507
results for "tantek positive"
-
Gardening is a good positive metaphor
[tantek]
at
2025-12-31 02:56
-
[mattl] I believe there are enough positive use-cases (e.g. helping people block scrapers, providing alternative non-LLM tools) that outweigh the negative of having an explicit channel. we could scope the name accordingly. also I expect more and more new folks showing up will be somewhere between AI-curious and AI-positive, and a channel where whoever is there can help walk through critical discussions may be more welcoming than just
[tantek]
at
2025-08-13 20:35
-
"Wanted to find him people to interact with in town" = nope nope nope. Never had a positive outcome with that sort of intro. Always people looking to vampires for info, jobs, connections, or more reputation collecting. Never hear from them again
[tantek]
at
2025-06-14 20:19
-
ah good, ten top edited pages and top 3 are all positive. newsletter looks good (except for the one non-indieweb indienews post)
[tantek]
at
2025-06-13 21:51
-
like if it wasn't for good faith assumptions about the people involved due to their largely positive reputations, that kind of faffing about corp structures and rebranding looks like a mix of money laundering and/or reputation laundering
[tantek]
at
2025-06-12 16:35
-
3: Be clear about the user-benefits and the service-benefits up front, (positive like user choice, and service independence of silos, and also avoiding negatives like not encouraging users to bind themselves to a silo identity, not having your service drive your users to a silo for identity) rather than "open standards" for open standards sake.
[tantek]
at
2025-06-03 23:27
-
hmm, looks like on a Wikipedia page it is picking up a false positive of a link to Help:Contents (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents). I did a view source and found this: <a href="/wiki/Help:Contents" title="Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia"><span>Help</span></a> - is the word "edit" in the title attribute throwing it off?
[tantek]
at
2025-05-24 02:11
-
May have to blog this because it's a security warning false positive, and every such false positive warning causes marginal security warning fatigue and thus contributes to users ignoring security warnings
[tantek]
at
2025-04-20 21:20
-
Nevermind that "not everyone can login" because that's the point. One reason those Web 2.0 sites were primarily positive is that they were dominated by a set of positive optimistic folks with shared values
[tantek]
at
2025-03-18 18:58
-
I’m starting to think one thing one creative / development effort we could do as a community (or even as individuals) would be to rebuild all the primarily positive Web 2.0 "social content" sites except as aggregators with zero accounts, and 100% web sign-in + webmentions to contribute content
[tantek]
at
2025-03-18 18:56