This is absolutely insane to me. Native HTML5 gives so much power and it seems like front end devs love to jargon and buzzword the next big thing to death every other year. I primarily work in networking and if we added the layers of complexity like I see front end work does we would have SDN configuring an internal PtP VPN for every device on a LAN just because it's the hot new tech.
I made a powerful HTML5 Offline app a long time ago, for some technical requirements (and cool-sounding user) that would be challenging, no matter what stack was used.
Then I was in an interview, where some junior openly sneered at me, for not using a recent popular RDD framework for it.
Part of the problem, even for highly experienced people, is that even the good jobs usually have "technical interview" gatekeeping that's not very enlightened.
(Yes, no matter what framework or stack you're using, I've probably done related things before, and I can pick it up quickly. No, a Leetcode hazing won't tell you how I think, nor what I can do, and it just seems like you're jerking off.)
I think erring on the side of needing warrants for law enforcement can help with some of the incidental vs targeted surveillance debate. Law enforcement driving past while on regular patrol and noticing something vs spending time and resources to launch a drone, fly a plane, or stake out a property for surveillance has a distinction that feels neat enough for a court to rule on.
I believe a test that would pass muster could be a "passer-by" test. If a person, unaided by technology, can from a public property, see something in or on the property, while passing by at a walking pace, no warrant is needed. Anything further should require a warrant.
> If a person, unaided by technology, can from a public property, see something in or on the property, while passing by at a walking pace, no warrant is needed.
Is the person allowed to wear glasses? If so, what do you view the limit to be for allowed technology? Binoculars and telescopes use similar technology.
Being Alaska, my first thought is that your "passer-by" may also be on horseback - so long as he's in a location where a somewhat prudent horseman might ventured while mounted.
And maybe add similar tests for the passer-by hearing or smelling things?
I don't think your assumption is correct based on this sentence: "I also want to take this moment to clearly state that Evan Koblentz, the director of the Vintage Computer Federation for many years, who took the original donation, had absolutely no say or part in this pulping of historical magazines, having been driven out of the organization years before."
Imagine a company buying a small utility for the cost of a Corvette from an Indy developer today... More likely they would just poach the utility from open source and not return anything.
Elders have complained about the impetus of youth for longer than the boomers.
"The young people of today think of nothing but themselves. They have no reverence for parents or old age. They are impatient of all restraint ... As for the girls, they are forward, immodest and unladylike in speech, behaviour and dress." - Peter the Hermit, 1274
Those quotes are made up, though I didn't mean it couldn't have happened before, but in recent history. It was obviously not expected then and their parents had no idea how to deal with it.
In my opinion, "journalism for journalism's sake" would be what we call reporting the truth, or investigative journalism. Is there a national outlet that invests in pure investigative journalism anymore?
>> What do they want to make "meaningful progress" on? I certainly can't see "journalism for journalism's sake" as a good thing. Seems more likely you will get gatekeeping and another venue for activism?
> In my opinion, "journalism for journalism's sake" would be what we call reporting the truth, or investigative journalism. Is there a national outlet that invests in pure investigative journalism anymore?
Investigative journalism can still amount to "gatekeeping and another venue for activism," if the investigative attention is selective and focused (more or less) to support one or more activist programs.
That's actually the most effective kind of manipulation, because it's simultaneously true and misleading.
And I also think that's close to what we've got. To really be "journalism for journalism's sake," I think you'd have to allocated investigative resources roughly equally among factions, with investigations focused on "pro-narrative" ideas and "counter-narrative" ideas.
That is the noble way to consider it, but as soon as something starts existing for its own sake, you start losing the reason the thing was enacted the first time.
I'd hazard the "pure" journalism you are seeing in your mind likely wasn't nearly as pure as you'd think it was. There is a reason a lot of very long lived scandals have always been the case. Even more true as you consider news crossing country boundaries. Any specific examples you have in mind?
