Civil society is the sector where the power of We thePeople ultimately and properly resides.

And so when we have this simplistic view of power, we're missing the story. What you really need is a system that attracts the right kind of people 01:18:20 so that the diplomats who are clean and nice and rule-following end up in power. Then you need a system that gives them all the right incentives to follow the rules once they get there. And then if you do have people who break the rules, there needs to be consequences. So the study from UN diplomats and their parking behavior actually, I think, illuminates a huge amount of very interesting dynamics around power,

the problem is that we've engineered a society in which power itself is costly to everyone, and that means that the only people who think it's worth paying the cost are those who are power-hungry.

power-hungry literally means someone who wants power. Someone who wants power 00:11:34 is going to seek power more than everybody else. As a result of that, we have a real problem on our hands. How do we stop this, right? So there's a few answers.

when we design systems in an intelligent way, we can screen out 00:11:09 and topple the Martin McFifes of this world.

Mentioned this to someone who moved to Bushwick and kept saying "I wish more of Brooklyn was like this" with a rebuttal saying "this is why the people who made it attractive to you aren't here anymore" and got the "it's not my problem" shit. https://twitter.com/hollley/status/1641149981678530560. I think that's where being a "transplant" into a different place becomes violent - your presence IMMEDIATELY disrupts the environments you're in (and because of that, you have an obligation to minimize it as much as possible).

This will not be the last terrifying scientific report on climate change. But the only path out of the dull repetitiveness of increasingly dire headlines is a politics that acknowledges that science and truth won’t automatically lead to change. The struggle for the planet is a struggle for political power.

Tenth Amendment

it is not about the product

Systemd problems might not have mattered that much, except that GNOME has a similar attitude; they only care for a small subset of the Linux desktop users, and they have historically abandoned some ways of interacting the Desktop in the interest of supporting touchscreen devices and to try to attract less technically sophisticated users. If you don't fall in the demographic of what GNOME supports, you're sadly out of luck.

SankeyMATIC unlocks the capabilities of the D3 Sankey tool for anyone to use.

All of the features of NLS were in support of Engelbart's goal of augmenting collective knowledge work and therefore focused on making the user more powerful, not simply on making the system easier to use.

I believe that beginning to distribute tools that patch Firefox and give back power to users and allow them to install unsigned extensions is necessary when an organization is taking away our rights without giving us a compelling reason for doing so.

I appreciate the vigilance, but it would be even better to actually publish a technical reasoning for why do you folks believe Firefox is above the device owner, and the root user, and why there should be no possibility through any means and configuration protections to enable users to run their own code in the release version of Firefox.

I will need to find a workaround for one of my private extensions that controls devices in my home network, and its source code cannot be uploaded to Mozilla because of my and my family's privacy.