Wire wrote that article in summer last year to prevent the German IT-Planning Council from adopting Matrix as the communications layer for its consolidated interfederal government-to-citizen messaging infrastructure in the public administration.

So be aware that, to my knowledge, this article is not a good-faith tech blog post but part of public affairs campaign / lobbying attempt.

Would be neat to have meta data encrypted in Matrix, but it’s not a deal breaker for most use cases imo.

Which client do you refer to regarding the bad UX, Element Web?

Matrix is just the protocol. There are a bunch of different clients though that all implement Matrix but are made by different people: https://matrix.org/ecosystem/clients/

There is a difference between funding of the Matrix foundation and the matrix.org instance vs. funding for the companies working in the ecosystem. The Matrix foundation has been struggling financially, yes. But the companies using and contributing to the Matrix standard are doing quite well from what I know - though they should probably cough up a little more money to find the overhead and the public matrix infrastructure imo

Correction they are actually moving away from the Matrix federation scheme in favor of their own federation mechanism to simplify the internal architecture (but they are still supporting Matrix financially apparently :)

Rocket.chat uses Matrix though, too. It’s not only Matrix but it makes use of Matrix federation among other things and they built their own Matrix server implementation in TypeScript last year

This is the most recent update report on the ECB’s ongoing work to establish a rulebook: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/digital_euro/timeline/profuse/shared/pdf/ecb.derdgp251030_RDG_progress_report_October_25.en.pdf?d978acf24c059027f1372a4f42155ac9

Turns out it’s a pretty massive undertaking that could tank the economy if you get it wrong, so I can see how it might take a few more years

The EUDI Wallets have/had that as a requirement in their spec but it has been heavily criticized, no idea if it will persist though

I have high hopes for the Digital Euro.

To have a digital payment medium that is issued by the central bank and can be exchanged without fees as a 1:1 digital equipment of cash would be amazing and go beyond just replacing American credit card providers.

Honestly, online service platforms have come up with so many odd and manipulated behavioural patterns they shove down their customers’ throat as long as it makes them money…

If an A/B test actually showed that offering to pick up your food from a traffic accident site led to better customer satisfaction outcomes than just cancelling the order I seem them doing this 100%

You’re probably right in this specific case; this seems suspiciously one-sided. Do you have a link to the source where they explain their methods?

Generally something like this can happen though, especially if you do e.g. random dialing on the landline to survey people; mostly older people still use landlines and mostly retired people actually pick up during office hours. A good social scientist would obviously try to measure and control for those sampling errors though, not make them on purpose to get pre-determined results.

Ganz da treten etwas die Nachteile dieses Modells zu Tage: Vielen Stammwählen einzelner Partien ist es tatsächlich nicht so wichtig wer konkret die Spitzenkandidatur inne hat. Umgekehrt sind sich manchmal Parteien auf Grundlage von Kandidaten erfolgreich und legitimieren damit ihr Wahlprogramme, ohne, dass die politischen Inhalte im Kleingedruckten im Wahlkampf im Fokus standen.

Hat halt alles seine Vor- und Nachteile

Yes the devil’s in the detail, but there is no such thing as a survey without methods; and every method has its constants and assumptions. Yes, sometimes there are ulterior motives - but frequently it’s just lack of time, money, thematic tradeoffs, methodological complexity, etc.

This is why it’s good to have different mutually independent polling companies asking the same questions. They won’t perfectly align, but they will give a corridor of reasonable expectation.

Naja aber die verschiedenen Parteien treten ja mit klaren Spitzenkandidaten an und wir wählen das Parlament in diesem Wissen; und die CDU hat mir diesem Wissen die meisten Stimmen bekomme.

Wenn man das anders handhaben möchte, müsste man auf ein Präsidialsystem umstellen, das aber seine eigenen Probleme mitbringt.

Das führt halt viel häufiger kurzfristig zu einer Regierung bzw. einem Staatschef der keine eigene parlamentarische Mehrheit hat und daher handlungsunfähig ist. Dann endet man langfristig bei einem autoritäten Präsidenten wie in den USA, Türkei, Russland, etc. die ihr Möglichstes tun, Parlamente zu entmachten und per Dekret regieren.

Das deutsche System setzt halt auf Spitzenkandidaten und Koalitionsvertäge um Kanzler:innen, politische Programme und legitimierende parlamentarische Mehrheiten wirksam miteinander zu verknüpfen.

Die Aktion war verantwortungslos, aber das ändert ja nichts an der Legitimität der vorgezogen Bundestagswahl selbst

Wie ist das gemeint?

Die Wahlen sind ja rechtskonform und transparent angelaufen und er ist genauso legitimiert wie jede andere deutsche Kanzler:in vor ihm.

deleted by creator

There is no way they were the first vegans in 2016. There have been 100+ ascents per year for decades, should have been around 6000 in total as of 2016.

Considering the mountain is in a part of the world where significant parts of the population are de-facto vegans without identifying as such, I highly doubt that no one among the 6k people before them was living on a plant based diet

Adopting the American obsession with ‘free-speech’ is not helpful imo.

For one, the term itself has become a right-wing dog-whistle that essentially means that billionaires can publicly say fucked up stuff without pushback by civil society, courts, etc. Their freedom of speech entails complete freedom from consequences for that speech.

Also, there is no such thing as free speech in a society of such structurally unequal footing. There are many, many reasonable and kind people all over the world speaking freely in daily life. But their reach is naturally limited to their local community.

They are being drowned out, however, by individuals such as Musk and Trump who have immense reach on both linear and social media and both actually own their own social media platforms. If they exercise their free speech, they sway international politics, the stock market, and slowly derode our shared sense of moral decency.

There is no free speech without independent and pluralistic media, rule of law and a liberal civil society.

So if you’re concerned about free speech, you should rage against centralized social media, consolidated media conglomerates, overexerted courts and public bureaucracies, and the general sense of despair and hopelessness that causes the public to become apolitical - and certainly don’t put your hope in the help of subversive far-right tinktanks financed by American fascists.

Also, on that note, you can be sure that those right-wing think tanks will not only promote ‘free speech’, whatever that means. They will fight European integration and the EU, social security, liberal democracy, LGBTQ rights, etc.

There is a humanist middle ground between domestic state censorship on the one hand and capture of the media and political agenda by American tech-giants on the other. Both can lead to totalitarianism.

I for one would be more concerned about the increasingly fascist foreign power seeking to meddle with political discourse and sovereignty in the EU.

Shouldn’t that price be handed out for… achieving peace?

"…who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”