recentpopularlog in

kme : internet   89

« earlier  
oppobox122118 - transcript-arin.pdf
TRANSCRIPT OF TRO HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE LEONIE M. BRINKEMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGETRANSCRIPT OF TRO HEARINGBEFORE THE HONORABLE LEONIE M. BRINKEMAUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Some classics:
THE COURT: Well, you're present on the phone, and you have a good, strong voice, so we're hearing you loud and clear. I'm going to let Mr. Ryan finish.
legal  arin  internet  fraud  transcript 
june 2019 by kme
how am i supposed to remember ipv6 addresses? - Open Forum | DSLReports Forums | https://www.dslreports.com/
Short answer: local name servers or /etc/hosts. Or copy-paste.
On a broader note, I am always amazed at the comment 'How can I remember' when dealing with computers. Excuse me but isn't that what computers are for? Is the concept of making a file and then copy/paste foreign to most people? I don't have to remember anything not that I could remember my 32 digit login's and passwords, as an example. As for IPV6, for the vast majority of home users, it's irrelevant.
ipv6  ip  internet  homenetworking  networking  sysadmin  butwhy  answered 
january 2019 by kme
A 1.3-Tbs DDoS Hit GitHub, the Largest Yet Recorded | WIRED | https://www.wired.com/
The web monitoring and network intelligence firm ThousandEyes observed the GitHub attack on Wednesday. "This was a successful mitigation. Everything transpired in 15 to 20 minutes," says Alex Henthorne-Iwane, vice president of product marketing at ThousandEyes. "If you look at the stats you’ll find that globally speaking DDoS attack detection alone generally takes about an hour plus, which usually means there’s a human involved looking and kind of scratching their head. When it all happens within 20 minutes you know that this is driven primarily by software. It’s nice to see a picture of success."
github  ddos  internet  memcached  security  ops  winning 
march 2018 by kme
I’ve left Twitter. It is unusable for anyone but trolls, robots and dictators | Lindy West | Opinion | The Guardian [https://www.theguardian.com/]
One moment I was brains-deep in the usual way, half-heartedly arguing with strangers about whether or not it’s “OK” to suggest to Steve Martin that calling Carrie Fisher a “beautiful creature” who “turned out” to be “witty and bright as well” veered just a hair beyond Fisher’s stated boundaries regarding objectification (if you have opinions on this, don’t tweet me – oh, wait, you can’t); and the next moment the US president-elect was using the selfsame platform to taunt North Korea about the size and tumescence of its nuclear program. And I realised: eh, I’m done. I could be swimming right now. Or flossing. Or digging a big, pointless pit. Anything else.

Twitter, for the past five years, has been a machine where I put in unpaid work and tension headaches come out. I write jokes there for free. I post political commentary for free. I answer questions for free. I teach feminism 101 for free. Off Twitter, these are all things by which I make my living – in fact, they comprise the totality of my income. But on Twitter, I do them pro bono and, in return, I am micromanaged in real time by strangers; neo-Nazis mine my personal life for vulnerabilities to exploit; and men enjoy unfettered, direct access to my brain so they can inform me, for the thousandth time, that they would gladly rape me if I weren’t so fat.

On 29 December, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey tweeted: “What’s the most important thing you want to see Twitter improve or create in 2017?” One user responded: “Comprehensive plan for getting rid of the Nazis.”

“We’ve been working on our policies and controls,” Dorsey replied. “What’s the next most critical thing?” Oh, what’s our second-highest priority after Nazis? I’d say No 2 is also Nazis. And No 3. In fact, you can just go ahead and slide “Nazis” into the top 100 spots. Get back to me when your website isn’t a roiling rat-king of Nazis. Nazis are bad, you see?

Trump uses his Twitter account to set hate mobs on private citizens, attempt to silence journalists who write unfavourably about him, lie to the American people and bulldoze complex diplomatic relationships with other world powers. I quit Twitter because it feels unconscionable to be a part of it – to generate revenue for it, participate in its profoundly broken culture and lend my name to its legitimacy. Twitter is home to a wealth of fantastic anti-Trump organising, as well, but I’m personally weary of feeling hostage to a platform that has treated me and the people I care about so poorly. We can do good work elsewhere.
twitter  socialmedia  internet  culture  trolls  quitting 
november 2017 by kme
FaceFacts — May 7, 2011
Facebook is a living computer nightmare. Just as viruses took the advantages of sharing information on floppies and modems and revealed a devastating undercarriage to the whole process, making every computer transaction suspect… and just as spyware/malware took advantage of beautiful advances in computer strength and horsepower to turn your beloved machine of expression into a gatling gun of misery and assholery… Facebook now stands as taking over a decade and a half of the dream of the World Wide Web and turning it into a miserable IT cube farm of pseudo human interaction, a bastardized form of e-mail, of mailing lists, of photo albums, of friendship. While I can’t really imply that it was going to be any other way, I can not sit by and act like this whole turn of events hasn’t resulted in an epidemic of ruin that will have consequences far-reaching from anything related to archiving.


So asking me about the archiving-ness or containering or long-term prospect of Facebook for anything, the answer is: none. None. Not a whit or a jot or a tiddle. It is like an ever-burning fire of our memories, gleefully growing as we toss endless amounts of information and self and knowledge into it, only to have it added to columns of advertiser-related facts we do not see and do not control and do not understand.
facebook  internet  history  thewaythingswere  privacy 
june 2017 by kme
The Decline of Wikipedia
In their paper on those findings, the researchers suggest updating Wikipedia’s motto, “The encyclopedia that anyone can edit.” Their version reads: “The encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes him or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit.”

A career journalist who headed the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation’s online operations before taking her current position, Gardner reaches for an analogy from the newsroom to explain why the trend matters. “The Wikipedians remind me of the crusty old desk guy who knows the style guide backwards,” she says. “But where are the eager cub reporters? You don’t get the crusty old desk guy out at three in the morning to cover a fire. That’s for the new guy, who’s got a lot of energy and potential. At Wikipedia we don’t have a sufficient influx of cub reporters.”

But in the topsy-turvy world of the encyclopedia anyone can edit, it’s not a fringe opinion that making editing easier is a waste of time. The characteristics of a dedicated volunteer editor—Gardner lists “fussy,” “persnickety,” and “intellectually self-confident”—are not those that urge the acceptance of changes like Visual Editor.

Shirky was one of the biggest boosters of an idea, popular during the previous decade, that the Web encouraged strangers to come together and achieve things impossible for a conventional organization. Wikipedia is proof there was some truth to that notion. But today’s Web is dominated by sites such as Facebook and Twitter, where people maintain personal, egocentric feeds. Outside specific settings like massive multiplayer games, relatively few people mingle in shared virtual space. Instead, they use mobile devices that are unsuited to complex creative work and favor neatly self-­contained apps over messier, interconnected Web pages. Shirky, who is an advisor to the Wikimedia Foundation, says people steeped in that model will struggle to understand how and why they should contribute to Wikipedia or any project like it. “Facebook is the largest participatory culture today, but their mode of participation is different,” he says. “It’s aggregating rather than collaborating.”

Gardner agrees that today’s Web is hostile to self-organized collective efforts, likening it to a city that has lost its public parks. “Our time is spent on an increasingly small number of increasingly large corporate sites,” she says. “We need more public space online.” In fact, Gardner is leaving the foundation at the end of the year in search of new projects to work on that very problem. She contends that even with all its troubles, Wikipedia is one of the Web’s few public parks that won’t disappear.


From the comments:
Is the angloamerican viewpoint a little overrepresented? Yes. So is everything else online, on account of angloamericans being early adopters en mass. It will level out with time and wider participation. Does wikipedia have an entrenched leftist bias with regards to certain trendy and politically correct social dogma? Yes, but again, that's the nature of the online population and not wikipedia per se. The meat world isn't perfect either, but we all have to deal with it anyway.

In any case, non-controversial things are fairly good on Wikipedia, contraversial things are always suspect, I hate editing math things. Every time I put down an intuitive explanation, some dude deletes it as not formally correct and so things remain obscure. Overall, invaluable.

How cool is it that people are still discussing this deep analysis more than two years later? Very!



Oceanflynn And here we have the stereotypical heavily indoctrinated Wikihack, acting out the reflexively authoritarian behaviors learned on university campuses - amongst them the classically authoritarian belief that the most correct thing anyone can do is preach the system - and the corollary and likewise authoritarian belief that "anyone who has a problem, is the problem."

Other elements of what you say corroborate such an impression:

1. advertising your gender (a female on the internet? should I be impressed?)
2. focus on various trendy, politically correct, opinion-based political topics but not in anything of a highly technical, knowledge-based nature
3. catty dismissal of those who know more than you ("A number of our quality articles in the past were written by editors who seemed to really know their subjects")
4. ultraliberal belief that your personal happiness validates your personal choices
5. classically Orwellian behavior of neurotic self-conscious groupthink
6. reference for "news items" and "the most current and solid research" over the development of established and testable hypotheses
7. passive-aggressive, style-over-substance argumentation (accusing others of being "aggressive or rude" rather than dishonest or incorrect)

The reality is that Wikipedia is a Byzantine organization with a hypertechnical format and an outrageously persnickety userbase that gets ever more arrogant and arbitrary the higher up one goes. The simple fact is that the only people who actually enjoy operating in that kind of environment subscribe to that mentality. Clearly you are such a person.

What can be taken from the uncreative nonsense this Wikihack writes is that she is one of those poorly educated "professional amateurs" produced by our increasingly discredited and ideologically extreme university system, who edits Wikipedia because she is incapable of doing original research or making tangible contributions to society.

I await your stereotypical response along one or more of the following lines:
1. "you're disagreeing with me, therefore you hate me and are evil,"
2. "anyone with a problem, is the problem,"
3. "you obviously had a bad experience in the past and only good experiences are valid,"
4. "you're unhappy and therefore a bad person"
wikipedia  knowledge  community  internet  forthecomments 
february 2017 by kme
Andrew Sullivan: My Distraction Sickness — and Yours
I haven’t given up, even as, each day, at various moments, I find myself giving in. There are books to be read; landscapes to be walked; friends to be with; life to be fully lived. And I realize that this is, in some ways, just another tale in the vast book of human frailty. But this new epidemic of distraction is our civilization’s specific weakness. And its threat is not so much to our minds, even as they shape-shift under the pressure. The threat is to our souls. At this rate, if the noise does not relent, we might even forget we have any.
technology  culture  internet  distraction  socialmedia  life  addiction  quiet 
september 2016 by kme
Robustness principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others
internet  protocols  design 
january 2016 by kme
The Shut-In Economy — Matter — Medium
That’s the other side of this, the gender one. The errands being served up by the on-demand economy — cooking, cleaning, laundry, groceries, runs to the post office — all were all once, and in many places still are, the jobs of stay-at-home mothers. Even now, when women outnumber men in the formal workplace, they continue to bear the brunt of that invisible domestic work, often for many, many hours a week. So women — those who can afford it, at least — have the most to win from passing that load on to somebody else.
culture  internet  society  family  gender  household  commentary 
march 2015 by kme
King of Clickbait | The New Yorker
I mentioned “Kony 2012,” a thirty-minute film about the Ugandan militia leader Joseph Kony. It has been viewed on YouTube more than a hundred million times, but it did not achieve its ultimate goal: Kony remains at large, as does his militia, the Lord’s Resistance Army.

“To be honest, I didn’t follow too closely after the whole thing died down,” Spartz said. “Even though I’m one of the most avid readers I know, I don’t usually read straight news. It’s conveyed in a very boring way, and you tend to see the same patterns repeated again and again.”

He went on, “If I were running a more hard-news-oriented media company and I wanted to inform people about Uganda, first, I would look it up and find out exactly what’s going on there. Then I would find a few really poignant images or story lines, ones that create a lot of resonant emotion, and I would make those into a short video—under three minutes—with clear, simple words and statistics. Short, declarative sentences. And at the end I’d give people something they can do, something to feel hopeful about.”

Neetzan Zimmerman, formerly the chief aggregator of viral content at Gawker, is the editor of a secret-sharing app called Whisper. He told me that Spartz’s approach seemed most indebted to Upworthy, which became famous for tantalizing viewers with headlines containing such phrases as “You Won’t Believe What Happened Next.” “If you consider Upworthy to be the starting point for a genre of site that trades in the curiosity gap, then I think Dose and sites like it are the logical conclusion of that trend,” Zimmerman said. “Upworthy at least goes through the process of finding the content themselves. On Dose, you see entire lists that are ripped wholesale from other Web sites and passed off as their work. I think there is a cynicism to that.” He added, “But that’s an abstract conversation—it doesn’t make what they’re doing any less effective as a business.”
socialmedia  internet 
december 2014 by kme
Markdown throwdown: what happens when FOSS software gets corporate backing? | Ars Technica
Despite the disappointing state of the Web these days, there remain pockets of the Internet that still feel untainted. We jealously guard these spaces, our personal little Fugazis of the Web that we can point to and say, "See, Pinboard.in isn't taking venture capital," "Metafilter isn't manipulating me for an exit," or "Markdown is still a little script some guy wrote."
internet  standards  markdown 
october 2014 by kme
Our Comrade The Electron - Webstock Conference Talk
We can build an Internet that's distributed, resilient, irritating to governments everywhere, and free in the best sense of the word, like we dreamed of in the 90's.
internet  surveillance  talks  technology  slides 
march 2014 by kme
The Web Is a Customer Service Medium (Ftrain.com)
"Brace yourself for the initial angry wave of criticism: How dare you, I hate it, it's ugly, you're stupid. The Internet runs on knee-jerk reactions. People will test your work against their pet theories: It is not free, and thus has no value; it lacks community features; I can't believe you don't use dotcaps, lampsheets, or pixel scrims; it is not written in Rusp or Erskell; my cat is displeased. The ultimate question lurks beneath these curses: why wasn't I consulted?"
That's what I tell my Gutenbourgeois friends, if they'll listen. I say: Create a service experience around what you publish and sell. Whatever “customer service” means when it comes to books and authors, figure it out and do it. Do it in partnership with your readers. Turn your readers into members. Not visitors, not subscribers; you want members. And then don't just consult them, but give them tools to consult amongst themselves. These things are cheap and easy now if you hire one or two smart people instead of a large consultancy. Define what the boundaries are in your community and punish transgressors without fear of losing a sale. Then, if your product is good, you'll sell things.
The days of the web as all-purpose media emulator are numbered. Apps on mobile are gaining traction; the web browser, despite great and ongoing effort, will not become the universal platform for everything ever. Apps provide niche experiences. People apparently like niche experiences enough to pay for them. This is serious.

Sadly, mobile apps, as a class of software, are less free than many would like, in terms of both freedom to tinker and freedom from payment. This upsets people who are commited to the WWIC web, but for other people, like publishers who have been told that they “don't get it” for a decade, the idea of a defensible territory, a walled garden, looks just swell. That the new thing might make, instead of lose, money is a morale booster. So media properties are migrating into these apps, where boundaries between reader and publisher can be defined and enforced. TV is migrating back to TV, but “smarter.” To read a book people will turn to their phones. But the web is where they will go to complain.
wwic  theweb  internet  culture  trolls  redesigns  opinion  groupthink 
august 2013 by kme
« earlier      
per page:    204080120160

Copy this bookmark:





to read