Didn't see anyone mention this, but one of the main reasons for making macOS look more like iOS, iPadOS, tvOS, and watchOS is because at some point we will be able to run apps written for the other systems natively in macOS. Seems like an obvious move, why is everyone so surprised? It just means less duplicated interface code for multiplatform products.
Which isn’t necessarily a good thing. They totally butchered the Mac Mail.app by shifting it to iOS UI paradigms. It used to be great; now it’s barely usable. Now they’re just making it easier to do the same and dumb down all the other apps out there for desktop users by replacing them with dumbed down iOS versions.
Any news reports of people posing as reporters might be suppressed by newsrooms themselves as to not encourage copycats or get the idea out there that reporters might not be reporters, that is entirely unsubstantiated conjecture though.
In at least some states, "internet blogger" qualifies you as a journalist. So, y'know, if you've got a twitter account and you're talking about the protest, congrats: you're press!
In Minecraft, the whole world is made of cubes. Things are either cubes, or in the empty space where a cube could be. This line of theories (there have been many over the years) argue a few things.
First, our reality might also be made of similar Minecraft 'blocks' and block shaped empty space (that 'space is discrete, not continuous').
Second, that what a block does in one block shaped empty space is not necessarily going to tell us what it will do when it is in a different block shaped empty space. (This another way of saying the universal constants may change at different points in a discrete spacetime, which is ANOTHER way of saying different 'universes' exist within these points.)
Third, that the blocks and block-shaped empty space inform each others border/shape/volume and relate to one another in some way. (All of this together creates a larger structure, which they call a foam).
I think that's the basic gist. A quantum particle is like a block moving positions in this 'Minecraft grid', and as it does this it becomes subject to different universal constants.
They're stuck between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, they provide the 'objective' benchmark for the entire media industry. On the other, they have no way to actually capture the value of the data they provide, because advertisers use their data to make decisions on opaque Big Tech platforms. It's a commodity that doesn't have an equivalent exchange representation. On the surface, it might seem like a bad faith data broker. But on a deeper level, this is a canary in the programmatic ad monopoly coal mine. If we can regulate data exchange, but can't regulate data use ... we're setting a dangerous precedent.
Am I the only one around here // who thinks Facebook works just fine!?
Also, if you want to compete with Facebook. Find a way to make a social network company grow to 100s of employees without advertisements. That's really all it would take.
If you refer to the "how" page, you'll see that they use noindex and nofollow, a robots.txt to discourage crawling, and a blank 403 to any crawler ignoring the robot.txt
I'm confused, aren't the SBoC blog posts all written by different people? Shouldn't we encourage new users to contribute? I checked it out, looks good to me.
That's a little better. Though for a truly successful facade, you have to tailor the comments to the community. In the case of HN, I would suggest some canned multi-paragraph commentary about the subject of the article, but not too much at once, or else people will start to check profiles and notice that these are new accounts.
Logging in every once in a while and posting different stuff to build credibility would help.
These are all posts written by different people participating in the same week-long event. That seems more forgiving than multiple company employees upvoting a story about the startup they work for to me.
Although this particular form of astroturf probably has better inside jokes.
Guest posts on a blog during a week-long coding conference for an open-source encrypted communications project aren't different enough for you? Hard to imagine any one of these posts as something other than hacker news.
I'm not going to apologize, but I am going to end this comment thread (or at least my participation in it) here.
If it is indeed true that you are in fact multiple people and have independently submitted articles relating to your (actually pretty cool sounding) event, may I suggest that you coordinate in the future to keep the articles submitted to just a few at a time, and make your comments more substantial.
This would probably stop the accusations of you running an Astroturf campaign.
