K.I.S.S.

am a proud user of ‘dumb’ things, who does things the ‘dumb way.

When I mentioned the light for the fish I did not specify whether it’s turned off/on by the socket (the sockets all have switches here). It’s not. There is a switch on the wire itself.

But “is it on a timer?” someone has asked, linking to “PWR-SWITCH”.

Turning on a light with the flick of a switch does not take much effort/time (maybe one second); buying some gizmos with timers means: 1) setup time; 2) troubleshooting; 3) more moving parts which can break/malfunction; 4) tinkering time.

We could make lights with remote controls and timers decades ago. But we did not. There was no market (or use case) for that.

The Total Time of Ownership (TTO) is vastly better for “dumb” things that don’t need maintenance and studying (memorising how to operate them). They don’t have hardware issues and risky “upgrades”.

I don’t want “smart” lightings in the home, thank-you-very-much.

Healthy fish for healthy mind

ast night I added a fluorescent light for the fish, it is external to the tank, and so far it also helps illuminate the desk area at night (days are quickly getting shorter), so it is double-purpose ‘thingie’ really. There is a light switch that controls whether it is on or off, it is easy top use, and it is within arm’s reach.

The fish tank experience next to my own desk (not Rianne’s) began a week ago. So far, so good.

The harms of mobile phones are too many to even remember

understand that based on fairly recent public statistics, about 2% of people in the UK (definitely over 1%) rightly reject skinnerbox ownership. It’s not that they’re unable to afford it and not having one can lead to problems only because of the wrong assumption everyone has one or must have one.

The other day some company was asking persons in training sessions to give input, in effect leaving feedback by scanning a code. It was making the assumption everyone has the ability to scan a QR code (barcode for skinnerboxes). By doing so, it was leaving out people who don’t want to waste their lives with a “mark of the beast” (religious term) or beacon or similar.

Please don’t be one of those companies.

Still warm

expect that this afternoon we’ll go feed the birds in the park (seeing that it’s 24 degrees in mid-September and partly sunny).

Mid-September is supported to be cold and in some European countries snow can start. The climate is… weird.

Self-advertising site anyone can edit and anybody can vandalise

Two months ago: To Wikipedia, “Notability” is Just an Excuse to Hail People Who Serve Billionaires While Marginalising or Defaming the Rest

am not in Wikipedia. This means I need not worry about what people who dislike me write about me there. I prefer it that way. I’ve said this for ~15 years already, maybe longer.

Wikipedia takes a lot of money from billionaires to call them ‘philanthropists’ and censor/block/sideline their critics. This is the real ‘business model’ of Wikipedia.

Unlike a lot of the “Linux” stories in Techrights, the EPO coverage is historically significant and impactful, but this coverage is cited nowhere in Wikipedia. Why? Because the ‘litigation industry’ took over the narrative (or articles) in Wikipedia.

So does Wikipedia say the truth? Depends on the topic.

I remember pointing out that in Wikipedia people write prose about themselves. Then they say “I’m in Wikipedia” as if it is indicative of high status.

Thanks to their foolish self-promotion, however, I spotted very obvious conflicts of interest.

For almost a whole decade, for instance, the Linux Foundation (LF) was run by Microsoft GitHub shills salaries by Microsoft, and LF was pushing slop, plagiarism and exploitative prisons with Jono Bacon’s wife in the Board while LF paid him to write pro-Microsoft crap; as for his wife, she ‘bossed’ Linus Torvalds.

“Having a Wikipedia page these days is becoming a contraindicator of reliability and trustworhiness,” a friend has told me.

Being in Wikipedia, unlike being in a high-profile court for instance, is something anyone can accomplish by schmoozing the editors or tricking them (into not paying attention).

Wikipedia is, after all, merely a brand.

“I’m not in Wikipedia, I’m in my own site…” (yes, I have a site, sir)

Hours ago:

simply would not use the ‘trans card’ if:

• My spouse who is trans criticises me and I say that this is due to craziness (something to the effect of, “I am perfect, my trans critics are crazy”; he has other trans critics who say he misuses/exploits the trans community)
• I admitted saying “transphobic shit” (in conversations)
• The “law” firm that I chose thinks punching trans people is “funny”
• I believe I can just call someone “nazi”, then it’s OK to punch ‘em
• I have no concern for or no respect towards women

Mr. Know-It-All

would not skip my own hearing (that I had paid over $130,000) to have and then try to lecture those who attended it about what was said there, based on mere hearsay.