DevRelPuzzle

“La idea de que la gente abandonará sus creencias irracionales ante la solidez de la evidencia presentada ante ella es en sí misma una creencia irracional, no apoyada por la evidencia”. George Lakoff

The cobra effects long playlist: youtube.com/watch?v=gEr3B0… Save it, just in case, you need some examples ;-)

🎯🎯🎯🎯🎯

Linux pros and cons

AI vendors have found someone to pay their infrastructure bills: You theregister.com/software/2026/…

Que además estrena formato en vídeo youtube.com/watch?v=1XvhHi…

¿En qué lo habrá notado? 😂😂

De las cosas que más me gustan de lo que hacemos @recuenco y servidor en @ingobernablepod es que tan pronto te sale algo gordo y profundo como algo liviano, casi absurdo. Como la vida. Gracias @joantubau por el rato, la charleta, las ideas y el ilustre, que ojito :-)

👏👏👏👏👏 youtube.com/watch?v=OZunyS…

Allow me to explain the core problem with the #EU #ageVerification concept. They're trying to solve an ontological problem with cryptography; something which is logically & demonstrably impossible. They're conflating a cryptographic, epistemic claim "this credential belongs to someone over 18" with the ontological "this person is over 18". Even perfect Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs) do not bridge the gap between digital assertions and physical reality. There's not a cryptographic protocol on earth that does. The entire theatrical process establishes provenance. Provenance is not truth. I call it as escalation path precisely because this logical divide cannot be solved with code. It's not a technical problem. The developers have been tasked with solving the unsolvable. The question is simple: How old is ______________? How can you possibly answer that without vital context; the person's identity? So what's next in the global push for age verification? #ID checkpoints everywhere, real-time video/audio, geolocation, outlawed & undermined cryptography - traceability from end to end... to "protect the children" No #privacy, no rights... and no say in the matter. We're sleep walking into the abyss. Wake up.

Common sense 👇👇 youtube.com/watch?v=A7WFt2…

Customer emails/phone numbers & Stripe payment details were also hacked; no one was ever notified because the company deemed it wasn't important to. Full story here: 404media.co/hack-reveals-s…

One of the most valuable lessons, especially for the students having misplaced priorities around the outcome of a hackathon PS: he was the reason I developed keen interest in compilers & CS in general during formative engineering life. He’s my senior who taught out of sheer interest; grateful to him

#LaLigaGate ⚽️⚽️ "La @AEPD_es declina investigar la denuncia de @internautas contra los canales de denuncia bonificados de La Liga". Las razones... 👉🏼 "tú no eres quien para denunciar" (ni informar, parece): internautas.org/la-aepd-declin…

No AI. No Threejs. No bytes to spare. My new game is a 3D retro 90's fever dream that fits in only 1024 bytes! 🌈☁️ killedbyapixel.github.io/TinyCode/1K/Sk… Link to build with extra control options for accessibility (1k build has only mouse input)

Error básico: Entender el esfuerzo desde un marco transaccional, en el que hay "garantías" No es una enmienda al esfuerzo per se. Es una enmienda al marco equivocado. Pero no veas el drive que tiene para sacarle los cuartos a los incautos...Ahí si es transaccional, xro no xra tí

🦔Hachette, Cengage, Elsevier, and novelist Scott Turow filed a class action against Google alleging it used millions of copyrighted books to train Gemini. Publishers handed books to Google under a Google Books agreement limited to snippet display. Google used them as AI training data instead. Google's own internal documents estimated "$10Bs-$100Bs" in potential fines and flagged the practice as "highly problematic." Google is the only major AI company that has refused to sign licensing deals with publishers. My Take Google knew. Their own internal documents said it was "highly problematic" and estimated fines in the tens of billions. They did it anyway because the cost of asking permission was higher than the expected cost of getting caught. Publishers handed Google their books under a specific agreement, and Google used them for something else entirely. The internal documents make a fair use defense very difficult when your own analysts flagged the risk before you proceeded. This also comes at a bad moment for Google. Anthropic already settled a similar suit for $1.5 billion. The New York Times case against OpenAI is ongoing. Cloudflare is about to block AI crawlers by default on September 15. USA Today's CEO said the company is prepared to delist from Google Search within a year if there's no licensing deal. Publishers spent three years trying to negotiate and Google refused. Every other major AI company signed licensing agreements. Google bet it didn't have to, and now its own documents are sitting in a federal court filing. Hedgie🤗

one thing about building products is of course you get people who disagree with your decisions but they frame it larger than a personal preference "change this or you will fail" that's when you know they're definitely wrong

Ursula von der Leyen has confirmed that everyone in the EU will need to use the EU's app for identity authentication before being able to access or post on social media websites. 🇪🇺 As an expert in online child safety, I am here to expose the misinformation and misdirection in von der Leyen's statements. Today von der Leyen said: "This is not about whether children can access social media, it is about whether social media can access our children". 💡The first part is true. This isn't about children. It's about surveillance and combating political dissent. A state that can't control its own citizens is more dangerous than a state rife with criminals. The second part is a PR soundbite that politicians are using like a campaign slogan straight out of 1984. 🇪🇺"The question is no longer if children face risks online, but what can we do to give children a safer start online". 💡No. You can't give children a "safer start" online any more than you can offline. In the offline world, the government doesn't enforce curfews or ban children from entering liquor stores, bars or restaurants. That's a parent's responsibility. The digital world should be no different. 🇪🇺"The age verification app is one of the tools to get it done". 💡This is a contradiction because she also said "It won't be foolproof". 🇪🇺"It's easy to use, it is privacy preserving and it is open source". 💡The app was compromised as soon as it was released. "Privacy-preserving" age verification is an oxymoron. You can't verify a person's age without verifying their identity. Where or how that age is shared afterwards is irrelevant. 🇪🇺"This is basically about putting back the power into the hands of parents". 💡More from 1984. The EU is doing the opposite. Parents are having their authority stripped by politicians who think they know better. Many parents are capable and unaffected by peer pressure, and they know how to use parental controls to block any app classified as 13+. Some teens are safe, their parents trust them, and the state has no business overruling that trust. 🇪🇺"We don't give our children keys to the car before they have their licence" 💡Comparing an app to a car is a false equivalence used to justify mass surveillance. Governments don't decide when a young person is ready for car keys, guardians do. 💡Forcing every adult and child into a biometric checkpoint just to use an app or website is not licensing drivers. It's the state seizing everyone's keys, locking the garage, and forcing every driver to ask a private company for permission to take a drive. 💡 This is a gross, unethical overreach that strips authority from parents while imposing state sanctioned identity verification on every adult who doesn't even have a child. 💡Additionally, people who pass a test, obtain a licence and drive a car aren't forced to use an app to constantly authenticate their suitability to drive. 🇪🇺"We do not let them buy alcohol until they are legally allowed" 💡False equivalence. We don't force every person to show ID at a shopping mall entrance just because a few people might buy alcohol with a meal at a restaurant. Some parents are okay with their 12 year-old going to the mall with friends while others aren't. Either way, it's their choice. Whatever irresponsible decisions some parents might make, every adult in the country shouldn't be forced to pay the price. 🇪🇺"It won't be foolproof" 💡This is all the proof we need to show that the EU and every government know that banning social media for teens won't protect them. When pressed by journalists about VPNs being used to circumvent a ban, politicians always state the ban isn't a silver bullet and will take time. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan went as far as to say "we know it's not the solution". 💡Either age verification works, or it doesn't. As a technical expert in this space, I can tell you there are no additional steps to take and no progress to be made. Either the approach does what it is supposed to do, or it's not fit for purpose. If they claim a bulletproof solution is coming, it can only mean one thing. They intend to ban or restrict VPNs to people who verify their identity. 🇪🇺"It will take time to invite the cultural change that is already taking shape in our society, just as it took time to outlaw drink driving, just as it took time to use seatbelts in the cars. Great change never happens overnight, but when it comes to our safety it is always worth it". 💡Comparing a social media ban and age verification to seatbelts is a completely broken analogy. Seatbelts are a safety feature that protects children while allowing them to travel in a car. A ban doesn't give kids a seatbelt. It kicks them out of the car entirely. 💡Instead of supporting parents who want to guide their own children through the digital world, this heavy-handed law strips away parental authority by banning the apps and websites that many parents are perfectly fine with and actively monitor. 💡Furthermore, enforcing these bans requires biometric age verification, which means forcing millions of adult citizens to scan their IDs, faces or credit cards just to browse the internet. That isn't a common-sense traffic law. 💡It's a digital checkpoint on every street. True safety means teaching kids how to navigate the digital world safely with real guardrails and parental guidance, not burning down digital spaces for everyone under the guise of protection. 🇪🇺☠️ The EU wants to ban teens from social media so every person is forced to verify their identity before they can read, share or post anything online. In their words, this is to protect children from dangerous content. 🇪🇺☠️ The EU wants to enforce "Chat Control" so every app has to monitor everything people say privately inside it, including apps with end-to-end encryption. In their words, this is to protect children from dangerous criminals. 💡Where this ends 🇪🇺 "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever". George Orwell, 1984.

Vosotros sois muy jóvenes, pero el sudapollismo lo invento un señor que tenía un programa de cine que se emitía de madrugada y que según él sólo podía ser visto por un puñado de politoxicómanos insomnes. Una leyenda.

I honestly don't know how @vonderleyen can say it's "privacy preserving" with a straight face. Do I need to hack it again?