentioned this in my post.

It’s better to be “Jimmy Robinson in Houston Texas” than “John Smith in UTC-0”

That decision is contextually dependent.

How do you mean?

Fair point. I think “leak” is likely the wrong term to use here. “Exposes” is probably a better one. I’ll update the post promptly.

The secret to success: survivorship bias.

I don’t have any fundamental issue with emojis when they’re used to expand meaning or provide clarity. Eg you could use an emotive emoji to show/clarify the intent/emotion of something. Imo, using emojis in this way is no different than the practice of adding a “/s” to denote sarcasm. When they get annoying is when they’re used superfluously; if they serve no purpose, then it’s just clutter.

I upgraded from 8GB to 16GB like 2 months ago.

That’s perfect!

Given that Lemmy’s mascot looks like a mouse (I think it’s technically a lemming), an idea that came to my mind was “cheese day”.

Scaled sort on subscribed.

Facebook marketplace is the only reason I still have a Facebook account.

Imo, it likely was/is due to the voting system — and, in a similar sense, awards. Redditors want to increase their Karma scores and seem to, at least subconsciously, view it as clout. So, they’ll create posts with the intent of farming these points — ie they post things that they know will get a specific response from the masses. What also doesn’t help, and is something that Lemmy similarly suffers from, is that there generally is no established consensus on how votes should be used. An upvote could mean agreement, or that a post is funny, or that it’s good quality, or that it’s on topic for a community, etc. A downvote could mean that the person disagrees with the post, or that they think that it isn’t relevant or they simply don’t like the OP. In reality, all that votes do, at the fundamental level, is tell the algorithm where it should place posts (a personalized recommendation algorithm changes this a bit, but the effect is essentially the same) — a post with a large upvote to downvote to ratio gets shown higher up and, by extension, more than one with a smaller ratio. This creates a sort of feedback loop where the posts that get farmed for upvotes get shown more. People don’t want their post to be buried, so they’ll only post what they think will get upvotes. And since upvotes are usually used for things that illicit an “agreement” response, only posts that people agree with will be shown.

The solution to these issues, imo, is to create an obvious standard for how votes are used and change how they’re interpreted by the algorithm. Imo, Facebook was on the right track with how they were using emojis as the voting method. People generally react to posts with emotion, and an emoji is a good representation of that. You could potentially still have an up/down form of vote (alongside the emotional voting options), but it would be standardized to only be used as a metric for relevance/importance/correctness. This could be enforced by moderation, if votes were publicly viewable, by allowing moderators to remove people that are vote brigading (not including emotional votes). Emotional votes probably shouldn’t be considered by the algorithm so that emotional bias can be avoided. Or, at the very least, there should be different algorithms that take these voting types into account I’m different ways (eg if you only want funny posts, you could sort to primarily get posts with a laughing reaction). In addition to this, also removing the gamification aspect (not showing (at least not publicly) total scores on profiles).