Sven Slootweg (soft-deprecated) @joepie91@pixie.town

Since I've seen a lot of chatter about people switching to #Firefox as Google ramps up the enshitification of #Chrome, let me tell you about a killer feature for people who (a) need multiple accounts on the same websites (eg. devs) or specifically (b) have to use multiple Google accounts.

Firefox has an official addon called Multi Account Containers that lets you trivially set up color coded tabs that have separate sets of cookies. Log into your dev account in one, and your test account in another. Log into your personal #gmail in one and have another tab next to it with your work Gmail. I'm actually not signed in to any Google accounts in most my tabs, I just have containers for the specific tasks I do on Google products.

It'll take you 30 seconds to set up.

Add-on: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/multi-account-containers/

Mozilla's explanation: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/containers

Security staff,

I was told that my emails are "passive aggressive". Rest assured, my aggression will no longer be passive.

Worf

Two years ago, there was a previous attempt by a couple of folks (I was one of them) to address lingering community safety issues in the #NixOS community. This came in the form of RFC 98: https://github.com/NixOS/rfcs/pull/98

The idea was that the NixOS community hadn't grown that big yet, so there was still a fair amount of room for setting up healthy governance structures.

RFC 98 proposed a participatory moderation model, with a rotating cast of moderators, and a moderation process that was based in consensus seeking and helping people understand the implications of what they say and do, preferring to resolve conflicts through mediation rather than punishment.

A number of privileged white dudes caused a huge fuss over this proposal. Why? Because it didn't specify *exactly* which things were and were not allowed (as this was meant to be a consensus-seeking thing); and they were convinced that it would be used to silence and/or censor people, even though the proposal explicitly stated otherwise.

(Cynically, I would say that they were afraid that there would be consequences for them overstepping their behaviour; something they could previously do with relative impunity, and free of the "risk of getting criticized".)

A competing proposal was put forth by someone else as a result, RFC 114, which introduced a 'traditional' code of conduct with specific disallowed things and no real provisions for problematic behaviour outside of those.

Crucially, whereas RFC 98 sought to *change* the shape of the community, to improve community safety... RFC 114 was meant to enshrine the *current* state of the community, not being particularly offensive to anyone currently involved in the project, and not excluding any of the existing behaviours.

RFC 98 was concern-trolled to death. The authors (very much marginalized folks) burned out. It was never passed, and neither was RFC 114. No formal support from project governance ever materialized.

And now an immigrant murder machine manufacturer has sponsored NixCon (sponsorship since thrown out, after public criticism), and this is being enthusiastically defended by people on the NixOS forums, who seem entirely comfortable in their defense.

Does this mean that the NixOS community is full of fascists? No. And there is a pretty large contingent of marginalized folks within the community!

But the reality is that community safety issues are not a new problem in NixOS, that the Anduril sponsorship was really not a free-standing incident, and that on a governance level, almost nothing is being done about it.

🧵
I thought this was very good

"Riding the Roller Coaster of Fluctuating Disability"

https://themighty.com/topic/disability/roller-coaster-of-fluctuating-disability/

"When people think about #disability or #chronicillness, they tend to do so in a very black and white sort of way: Either you are completely #disabled, or you are not — this is your permanent status, and your disability (or lack thereof) will affect you the same way today as it will tomorrow.

Were it only that simple"

@chronicillness @spoonies @disability @mecfs @longcovid

1/

I get it, the Nazi bar analogy for Twitter so incredibly appealing, for white people, and I personally left Twitter over a year ago. However if you use it to kick down? You're part of the fucking problem with this place.

If you can't recognize that the ability to leave Twitter is a Privilege? You're not really doing the work you need to do to understand structures of power and privilege, and how important community is for marginalized groups. And marginalized groups always build these community under fascism and oppression. It's not their fault if you haven't realized the problem until now.

Instead of punishing people who are still requiring to be present on Twitter to pay the bills, help them once they show up here.
Support their calls for help, commission art, etc etc etc.

Help facilitate the move, use your privilege to help people instead of just kicking down.

I just wish people would think more critically when it came to the Voice stuff, instead of pushing points without thinking.

Like, people keep saying that the Voice is an important step in the way to Treaty.. I'd invite you to think about it a little more and consider we have a good reason not to believe that (235 good reasons, tbh..).

Does the Australian government want Treaty?

-- if yes, why aren't they asking a referendum about it?

-- if yes, why aren't they clearly stating that they want Treaty?

-- if no, do you believe that they would institute a Voice as a step towards something they don't want?

-- if no, doesn't it make sense that the Voice is a set up so we stop pushing for Treaty?

It all comes back to what Audre Lorde warned - "the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house"

#VoiceToParliament #AusPol #Aboriginal #Indigenous #Decolonise #SovereigntyNeverCeded #Treaty #TreatyBeforeVoice

[If you're a settler, please don't comment. Just shush and have a think about it instead of taking space]

A follow-up call to action: protect and guide the young people in your workplace. Point out the importance of rest, of not being a hero to cover for systemic failures beyond your pay grade, of getting paid for your time, of the cost of disability.

You may be the first person to let them know it's ok to ease off, or to have boundaries with work.

If not you, who?

I don't say this with any particular bitterness, more that this seems to be generally how it is, and you should know that your loyalty to your team and the people that employ you is just not worth the damage that you are doing to yourself, because that loyalty will not be there for you at the end of the process, and healing takes a surprising amount of time.

To put it in ecological terms, your health needs to be a sustainable resource for you. There is no safety net.

PSA: until you've experienced burnout, you are likely to underestimate how long it takes to recover. It's not a couple of months, it's 6-18 months for partial recovery, and maybe 3 years for full recovery (all depending on how bad it gets). The company burning you out will almost never support your recovery, mostly they'll drop you when you stop being productive.

Nobody in business cares about your health but you, so be your own advocate, or suffer the consequences.

A lot of “thinking” about AI is based on AI’s marketing, rather than what AI does.