I think the desire to not centralize identity has more to do with it than anything. We present different facets to different communities. The pseudo-indelible nature of internet commentary means saying something to anyone potentially means saying it to everyone, in any context.
That's why people have multiple fediverse accounts, to limit context or purpose of communication channels. Not because they don't value genuine communication within those channels.
I used to get into arguments with people in the Fedi who couldn't seem to make up their minds whether they wanted to be visible or invisible. To me it seemed like it made no sense, like if you really want to be invisible just don't post it because you can't really take things back.
At some point I realized those people were just like that.
I worked at a startup circa 2012 or so which was unusually unclear in its mission but the paychecks and the parties were good and the idea seemed to be helping people partition out different parts of the identities in terms of interests so you could get Paul-the-mild-mannered-applications-developer, Paul-as-a-marketer/huckster, and Paul-as-a-fox, and Paul-with-an-embarassing-interest, etc.
We had the hardest time explaining to the press (TechCrunch would say they didn't get it!) and everyone else, I could probably pitch it as well as anybody and I didn't do very well.
I think I somewhat agree with the author but I find the idea of a single account completely unappealing. My view on the benefits of federation is that you don't have a single entity gating your access. Having multiple accounts is a benefit.
Two years ago I trained an AI on American history documents that could do this while speaking as one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. People just bitched at me because they didn't want to hear about AI.
"The databases powering your company? Built by developers working double shifts. Those JavaScript frameworks everyone depends on? Often shepherded by a single person, unpaid, drowning in demands."
Getting hard to ignore how often AI uses this pattern of pithy question/answer.
"Here's the thing - this technique completely breaks traditional code review. You can't spot what you can't see. GitHub's diff view? Shows nothing suspicious. Your IDE's syntax highlighting? All clear. Manual code inspection? Everything looks normal.
The invisible code technique isn't just clever - it's a fundamental break in our security model. We've built entire systems around the assumption that humans can review code. GlassWorm just proved that assumption wrong."
Yeah the whole article is awful to read. Everything the LLM added is completely useless fluff, sometimes misleading, and always painful to get through.
that screenshot looks suspicious as hell, and my editor (Emacs) has a whitespace mode that shows unprintable characters sooooo
if GitHub's diff view displays unprintable characters like this that seems like a problem with GitHub lol
"it isn't just X it's Y" fuck me, man. get this slop off the front page. if there's something useful in it, someone can write a blog post about it. by hand.
reply