

THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — The International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor has lost access to his email, and his bank accounts have been frozen.
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (AP) — The International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor has lost access to his email, and his bank accounts have been frozen.
I currently see this URL provided by https://thebrainbin.org/u/@Pro@programming.dev and it is not identical: https://us.afpnews.com/article/?were-done-with-teams-german-state-hits-uninstall-on-microsoft%2C49PM3G2=
This seems to be the same article, but uses a URL that doesn’t lead to a page that is essentially blank for me: https://us.afpnews.com/article/?were-done-with-teams-german-state-hits-uninstall-on-microsoft,49PM3G2
I think it’s possible that someone could have “died” but still be alive today (after being revived). Someone could truthfully say, “He died, but he’s not dead”. “Briton Audrey Schoeman revived after six-hour cardiac arrest”
For real-time communication, the most suitable solutions are probably documented around https://www.privacyguides.org/en/real-time-communication/ (note that email is not recommended for person-to-person conversations).
When do you think you should allow a child to have an email address? A Fediverse account is basically an email account, except that the primary inbox is shared with a lot of people rather than only one person (and the same goes for any social media account). If you wouldn’t allow someone to use an email address, you probably shouldn’t allow them to use a Fediverse account either.
At least one person who seems interested in the health of children expressed that “delaying children’s access to smartphones until high school and social media platforms until 16” is a good idea. https://www.anxiousgeneration.com/ https://jonathanhaidt.com/social-media/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0MXgA2sSn8
Oh my God, Becky. Look at her butt.
I suggest making some reforms to state institutions before someone else gains control of at least two thirds of the political power. Having support from two thirds of a legislative body is sufficient to completely rewrite a constitution in many cases, so the only question is whether a “supermajority” can reach some consensus.
I personally don’t have a lot of hope for peaceful reform, given what I see from https://ballotpedia.org/Results_for_ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)_and_electoral_system_ballot_measures,_2024
If a non-personal email — such as an American citizen contact — was provided by the alien, notices may have been sent to unintended recipients, It does make me concerned there’re a lot more people out there like me who probably also thought this was spam, who probably didn’t realize, ‘I have a problem,’
Having a mistake in this situation makes it less clear whether other messages are legitimate or not, so we might see more cases like those described around https://www.yahoo.com/news/black-people-receiving-racist-text-012451742.html
Are you saying that some functionality is not federated but some functionality is?
I suppose my main problem is lack of meaningful decentralization. I prefer to use networks that allow me to contact people using a local public Wi-Fi service or someone’s home internet connection, and I believe it would be expensive or impossible to do that using ATProto without depending on infrastructure maintained by Bluesky.
Maybe the author meant to express, “Regardless, if the global system of interconnected computer networks is functioning properly and you have a connection to it, you can host a document on the web.” since a “global system” and “your connection to it” are separate things, and either can have a problem while the other does not have a problem. That’s me being charitable though, and I agree that it’s more likely that they were being redundant.
I also find it interesting that the original sentences reference “the internet” (with a lowercase “i”) rather than “the Internet”. “The word is sometimes still capitalized to distinguish the global internet from smaller networks”, so it’s interesting that the author might be referencing an internet that is not global rather than a global network. They probably are referencing “the Internet” though, since “many publications, including the AP Stylebook since 2016, recommend the lowercase form in every case”.
I’m not sure that your reply is directly related to my comment. The full sentence I quoted is “Under these definitions, Bluesky and ATProto are not meaningfully decentralized, and are not federated either.” by Christine Lemmer-Webber, but Daniel Holmgren talked more directly about “decentralised distribution of data”.
Because of what I quoted, I don’t think that “Bluesky” or “ATProto” are decentralized or federated, so it’s extremely unlikely that I’ll interact with them anytime soon. The particular reason that they are not decentralized or federated is not really interesting to me.
To get specific: it is a significant issue for me if “everyone can access the data but before it reaches the end users it goes through centralised applications”. A “centralised application” is able to restrict my ability to contact other people, whereas with a federated and/or decentralized/distributed system, it’s more likely that I will be able to contact someone that I want to communicate with. For comparison, consider how people would feel if using the United States Postal Service meant that all physical mail had to pass through the District of Columbia or if sending an email message required interacting with BBN-TENEXA
just because that was the first machine to be capable of sending networked electronic mail. In the ideal case, the recipient of a message I send would not have to coordinate with me at all before they receive the message: “The first use of network email announced its own existence.”
“Reconciliation must come before economic cooperation”, and I doubt that there will be imminent “reconciliation” between Bluesky and people who want to spend less than $100 for each month that they want to back up content shared using the AT Protocol. This is not impossible (since “Bluesky is a Public Benefit Corporation”), and there is a documented goal to have “multiple independent Relay services”, but it seems that having one would cost well over $100 each month. In the meantime, trying to cooperate with a person is harder to justify when you don’t know if they are actually willing to help you or not.
As a relevant example, consider that there are a notable number of people who wish to avoid cooperating with threads.net
even though I would describe it as being part of the Fediverse.
My initial thought about this is that it’ll probably be interpreted as a person arguing on one’s own behalf rather than having representation from counsel or an attorney (“pro se legal representation”) while using a computer, since one party wasn’t represented by an attorney. The fact that the computer can generate a video or text probably isn’t very relevant, although that probably wasn’t happening in the past.
This is interesting, but I don’t yet entirely understand it.
My first thought after trying to read the entire document was that the author seems to suggest that “AT Protocol” is a natural result of the movements they describe, but I find it hard to believe that the “peer-to-peer (p2p) movement” could naturally result in things that “are not meaningfully decentralized, and are not federated”.
Does that already exist? https://www.privacyguides.org/en/real-time-communication/#briar I’m not sure how “decentralized” it is, but it is probably at least somewhat decentralized.