Helping where I can.
Experienced in engineering management; focus on critical systems like medical/finance. Cross-disciplinary emphasis.
I dabble in markets.
It's funny, the more restrictions you place on development, the more projects don't pencil out because you can't afford the carrying costs of the loans, thereby eventually ensuring that all projects are only attempted by the most well oiled behemoths of financialized capitalism
One of my personal crusades in clinical research is to get participants paid more. One of the problems is that IRBs view excessive payments as coercive. Some IRBs are so bad that the FDA literally added explicit guidance that reimbursement for lodging/travel is not coercive
@vsync@MagisFuturum@esrtweet@nikitabier@brave@BrendanEich@lukemulks I use Brave and had this same video issue. With help from @BrendanEich, I finally traced the issue to having X/Twitter's Bandwidth Saver enabled. I liked it because it helped me improve my resistance to viral pics and videos. Disabling it resolved all my video playback issues.
@MagisFuturum@esrtweet@nikitabier@brave@BrendanEich@lukemulks my guess is that X is not interested in a positive resolution
they won't ban Brave outright but just a few users every once in a while and degrade performance for the rest
video playback hasn't worked for 60%+ of videos in Brave for months now
Recent algorithm changes on X may be unfairly hammering Brave users. And there's a larger issue here about bad interactions between robots and privacy measures.
@nikitabier@brave
My friend Jay Maynard, who some of you may know as Tron Guy, just got permabanned off X for "inauthentic behavior". His appeal was swiftly denied.
Jay is not a spammer, scammer or engagement farmer; he is, in fact, exactly the kind of good citizen X says it wants. Jay asked Gemini for analysis, and now thinks he knows what happened.
Brave, as a privacy measure, randomly changes the identity presented to sites in order to avoid tracking by the ad vampires. Gemini suggested that some code at X interpreted this as spammy behavior using multiple browsers. If so - and this does seem plausible - everybody trying to protect their privacy with Brave is at risk.
This is a general problem, not just an X glitch or a Brave issue. Social media sites are increasingly relying for security on forms of heuristic AI that are prone to unacceptably high false-positive rates.
More specifically, platforms are increasingly treating a user's refusal to be tracked, fingerprinted, and categorized as a hostile act. When a site makes it impossible to connect via a privacy-focused user agent without getting flagged as a malicious bot, it stops being "security" and effectively becomes a retaliatory lockout for protecting oneself.
Worse yet, such system architecture provides no circuit breaker - humans are only rarely and exceptionally asked review for errors. Jay's appeal denial came back so fast that it was obvious no meat-brain ever saw it. He has filed complaints within the Minnesota Attorney General and the Better Business Bureau, because what else can he do? The robots have locked him out.
Badly designed robots and zeal to squeeze human oversight out of the system forces regular citizens to rely on state law enforcement or consumer protection bureaus.
Allow me to gently suggest to the people running X that unless you want politicians poking their noses into your business and imposing constraints on you that you are not going to like, you need to fix your security and appeal processes so running to the law isn't necessary.
for those who, like me, were intrigued by this pitch: know that downthread they disingenuously respond to each reply with some PR-hack-esque "thanks for the great comment!" (with exclamation mark) and are therefore absolutely untrustworthy