@strypey one of the more annoying effects of chronic sensory overload is never being able to remember why I made a choice I made unless I write it down.

@deutrino
> I use Monocles

That's my XMPP app too. I thought it was a fork of blabber.im, but turns out you're right. I used to use vanilla Conversations. Not sure why I stopped.

@MisuseCase @BasieP @mattblaze can confirm that a multiparty parliamentary system can and does yield many different type of fascists factions in parliament. Not ideal.

Trump just addressed the nation claiming US elections are not fair but controlled by countries like Russia and China.

Remind me again: Who was elected president of the US in 2024?

@citizenk @filippodb @sicurezza Ne ho sentito parlare ieri in altro post su questa campagna. E mi immalinconisce constatare quanto si continui a parlare di divieti, boicottaggi, ecc senza mai prendersi lo spazio per mettere sul tavolo anche il fatto che queste tecnologie (dispositivi indossabili) per le persone con disabilità sensoriale e cognitiva possono essere come delle protesi. Vedenti che decidono di stigmatizzare gli occhiali con fotocamera a prescindere, senza sentire la nostra opinione. Vigliacchi. Ci lasciano fuori dai giochi, così noi restiamo senza difesa. Se si decide "vietiamo gli occhiali per il danno alla riservatezza", danno assolutamente presente e pericoloso, se una persona cieca li indossa per farsi descrivere i reperti di un museo chiusi in una teca o una persona sorda legge i testi scritti dagli occhiali (quelli con display) poi veniamo trattati anche noi come potenziali spie. E non possiamo difenderci né da questo, né tanto meno dalla sorveglianza isterica di massa a cui Meta ci espone, e che anzi ci usa per rendere questa tecnologia sregolata anche, perché no, trattando noi come cavalli di Troia -tipo i bambini kamikaze-.
Invece noi vorremmo qualcosa di più. Dispositivi indossabili con tecnologie locali, cifrate, che ci possano aiutare tenendo al sicuro la riservatezza nostra e altrui. Obbligo di feedback visivo e audio per esempio, e se li modifichi sono inutilizzabili per esempio...

@david_chisnall "This meant that the only obstacles for these people being able to fix bugs and add features to any program were access to the source code and the legal rights to modify it." This phrase is why this doesn't work at all. Not anyone could modify it, because modifying it and having it be useful requires knowing how to code. Not everyone wants or desires to know code just to get their program to do what they want.

@alxsim Thanks!

It looks like this data has moved to

https://cartes.gouv.fr/rechercher-une-donnee/dataset/DGAC_Plan_d_Exposition_au_Bruit_PEB

It isn't immediately clear to me what this data represents. A plan is not the same as measurements of what actually happens.

@david_chisnall

Interesting perspective. So how do you make it possible for anyone to modify the software? If average users never had the know-how to do this, and programs even getting too big for even experienced programmers to easily understand and modify, what is even the point of a license that allows it?

Ultimately it's not just about the legal permission to modify it, but about the physical ability to do it. The skill, knowledge and expertise, that most users lack. Often I wish some application was put together differently, but I'm not going to put in the time to learn and understand that code base.

So in light of Linus' announcement that Linux is not going to be anti-AI, I now find myself wondering if AI could be the solution to it. Dangerous of course, to have users vibe-coding their own modifications. But now I'm wondering if open source projects could include the tools and context files to make this viable.

AI is not popular among the whole open source community, but now I find myself wondering if it could turn out to be the missing key to enable users to take more control over their system. Not sure what to think about it, but the goal is interesting.