@Moon@evelyn@tk Yeah, he really believes the system has people's best interest in mind. And for the individual cogs of the system he is likely to interact with on a daily basis, people at his "level" and below, that's probably true. But once you start looking at the upper echelons, at the people shaping the conversation as to how the people's "best interests" are served, someone is leveraging those cogs for something else entirely.
Meh. If you're using Twitter's embed code to show info from Twitter's site on your own web page, then you get whatever Twitter wants to show you. This is not Twitter editing your web page, this Kevin Marks's web page retrieving code from Twitter, and letting unknown code run in the viewer's browser.
If you really want an immutable record of what Twitter had then copy'n'paste the text, don't use Twitter's embed code. Or you could capture a screenshot, just be sure to provide full ALT text so the text is still text.
Browsers that block Javascript should still see the blockquote text that's actually part of the page.
#Javascrippled, although not in the conventional manner.
what's most incredible about this date representation is that it was introduced after Y2K. it wouldn't have worked up to [19]99 think about it. someone implemented that after all the many years of preparation and patching decades-old systems for Y2K, knowing (or, worse, without realizing) that it had at most a couple of decades of use. how screwy and irresponsible is that?
From what I can tell, they were using the decimal digits of the 32-bit number as a sort of BCD, with the base10 digits representing portions of the date. The example used is "the new date value of 2,201,010,001 is over the max value of 'long' int32 being 2,147,483,647". So, YY MMDDHHMM ?
What an extraordinarily stupid way to represent a date.
Some days I'm glad my instance of #GNUsocial doesn't support #ActivityPub and isolates me from the idiocy on Mastodon of which I already get plenty from #Birdsite.
Happily, it's been about 50 years since I read the first three novels, and about 20 years since I started on the sequels (which never did finish, got about halfway through the third sequel book). So my foggy memories of the storyline in the original trilogy shouldn't detract from the TV series.
I recall there was a BBC radio play or a BBC TV series in the 1980s, I heard at least one episode on the radio but never caught it again....
It uses key characters, the Empire, the exile, Terminus, Psychohistory, two kingdoms instead of the Four Kingdoms and some echoes of half of the first book and fainter echoes from other parts of the series, while the main story maps roughly to half the first book.
It shifts characters around, fleshes them out, gives them more connections between each other, adds its own world concepts and turns key characters into women. There is no Scientism, only straightforward diplomacy, and there are fewer Seldon Crises (only one).
Apart from the pacing I think it's a far better TV series than a faithful adaptation would be. The concepts it adds are interesting and fit with the world and give it depth, they're not just random stuff.
Don't get me wrong, I think Foundation is one of the greatest SF stories ever written. And I hadn't heard there was a series, must find out when and where it airs... !SciFi @clacke