bonoetmalo

I read this as Nvidia shares resumé fail. I sometimes think headline writers treat confusing headlines as an artform

ngl that's pretty funny, never knew that. I am in the camp of wishing more apps could run in the background (long-running downloads/uploads for Spotify or Google Photos) but I appreciate that it's a dangerous road to go down

I didn't get the impression they were targeting TikTok as a platform, that's just where this happens to be occurring (statistically so, given the popularity of TikTok). I definitely got the impression the author was focusing on the technology itself, and how trivially accessible it is. PimEyes is actually less accessible than facecheck.id because PimEyes doesnt index social media and has a strong paywall. facecheck.id does not have those guards.

Edit: They were targeting TikTok somewhat in the platform's refusal to moderate this type of content, which I think is a fair criticism and known to be somewhat unique to TikTok. (None of the platforms have perfect moderation but TikTok's is notoriously inconsistent and robotic)

I presume it's using sites like facecheck.id which have an index on all social media, and provide a reverse face search into that index. This means even people who change their FB name to something random, for privacy reasons, can be found. So no, I'd say the victims are not doxxing themselves.

Texas, one of the most obnoxiously anti-fed states, requires annual inspections.

I acknowledge this is the prerequisite a lot of people need to justify queer peoples' existence.

> wouldn't you want their existence to be justified

In my ideal world, I would want my existence to be justified even if I 100% chose to be bisexual, gay, trans, etc. So yes, I do want it to be justified, but I don't want genetics to be the justification.

Kind of hopeful we can stop using genetics as a way of justifying queer peoples' existence. Whether it's conditioning, a choice, or genetics, shouldn't really be a factor in how you treat queer people.

I think maybe a better question/support would be evidence that anybody besides corporate diversity teams have said this is a problem.

To be clear- I also think the terms are problematic and my company is also pushing for it. But I think it's worth asking whether we're speaking over actual black people. It does give off pretty heavy white guilt vibes.

Edit: I think a good example of this is the fact that my company is pushing for this change but still doesn't have a single black person at the VP+ levels. It's pandering, and distracting from the core problem.

NXG is better from a development environment perspective, but the diagram driven workflow is the same

I believe this has been a known issue for years now.

Lmao, thanks for making me laugh at work.

Does Sourcegraph not already have this feature? Do they plan to?

Relying on opacity for state is generally bad for accessibility