When bringing up ham radio to friends, I often get a puzzled look and they ask me what is so fun about contacting random people. Today I had a thought about how ham radio is like the OG Pokemon Go.
You know the rush of trying to catch 'em all in Pokemon Go? Well, hams have their own version – it's all about snagging those unique callsigns from different operators and locations. Each callsign is like a rare trading card, and the more diverse your collection, the higher up the coolness scale you climb in the ham radio universe.
Imagine wandering around, hoping to stumble upon a rare Pokemon. Ham radio operators get that same thrill, but instead of Pokemon, we're exploring the airwaves. It's like tuning into different channels, hoping to stumble upon a hidden gem. From chatting with someone on the other side of the globe to stumbling upon a rare radio event, ham radio is all about the excitement of the unknown.
You know those Pokemon Go community events where players gather for raids and challenges? Ham radio operators have their own version – contests, field days, and special events that bring people together. The ham radio community is a tight-knit group, connected by the love of the radio waves. It's not just about making contacts; it's about building friendships with like-minded folks from all corners of the world.
Whether you're a Pokemon master or a ham radio pro, both pursuits involve honing your skills. In Pokemon, you strategize and battle; in ham radio, you finesse your communication, master antenna construction, and tinker with radio technology. It's a hands-on, learn-as-you-go experience that keeps you on your toes and makes every achievement that much sweeter.
So there you have it, folks – ham radio, the original collectible game that predates Pokemon Go. It's not just about the callsigns; it's about the thrill of exploration, the joy of connecting with a global community, and the satisfaction of mastering a unique skill set. Happy hunting!
In the ever-evolving landscape of social media, the battle for control over mindshare has intensified with the recent developments surrounding two tech titans: Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg. With Musk's acquisition of Twitter and his controversial policy changes regarding censorship, and Zuckerberg's launch of Threads as a pro-censorship platform, the implications for control of the world's mindshare are profound. This blog post will delve into these developments, exploring the contrasting approaches to censorship and misinformation and their potential impact on the flow of information and freedom of speech.
Since acquiring Twitter, Elon Musk has been a subject of both admiration and criticism for his approach to censorship. Musk's intent to challenge the perceived leftist bias on the platform has led to accusations of amplifying misinformation. However, he has introduced innovative measures to counter this problem. One notable feature is the "community notes" system, which evolved from Twitter's earlier Birdwatch feature. This crowdsourced fact-checking approach aims to empower users to flag and provide context for potentially misleading or false information.
The introduction of community notes acknowledges the complexity of the misinformation problem, with the understanding that a singular authority should not determine the truth. By involving the Twitter community, Musk has created a platform where users collectively contribute to the verification and contextualization of information. While this approach may lead to certain biases or inaccuracies, it emphasizes the importance of free speech and a diversity of perspectives.
In response to Musk's acquisition of Twitter, Mark Zuckerberg's Meta has launched Threads, positioning it as a competing platform. Threads embraces a pro-censorship stance, taking steps to warn users about potential misinformation when following certain accounts, such as Donald Trump Jr. This proactive approach to filtering content aims to mitigate the spread of false information and protect users from its potential harm.
Moreover, an intriguing aspect of Threads is its plan to integrate with the fediverse, a network of interconnected social media platforms. This integration suggests an effort to broaden the reach of Threads beyond its own ecosystem, enabling users to engage with a diverse range of content and perspectives. However, it also raises concerns about the potential consolidation of power and the implications for freedom of expression within the fediverse.
The contrasting approaches of Musk's Twitter and Zuckerberg's Threads have significant implications for the control of mindshare worldwide. Musk's emphasis on free speech, although potentially leading to the amplification of misinformation, fosters an environment where multiple perspectives can coexist. It acknowledges the complexities of determining truth and promotes a sense of ownership and responsibility among users.
On the other hand, Threads' pro-censorship approach seeks to curtail the spread of misinformation but risks centralizing power in determining what information is deemed acceptable. The integration with the fediverse presents an opportunity to access a wider range of content; however, the potential for censorship and ideological biases within the interconnected network raises concerns about homogenization of thought.
Ultimately, the battle between these platforms reflects the larger struggle for control over the dissemination of information and the influence it has on society. Striking the right balance between freedom of speech and responsible content moderation is an ongoing challenge. It is crucial to foster an environment that promotes critical thinking, digital literacy, and user participation to combat misinformation effectively.
The battle between Elon Musk's Twitter and Mark Zuckerberg's Threads represents a clash of ideologies regarding censorship, misinformation, and the control of mindshare. While Musk's approach champions free speech, embracing the collective wisdom of the Twitter community, Zuckerberg's Threads takes a proactive stance against misinformation but risks centralizing control and limiting freedom of expression. The integration potential with the fediverse adds another layer of complexity to these developments, necessitating a careful examination of the potential consequences for the diversity of thought and the flow of information. As these platforms continue to evolve, finding the delicate balance between freedom and responsibility will be paramount to shaping the future of social media and its impact on society.
In my previous blog post (https://www.ehlabs.net/blog/30), I explored the modern-day pursuit of engagement in website design and its potential consequences. Today, I delve into the past, tracing the origins of this phenomenon to the era of newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst and the emergence of yellow journalism. By examining the historical context, motivations, and consequences of Hearst's approach to media, we can gain valuable insights into the evolution of engagement-driven strategies and their impact on society.
In the late 19th century, William Randolph Hearst rose to prominence as a leading figure in the newspaper industry. Hearst was driven by a relentless pursuit of readership and profit, adopting an approach known as yellow journalism. This style of reporting prioritized sensationalism, scandal, and emotional manipulation over factual accuracy and balanced journalism.
Similar to the modern-day pursuit of engagement, Hearst's yellow journalism aimed to captivate and retain readers' attention. By using provocative headlines, exaggerated stories, and eye-catching illustrations, Hearst's newspapers sought to evoke strong emotional responses from their readers. This emphasis on sensationalism and controversy helped fuel the ongoing competition among newspapers for readership and advertising revenue.
Just as the internet revolutionized media consumption in the 1980s, the development of new printing technologies in the late 19th century played a significant role in enabling Hearst's yellow journalism. Technological advancements allowed for mass production and widespread distribution of newspapers, leading to an increase in competition among publishers. With a need to stand out in a crowded market, sensationalism became a powerful tool for capturing readers' attention.
The sensationalist and controversy-driven nature of yellow journalism had profound effects on public discourse. While it attracted a large readership, the emphasis on eye-catching stories and emotional appeals often came at the expense of accuracy and balanced reporting. The tactics employed by Hearst and his contemporaries contributed to the blurring of lines between news and entertainment, eroding public trust in journalism and fostering skepticism towards media institutions.
The pursuit of engagement through yellow journalism had far-reaching social and political consequences. One notable example is the role Hearst's newspapers played in influencing public sentiment during the Spanish-American War in 1898. Through exaggerated accounts of Spanish atrocities, Hearst's publications stoked American outrage, pushing the country closer to armed conflict. This manipulation of public opinion for political purposes underscores the power and influence wielded by engagement-driven media.
Drawing parallels between Hearst's yellow journalism and contemporary engagement-driven website design reveals important lessons. While technology has evolved, the underlying principles remain the same – capturing attention and retaining viewership. The negative consequences observed in the past, such as misinformation and the erosion of trust, continue to resonate today.
Website designers must recognize the potential pitfalls of engagement-focused strategies. Just as sensationalism and controversy distorted public discourse in the past, the clickbait tactics and echo chambers of the internet era can exacerbate the spread of misinformation and polarization. Designers have a responsibility to prioritize accurate and balanced information while still engaging users, striking a delicate balance between captivating content and responsible journalism.
The pursuit of engagement in website design shares a historical lineage with Hearst's yellow journalism. By understanding the origins and consequences of engagement-driven strategies in media, we can better navigate the challenges of the digital age. As designers, content creators, and consumers of online information, it is crucial to strive for accuracy, balance, and responsible engagement to foster a healthier media landscape and ensure the integrity of public discourse.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/a...
The recent push to change default branch names in Git, such as "master," has sparked a heated debate within the technology community. While some argue that such names are symbolic of oppression and must be changed, I firmly believe that the outrage surrounding this issue is fake and manufactured.
The term "master" has a history dating back to the early days of craftsmanship and metallurgy. In the world of metal casting, a "master" refers to the original or canonical pattern from which all subsequent copies or molds are derived. Masters were meticulously crafted by skilled artisans, often serving as the exemplar for reproducing intricate designs and forms. This concept of a "master" copy has transcended metallurgy, influencing various fields like art and technology.
The term "master" has been used in the field of technology for decades to refer to the primary branch of a code repository. It is not a term with any racist or oppressive connotations. In fact, it is simply a descriptor for the primary branch of a project. The push to change this term is, in my opinion, unnecessary and a waste of time and resources. It is important to recognize that the vast majority of software developers are not actively seeking to perpetuate racist or oppressive ideologies through their choice of branch names. The use of "master" as the default branch name is a convention that has been inherited from the early days of version control systems and is not a conscious or deliberate choice to promote racist or oppressive ideas.
If we are to take the logic behind changing such terms to its logical conclusion, should we also get rid of "Masters" degrees at universities? These too are named after a term with alleged roots in oppression. But it is illogical to suggest that we should change the name of a degree that has been in use for centuries, just as it is illogical to suggest that a technology term that has been in use for decades should be changed.
Furthermore, I do not believe that these name changes are actually helping anyone. They do not address the root causes of oppression, and they only serve to create more unnecessary work and confusion. In the grand scheme of things, what really matters is creating an inclusive and equitable society. Changing the name of a branch in a code repository will not bring us any closer to that goal. The branch name changing is bringing a lot of extra work to developers. They need to update the branch name on their local machines, make sure the name change is reflected across all pull requests, and fix any potential broken links in CI/CD systems, etc. This effort is better invested in addressing the root causes of racism and oppression. If the people advocating for this change actually cared about slavery, they would be raising awareness about the millions of people still in slavery today.
In conclusion, I will not be stopping the use of "master" as the default branch name in my Git projects. I believe that the outrage surrounding this issue is completely fake and manufactured. And it is important to focus on the real issues that affect society, rather than getting bogged down in unnecessary debates about renaming things.