Nitpick: 'didactic' should be 'eidetic'.

> Knowing what the foundations are that the edifice you've constructed sits upon allows you to affect repairs when it crumbles unexpectedly.

Finally get to use this bit of knowledge: 'effect' (the verb) was the word you wanted there.

Thanks! That one frequently trips me up. If I think about it for a moment I know "his affect" is different than "the effect something has", but, as is sadly and normally the case, I power thru writing w/o thinking as much as I should.

Good article. Nice calm tone, interesting points. Seems like a good addition to the conversation.

In fairness, the article isn't written by Weiss.

it's hosted on her substack, so I think we can assume it's probably an opinion endorsed by her

How do we get this made into law, this unlocking of EOL hardware...

> Geez, people must be playing a lot for Google Classrooms given the amount of anger on that thread.

I'd say that people are exhausted by having to do their own jobs and simultaneously help their kids stay focussed and concentrated on their learning, while the needed tools (provided for 'free' by Google) include a totally unnecessary and unrelated requirement to enable distractions, trivial entertainment and advertising.

I've got YouTube plus at least, it helps somewhat to filter out some rather toxic advertising.

Whoever started pushing WorkSafe ads into this platform, I do not wish well for. It's the stuff of true nightmares, the sum of their worst fears, for children to see.

Edit: Eg this one. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ffC9FfMYpW4

Not sure it's about cost. I think they are angry because their children can't access their online learning platform.

Or in my case because of the amount of crap I must allow my son to get access to, in order to receive his school assignments.

Does this suggest that sending messages via Signal on a stock Pixel Android phone for example, is fairly straightforward for the police to intercept? Why are people paying so much for 'security' when our everyday devices are meant to already be secure (assuming they're used in a competent way)?

Inside the stock Pixel there’re a lot of chips that can identify your device and if you make a big crime you can be traced by the police. But usually, for a normal people, there’s nothing to worry about it, only if you are a criminal you need more security from an average person.

That's a simplistic way of defining security needs. for example, you can be a dissident originated from a country that threaten your life and need an extra layer of security to avoid being blackmailed or killed.

The premise for the device was that it was more secure than an average phone because it only ran the an0m application and other required services, and couldn't for example text.

No.

"reeks" was the word you wanted, I think

Thank you kind stranger ;)

That's how I pronounce it in my head, too, but I still know what it means. All is well here.

It's an abbreviation for accessibility (because there's 11 letters between 'a' and 'y' in the word.)

Similar to i18n and l10n for internationalisation and localisation.

Interestingly unlike w3c, so it's not standing for aaaaaaaaaaay :)

My point was that it's inaccessible: "accessibility", "internationalization" and "localization" are clear to everyone, but "a11y", "i18n" and "l10n" are not at all obvious even to native English speakers, and especially those using screen readers.

I've never understood why these shortenings are so common. Is it just to avoid the mental load of having to remember how to spell long words? Isn't the mental load of having to remember which number goes with which word worse?

It's like a name drop. Saying "a11y" instead of "accessibility" let's other people know what you're familiar with the industry jargon.

Same reason people use contractions. It's faster and conveys equivalent meaning.

A11y is probably the easiest one to remember because it looks like ally. Which is what you're being by worrying about accessibility when you yourself don't rely on the standards.

You only have to remember two digits instead of the correct order of 10–18 letters. It’s probably also a lazy typist thing: four characters instead of 20.

My bad, I had read the parent quickly & thought they'd said "I still don't know what it means" rather than "I still know what it means" so just wanted to expand the jargon for the thread here.

Agree with you re: screenreaders.

This strikes me as an excellent point, how software patents tend to lack any actual solution, unlike traditional patents - I hadn't considered that before.

I think the process of accepting patents is broken, at least with software. If a reasonable practitioner could read some head-line and come up with a few solutions, there is not anything worth protecting. Ideas themselves should not be patentable in software.

On other hand I do think there is still need to protect innovation in more physical things. Like new manufacturing processes or material innovations like using novel chemistry.

I don't really see any fundamental difference between implementing your idea with big pieces of iron and implementing your idea with small pulses of electricity. If either is patentable, both should be.

Question is what sort of ideas deserve patent? Does one-click checkout deserve one? Or system to sell modifications of look of user interface delivered over radio?

I think there should be some line, probably non-obvious implementation.