11–20 of 75 posts
I like “e nihilo, unum”… from zero, one. That said, I think it’d be “Tuere utentis, datum, et verum”… “data”, IIRC, would imply plurality.
Incidentally, if you have three hours to spare on some casual Lambda Calculus introduction, I always think [1] is a fun watch.
I like “e nihilo, unum”… from zero, one. That said, I think it’d be “Tuere utentis, datum, et verum”… “data”, IIRC, would imply plurality.
If we're going to nitpick (which we obviously are!) then maybe "data" doesn't quite have for same implication in latin ("given things") vs English ("information"). Although it actually works quite nicely in the phrase as "given things".
Main/most-helpful source: https://nxg.me.uk/note/2005/singular-data/
As a user, I want to be enabled / to be able to do more things with a piece of software than what I could do without it. I do NOT want to be "protected".
As a user, I want to be enabled / to be able to do more things with a piece of software than what I could do without it. I do NOT want to be "protected".
Big tech is putting inside our heads that users shall be protected by removing control from them and that's detrimental. This gatekeeping is not protection, it's dystopia.
Protect can be taken as in "Protect the user from bad decisions", or as in "Protect users' freedom" [1], which would completely go your way. I understood protect as "make the user your first priority".
I'm happy with being protected. I'm not happy with my control being removed. It may look like the first implies the second, but it should not and we need to fight against this idea. This leads to (tech!) people here on HN believing their restricted mobile ecosystems are good for them and their parents.
[1] (edit:) another commenter suggests "protect their interests", which nails it for me.
I suppose the Latin phrasing needs to be double-checked, but it's nice to have what we ought to aim expressed to concisely (even in English). I guess the Latin makes it sound more serious and authoritative (but also more cryptic, so it's a double-edged sword to manipulate with caution). May it help spread the spirit, with which I completely agree. Kudos for aiming this.
Getting into a rhetoric style, rule of thirds can help. So something like: Custodi usorem, custodi data, custodi veritatem.
As a user, I want to be enabled / to be able to do more things with a piece of software than what I could do without it. I do NOT want to be "protected".
That's why it's the developer's responsibility to do it. Because the user won't .
I like “e nihilo, unum”… from zero, one. That said, I think it’d be “Tuere utentis, datum, et verum”… “data”, IIRC, would imply plurality.
Is this a valid decription of the successor function? Incidentally, if you have three hours to spare on some casual Lambda Calculus introduction, I always think [1] is a fun watch. [1] https://youtube.com/watch?v=5C6sv7-eTKg
Valid but only partial since it only describes one value.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why it's the developer's responsibility to do it. Because the user won't .
"Protect" can mean whatever the service provider wants it to mean. Such as requiring developer verification for any program you want to install on your own phone.
(sarcasm, obviously)
I like “e nihilo, unum”… from zero, one. That said, I think it’d be “Tuere utentis, datum, et verum”… “data”, IIRC, would imply plurality.
Ex* nihilo.
As a user, I want to be enabled / to be able to do more things with a piece of software than what I could do without it. I do NOT want to be "protected".
Reframing it as "protect their interests" helps. Protect the users from corporate manipulation, from lock-in, from rent seeking, from dishonest practices.
Since we're talking about "doing more things with a piece of software than [users] could do without it", well, living with 10% of the features at 1000x of the price would typically still fit those criteria. Since this is exactly where most companies would like to go after establishing market-dominance, yeah, I think we do want to be protected.
Whether any dev or group of devs could realistically push back against the forces at work in the org or the wider economy here is a separate question of course.