PESOS from https://www.reading.am/p/4XuA/http://jameskoole.blog/2018/04/09/reclaiming-your-social-life-online/.

PESOS from https://www.reading.am/p/4Xpz/http://subpixel.space/entries/after-authenticity/.

PESOS from https://www.reading.am/p/4Xc1/http://www.dansheffler.com/blog/2015-08-11-going-from-reading-to-notes.

The moral is, in a way, obvious: it’s a confirmation of Bruce Schneier’s original observation that “surveillance is the business model of the Internet”. Being a pedant, I would have said “of the Web”, but since many people can’t distinguish between the two, we’ll leave Bruce’s formulation stand.

Owning your content isn’t about portable software. It’s about portable URLs and data. It’s about domain names.

Cannot say this often enough.

I've set out in as much detail as I can understand what is happening when I try to POST a Bookmark with a Description to WithKnown.

And to add insult to injury, I'm adding this Description by hand, so I can include a blockquote:

[I]f you try to POST anything other than the URL of the bookmark, it simply never appears. With the help of good IndieWeb people, especially zegnat and cweiske, we worked out what was happening.

#indieweb #withknown

So interesting to see this, not only as a piece of history but also as a personal reminder.

Back when the web was young and shiny, an otherwise extremely intelligent BBC television producer, a friend at the time, asked my help in understanding the promise of the new shinyness, especially in visual terms. I told him about the famous coffee pot web cam (and maybe, also, about the link to the Coke machine).

"Isn't that great," I said, "that you can see whether there's coffee in the pot without having to leave your computer."

"But you could just get up and look."

"Well yes, but the coffee pot could be anywhere in the world."

"What's the point of that? You can't go and get a cup of coffee there."

"True. But it doesn't have to be a coffee pot. It could be, oh, anything."

"I just don't see the point."

Of couse he went on to produce a highly acclaimed series, and much else besides.

The simplest way to describe the attitude of software engineers and companies to linguistic interfacing with their customers would be to say that they do not give a monkey's fart about such matters. Not only do they never have a linguist check the use of language in the programs they expect us to use (that'll be the day), they don't have anybody at all checking it.

If they program interfaces this carelessly, just how likely is it that robots are going to respect the Three Laws of Robotics?

Not just software engineers.

This is just so astonishingly cool and Jetson-like.