This morning, I discovered that in addition to that issue, my desktop also somehow stopped recognizing its WiFi card. Even though it was working perfectly the day before.
I have a bunch of projects to work on and almost all of them are web-based right now. Now is not the time for technical difficulties. 🤬
It is not that I wish to rid myself of the ~inconvenience~ of having ~opinions~ but that I do not wish to re-litigate subject matter from 2012. But in many cases the persistent document of Twitter allows for points to remain open. The always-there reply button means a conversation is never settled – unless, of course, it is removed.
I am not running away from my past (as I think is sometimes the charge when someone boots their twoots). My principles have not radically altered in the last ~10 years. The core tenets are the same, I think: consider others, believe what they tell you, think with compassion and openness but without tolerance for hatefulness. But I have changed a lot, and how I communicate about and put into action those principles has changed. A persistent document of 40,000 (yikes) tweets cataloging my intentions and viewpoints literally up to the minute feels as though it ties me to some incorrectly stable version of myself, a weird and impossible amalgam of past and present. I don’t trust that document in the hands of the public or – honestly – an increasing number of governments. A public, persistent, and fixed catalog of one’s moment-to-moment outlook is a very unique document – and one we don’t yet have a widespread norm in interpreting.
crap crap crap
I should maybe write some short fiction again.
Of course, me being me, I particularly appreciated his point about how mass surveillance creates a power imbalance that we can't meaningfully withdraw consent from.
VERY VERY GOOD ONES
AND THEY LIVE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD
It actually feels like something I might be able to write a book about, as wild as that sounds.
Dammit, why do I have to work?
Left to right: Cowboy, taco, fountain pen, scotch, bacon.
Filtered word: nsfw
That said, it seems there are a lot of tools that are tangentially related to this, so it's possible I'm overlooking some. Would anyone with more Friendica experience mind explaining the various ways Friendica users can filter or hide content from their stream?
cc: @Friendica Support
I've noticed a couple issues with mentioning (tagging profiles).
The parser does not appear to parse mentions followed immediately by certain punctuation unless the same mention is also repeated elsewhere in the message body without any such trailing characters.
Functional punctuation (functuation?) includes .?,
Non-functional punctuation includes '!)]
If my message only contains @[email protected]'s handle immediately followed by nonfunctional punctuation, as this one does, it won't parse (notice the 's at the end of the handle). However, if I include the bare handle elsewhere in the post, it'll kick in and replace all mentions of that handle. You can try this yourself in a comment or your own post.
Interestingly, this also happens if I include the bare handle within
[noparse]tags. If there are only two mentions of an account, one in the main body and with a trailing 's, and one in
[noparse]tags without any trailing forbidden characters, the
[noparse]one will parse, and will force the replacement of the other one as well.
There's also something weird going on where I can't consistently get the mention suggestion dialog to display. As I'm editing this post, for instance, I can type @sd and wait for the little box to suggest profiles, but no matter how long I wait, it does not show up.
And since we've reached the point of semantic satiation with "parse", here's a photo of parsley.
Photo by Tharish on Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0)
cc: #friendica #friendicasupport @Friendica Support
Is there something I need to do to make this alert stop generating, or is it just a bug?
Paging @Friendica Support .
This is a quick first stab at it, but if you like it, feel free to use it. I'm releasing both of these under CC-BY-4.0. I also have a SVG version, but sharing that's gonna be a bit tougher at the moment.
I guess this starts with a simple assertion: words fuckin' mean things.
To be objective means to be uninfluenced by personal feelings, opinions, or values. To critique something inherently involves a set of values; you're saying that some qualities are worth striving for, and others are not. You cannot have "objective criticism". That's an absurd oxymoron.
There appears to be a growing trend recently of people trying to deny that they have subjective opinions and instead trying to couch their beliefs in objectivity. "Candy Land is an objectively bad game!", they might say, as if the first person to use the word "objectively" wins the argument. But something cannot be "objectively bad", because "bad" implies a value judgment. It is an objective fact that Candy Land involves no player choice, true... yet, that doesn't make it an objectively bad game, it just makes it a game with objectively no player choice. The judgment is subjective. Candy Land's lack of player choice might in fact make it a good game if you are aiming to teach a two year old the basics of drawing cards and moving pieces.
"Well, okay," you might say, "but for adults, Candy Land is never going to be fun." And sure! I agree! But that's not the same as "objectively bad." You've introduced another value: you're judging the game on whether adults are likely (in your opinion) to enjoy it. That's a perfectly reasonable criterion, to be clear, but it's just not objective.
The entire act of judging, of critiquing, of having an opinion is inescapably subjective, and that's okay. I think criticism, especially amateur criticism, would be in a much better place if people gave up on trying to "oBjEcTiVeLy PrOvE" their opinions and instead practiced evaluating arguments as the subjective things they are.