I had no idea this was even posted on HN until a short while ago, lol
Regarding shieldfont, if a screen reader can get the real words, then AI scrapers will eventually be able to get them one way or the other... I stand by my points in the post. I guess I'd say if someone uses a lesser-known obfuscation technique that remains uncracked or unnoticed by the bots, then more power to them. But if and when everyone else catches on, it will become useless.
I am very proud of the theme, which originally started out as a bearblog theme but I think by now it's all been replaced with my own CSS. The light color theme consists of the Windows web colors, while the dark theme is modified from the CGA 16-color palette.
I appreciate the feedback from people in this thread. I realize the irony of the blog not necessarily conforming to the ideal of an accessible format, but it's all in plain text and shouldn't be too much trouble for any reader-mode or accessibility tool to parse... I was aware the dark theme needed some more contrast. I just tightened it up a bit by darkening the gray palette value.
Be proud of the theme. It emanates unflashy nostalgia to me, like a mysterious text-adventure game you discover as a kid. I'm all for putting weight in accessibility as a goal, but never as the all-over riding goal, and always with the greater purpose of the work in mind. It brings to mind an a11y evaluation a recent company I was a part of had done by a 3rd party, where one of the resulting "guidelines" was to darken borders around all our inputs and buttons for better contrast. These had the effect of decimating the visual texture and readability of each page, as you were caught up in a sea of near-black borders on light background. But the design team felt it was a worthy tradeoff, can't say no to accessibility. In other words, for a personal blog, I'd say do what brings you joy first and foremost. It's hard enough doing work you end up feeling proud of.
On shieldfont, I feel like many posts in this thread are glossing over the point that most scraping operations are operating at scale, and all we have to do is make a piece of content (or many pieces) too expensive to scrape _at that scale_. It's not really about whether AI scrapers could or could not mimic a screen reader well enough in an individual case.
So, require an expensive-enough computation to access the true text, similar to the anti-DDOS measures that gate many full webpages today (admittedly, I'm not well-versed in how these affect scrapers). As annoying as these pages may be - or extra button clicks to "reveal" true text to a screen reader - this seems like a very pro-human space to explore, since it's one mechanism that can affect bots greatly and us individual viewers relatively little.
Governments and their agencies shouldn't have any access to the communications of private citizens. If something like terrorism is the issue, the correct response is to use the wealth and resources of the government to address the root causes of those attacks, not to undermine my right to privacy.
This is untrue when private citizens are in conflict (legal or physical or whatever) and the dispute needs to be mediated or resolved. The 'root cause' may well be she said/he said and the legal system may well have need to resolve this by looking at private communications.
Strong emphasis on the legal system part, but you've completely dismissed that private communications frequently are required to address causes of issues and the word subpoena makes it rather clear that refusing to comply comes with penalty.
A couple years ago I got a bunch of recycled low density DS/DD disks here. It was a good deal; yeah I had to clean em off a bit, and I also re-labeled them with some newer labels. But a good deal nonetheless. I approve.
Is the OS 9 build supposed to include Blue Shift and Opposing Force, or is that only a reference to the Tiger and Leopard ports? Just tried out the Tiger port on my iMac G4; it also runs fine!
Hey, glad to hear it's running on your iBook and I really appreciate the feedback! Hopefully you're not having any mouse look problems, or invisible NPCs... I've got a fix for those issues coming soon, as well as a separate build of Blue Shift and Opposing Force.
The current Blue Shift and Opposing Force builds are for Tiger and Leopard only. Cheers!
I ran the OS 9 installer, then was doing a few other things around the apartment and when I got back, it had crashed. So I reopened it, reran it, and it seems all the files had successfully been copied, so all it effectively did the second time was prompt me to create shortcuts.
I haven't extensively tested it beyond the initial parts of the training room because I didn't have time. I didn't notice anything odd; it seemed to run just fine.
The removal of window chrome was a gigantic mistake and we're all paying for it every day. Having to tolerate the extra mental overhead caused by the removal of such affordances in UIs every single time I use a computer makes me wonder whether we're all actually dead and in hell... Like that old SMBC comic where a guy in heaven stubs his toe every hour, and realizes it's actually hell. That's what this is.
I wonder how the legalities of this work. If people write in "Count Binface" or if that's the name on the ballot, then if he wins, does that mean Jonathan David Harvey (the actual name of the guy who plays him) is elected? Does Count Binface count as an alias? If not, he required to use that name while in office - or more precisely, is he not considered a member if he goes by his own name?
If he goes into the parliament building without his costume, it would be a bit awkward if, say, they were required to address him by his Count Binface alias.
Or, perhaps they wouldn't care too precisely about the naming aspect, since everyone knows who he is, but politics is vicious and I'm sure there are plenty who would use any possible legal maneuver to keep him out of parliament. Surely there are laws to handle these kinds of discrepancies around someone's identity... right? Laws that could get him kicked out?
If he actually wins, would he try to do some serious good or would he keep the joke going? Should he actually prepare a serious "if I actually win the election" policy list? It would conflict with his joke list since he would be asked more questions about the real one. Or would he just have one big mixed list split 50/50 between jokes and serious ideas?
In my experience in the UK aliases and names are used in a rather flexible way compared to other countries. Anybody can decide on a name and start using it. It's not illegal unless it is done for the purpose of deceiving people.
If people commonly use it to refer to them it makes it that person's name for most purposes. Changing the name officially also requires only an affirmation or an oath at a court, although I don't think this would be the case here.
I think nobody would care much and the majority of politicians would go along with Count Binface as the proper way of address, because it'd be rude to do otherwise. Not the least because picking a fight with Count Binface would be seen as getting themselves dirty in non-serious politics. Not a very attractive proposition to be perceived as such for most political parties no matter how ridiculous their actions might be otherwise.
In Parliament, members are referred to by the place they represent, eg "The Right Honourable Member for Harry Pottershire" rather than their names. It's a way to make things less personal.
In fact, "naming" an MP is mark of having broken the rules:
I like it as a reminder that they're there to represent their constituents, and it means lesser known places are regularly mentioned in parliament (what with it being in London)
The indirect debate strategy has always baffled me (people addressing the speaker instead of the person across the aisle), but it's a really interesting way to frame a debate and to - theoretically - avoid ad hominems. Of course in UK politics they can still say stuff like "Mr. Speaker, I believe the right honourable lord of whatsit is being rather silly".
Huh that's new. I knew you guys don't have any official government ID (and that it was an issue in Blair era) but I didn't knew you don't even have legal names.
We have official government ID (the national insurance number, roughly equivalent to a USian SSN), but names aren't expected to reliably link it in one hop, and we're politically averse to laws that require citizens to produce it in various circumstances, e.g. carrying ID cards, even though in practice most people do carry some form of government-sanctioned ID. Name changing is mostly limited by the fact that it becomes the duty of the person using a different name to laboriously link the new name to any previous names they've used wherever you need some paperwork in a different name. E.g. you need to provide your NI number to be employed, which typically means you need to have a paper trail back to it across any renames you might have had.
Your legal name is whatever you want it to be at any given time, you can just order a new passport or drivers license with ~whatever name you want written on it.
For a passport, the only real requirement is vague evidence that you actually use the name.
You can also have multiple names listed on your passport: for example, if you have a public and private name, or if you're a noble. I've found that the "vague evidence" requirement is actually quite strict, though: even if you use a name in 95% of everyday contexts, the passport office only counts bureaucratic evidence, and there are circular dependencies with most bureaucracies unless you produce a deed poll (which requires you to attest that you only have one name, for some reason: I'm not familiar enough with the law to know whether this is a real requirement, or just ceremonial language like the "I promise that a Catholic will never succeed to the throne" bit in the coronation ceremony). So the de facto rules about passport names are stricter than names in general.
This is gradually getting tightened by the database state for all the usual reasons (hostility to immigrants and trans people); you can get away without ID as long as you don't want to work, claim benefits, rent a house, buy one, or have a bank account. Other than that, you're fine.
The first name component of the name "Boris Johnson" is Boris. It's just as valid a name as any other name he goes by, for both social and legal purposes.
His birth name, and I believe still his legal name, is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. But he is "commonly known as" Boris Johnson, so that's what can go on the ballot paper, although his full name must still go on the registration documents. Count Binface is in the same situation.
Since he gave up his US citizenship in 2016, I don't think he's subject to a jurisdiction where "legal name" is a meaningful notion. Ultimately, this means his first name is whatever he says it is (provided that he isn't lying): you'd have to ask him. Supposing that his answer changes depending on the social context, then both "Alexander" and "Boris" would be valid answers for "what is this person's first name?".
Count Binface is in a different situation, because "Count Binface" is a stage name, which he (presumably) doesn't go as in his real life. However, stage names are still considered legal enough to go on your UK passport. Ultimately, whether he would be allowed to write "Count Binface" as his name on the registration documents would depend on what the Electoral Commission decides. I had a look last week, but couldn't find their rules.
>Ultimately, whether he would be allowed to write "Count Binface" as his name on the registration documents would depend on what the Electoral Commission decides. I had a look last week, but couldn't find their rules.
One can stand for election using any name that one is "commonly known by".
The first word in the two word phrase "Boris Johnson" is indeed Boris.
The full birth certificate name of the former "born American" PM is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, so arguably that person's "first name component" isn't Boris alone.
> If he goes into the parliament building without his costume
If the people vote for a man in a bin costume then he should have the right to represent them in that very same costume. On the other hand, to satisfy both his desire for a costumes as well as parliament's rules that basically allow its members to look at each other eye to eye, he might switch to a transparent bin. Something that would benefit the whole country as transparent bins allow its users as well as the bin (wo)men to identify bins that have been filled with the wrong waste.
>If he goes into the parliament building without his costume, it would be a bit awkward if, say, they were required to address him by his Count Binface alias.
Members of Parliament aren't allowed to address each other by name in the Commons chamber.
All debate must be addressed to the Speaker (or Deputy Speaker if one of them are chairing the debate).
References to other members are made in the form of "the X member for Y constituency", where X is:
- "honourable" (the default);
- "right honourable" if they are sworn of the Privy Council (i.e. they've been a minister in the past);
- "learned and honourable member" (a qualified lawyer); or
- "gallant and honourable member" (somebody who has served in the armed forces).
We're super flexible on name law in the UK. I could change my name right now and just use it, I dont need any formal approval or anything to do so. It only becomes a legal issue if you do it for legally questionable reasons.
The biggest practical obstacle, other than getting elected, is the dress code for the house of commons which disallows military uniform, disallows face covering (while voting), and requires smart business attire. You could argue that he might be in violation of all three!
I know you are explaining in earnest but the way you ended and formatted it is sooo (un?)intentionally funny. Like, of all the stunts Binface is pulling, the name is the least legitimate of concerns.
Kinda like what they say about the poor people of Clacton having to choose between a joke trash candidate and Count Binface.
What's this type of makes-you-do-double-take, got-me-in-the-first-half-ngl humor called other than just British?
The British constitution is unwritten and based on centuries of convention which are so old they are considered law... Sort of.
From what I can tell there isn't anything about identity in the way you're suggesting. However there are conventions and regulations around dress in the Commons which preclude wearing hats.
As for what he'd do if he won, he hasn't said so far. However he does have a policy list which includes nationalising Adel and building 1 affordable home. As an MP he could campaign for those and attempt to table a private members bill.
I think the answer to a lot of these questions is "we don't know". He's been running in various campaigns for years, this is just the first time he's the only other candidate in a potentially high profile campaign.
I hope some Oxfoed PPE students will be using this for their dissertations.
UK is very flexible with names; see for example how former Prime Minister Boris Johnson's full name is "Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson", but his parliamentary profile just says "Boris Johnson" https://members.parliament.uk/member/1423/career
Also, in 2002, Richard James changed his name to “Mr Yellow-Rat Foxysquirrel Fairydiddle”, in exchange for a pint of beer*.
You're not allowed to use a deed poll to give yourself a title, so the "Count" part of "Count Binface" may need to be changed, but specifically because he presents himself as an intergalactic space lord, the official example (for passports) is with "Doctor" being used as a first name being fine when it's not a fake title: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-names-we-use-...
* It says something about the world we live in that my effort to find the story about Mr Fairydiddle returned one of my own comments on hacker news rather than a newspaper: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26375394
There's slightly more controversy about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_Manivannan , who is perfectly calibrated to annoy the maximum number of rightwingers: nonbinary immigrant on a temporary visa with a one-letter chosen name.
There are (fortunately) very few rules on who's allowed to be an MP. The public are supposed to be the ultimate arbiter. The rule against being elected while in prison was only introduced after Bobby Sands MP, for example. Otherwise the rules seem mainly concerned that you're not bankrupt or holding an ineligible state office.
Also, parliament has a rule against wearing costumes like this. But Count Binface called that rule "binist" and claimed there was some wiggle room in the way the rule was worded :)
I think leaving the seat empty if he wins is the only possible choice, both legally and democratically. He should make it clear that this is what would happen if he gets elected so the people of Clacton know what they are voting for.
I think Erskine May just says "Members should dress in business-like attire" - so maybe if he had a special 'business bin' as opposed to a 'smart-casual bin' he could argue the point.
He would though have to remove the bin for votes at the least
I'd say standards have dropped so low, we may as well let in fancy dress. Lots of people in cheap thin dresses with no jacket [0] (some show knee when sat, even half an upper leg! [1]), boat shoes, white suits etc. They look like a collection of wedding guests.
Let's not get started on the sexism against men with Hoyle wanting them to wear ties and a jacket but for women just 'business-like' is expected.
Rewriting the region drawing code in my LisaGUI project so it does per-word bitwise operations instead of per-pixel calculations. I'm using Claude to help plan and debug it, but I'm being careful to review all its outputs and make sure I fully understand what it's suggesting and why. I don't want to lose all my neurons to this thing...
(...and yes, I see I'm not the first to suggest this.)
reply