Yep, did a speed run of foundation, intermediate and full in the UK back in 2016 (within the year). Full means I can build radios up to 400W, which is nice. Not sure I actually could though now, without a LOT of revision. At least if "the collapse" comes in my lifetime I might know which components to gather.
Sold Yaesu portable unit at the height of COVID after some fun with it. Still mess with the HTs sometimes but looking for an opportunity (time wise) to get back into it.
I'm part of a code club at the local school, and would love to show them radio too, spark that curiosity and imagination. I think it'll be out of scope for this year though.
I concur, and find it abhorrent. And wish more people would kick up a stink about this. We need a publication or channel that talks about rights like this. I don't know of any that do a decent job. I donate to my local best option.
Was forced to verify to get access to a new account. Like, an interstitial page that forced verification before even basic access.
Brief context for that: was being granted a salesnav licence, but to my work address with no account attached to it. Plus I had an existing salesnav trial underway on main account and didn't want to give access to that work.
So I reluctantly verified with my passport (!) and got access. Then looked at all the privacy settings to try to access what I'd given, but the full export was only sign up date and one other row in a csv. I switched off all the dark pattern ad settings that were default on, then tried to recall the name of the company. Lack of time meant I haven't been able to follow up. I was deeply uncomfortable with the whole process.
So now I've requested my info and deletion via the details in the post, from the work address.
One other concern is if my verified is ever forced to be my main, I'll be screwed for contacts and years of connections. So I'll try to shut it down soon when I'm sure we're done at work. But tbh I don't think the issues will end there either.
Why do these services have to suck so much. Why does money confer such power instead of goodwill, integrity and trust/trustless systems. Things have to change. Or, just stay off the grid. But that shouldn't have to be the choice. Where are the decentralised services. I'm increasingly serious about this.
> Was forced to verify to get access to a new account. Like, an interstitial page that forced verification before even basic access.
I'm forced to verify to access my existing account.
I cannot delete it, nor opt out of 'being used for AI content' without first handing them over even more information I'm sure will be used for completely benign purposes.
About a year ago I wanted to check out LinkedIn. Signed up with my real name, added my employer and past employers, verified my current work email address etc.
About 24 hours later, when logging in to pick up where I left off, I'm redirected to a page that tells me that my account has been locked. For the safety of my account, I needed to verify my identity to continue.
I refused to do so, for the same reasons this article highlights. So I wanted to delete my account and never return. Guess what? You can't delete your account without first verifying.
It took me a few frustrating months of trying to email their DPO (data protection officer) and filling out forms, constantly being routed to regular support with very unhelpful support staff. I actually contacted the Irish data protection agency thing (I'm not Irish, but european), and while waiting for them to process the case, I miraculously got a reply from LinkedIn that my account deletion was being processed.
Kids in Oz were getting around social media age restrictions by holding up celeb photos. I doubt that'll work in this case, but I'd be tempted to start thinking of ways to circumvent.
At the risk of losing the account, it's a very bad situation they are forcing people into.
I understand, and even agree, that how this is being handled has some pretty creepy aspects. But one thing missing from the comments I see here and elsewhere is: How else should verification be handled? We have a real problem with AI/bots online these days, trust will be at a premium. How can we try to assure it? I can think of one way: Everyone must pay to be a member (there will still be fraud, but it will cost!). How else can we verify with a better set of tradeoffs?
How about everyone gets a digital certification from their own government that this is the person named this and that. No need to share cranial measurements and iris scans.
Well, different trade offs there. On the plus side, sounds pretty simple. On the other hand...
Digital certification from the gov sounds a lot like "digital ID", which has run into considerable resistance in the UK and EU in just the last few months. As a general observation I find most EU citizens I interact with much more trusting of government than ... well, any other group of folks I have interacted with (I have the privilege of having lived and worked in S. America, N. America, sub Saharan Africa and now an EU country). If it does not fly well here, I don't think its general solution that most people would be comfortable with.
Having lived in borh the UK and Poland I was very surprised (given history) to find how comfortable, in comparison, Poles are with ID requirements, tax ID to join gyms and football clubs compared to the UK whicb still resists mandatory ID. There does seem to be a UK EU divide here
There should be no verification. The idea of a single platform where every worker is listed, identified, and connected to other people he/she knows IRL is scary. It shouldn't exist.
> Identity
>
> Verified using government ID in March 2025
Not that I would necessarily trust a verification badge for someone who controls the company with the responsibility for generating verification badges.
Let’s not forget Persona is linked to Peter Thiel. When Thiel and his friends support the government snatching citizens off the streets, there is unacceptable risk with forcing job seekers and the like to create accounts on LinkedIn.
They can do what they please. Its due to the network effects. The tie-ins of tech are so strong, I'd wager that %99 of why they succeed has nothing to do with competency or making a product for the user, just that people are too immobile to jump ship for too many reasons. Its staggering how much stronger this is than what people give credit for. Its as if you registered all your cells with a particular pain medication provider, and the idea of switching pills makes one go into acute neurosis.
Someone needs to reimplement a "clean" version of its functionality: professional networking is too important to be left to the data hoarders/government surveillance cluster of organizations.
Besides, its UX has decayed to a "Facebook for the employed", where John Doe praises himself for mastering a mandatory training at work or taking Introduction to HTML at "Harvard" via Coursera.
The problem is a competitor will never be able to succeed without doing the same thing. Try to compete as a "free" service and you'll have to sell ads, try to charge and you'll never get enough signups to fund the business.
Wait, what do they teach in North America? Never heard the term "following distance" before now. Sounds misleading.
In Britain at least we call it "braking distance" and you're supposed to leave 2 seconds at least between you and the person in front. Count it off a lamp post/sign etc.
In certain at-risk areas they use chevrons on the road and signs telling you to keep at least 2 chevrons between you and the car in front.
People definitely always get into my braking distance in slower moving traffic, so that happens here too of course. But when things are moving well I likely push the limit and am generally moving faster than most others: going by GPS speed vs speedo, pushing a little into the discretionary and unofficial +10% guidance etc. And weirdly enough I do this for safety and fuel economy.
I generally prefer to avoid other vehicles as much as possible in all situations. But I was a motorbike rider in my youth. Once a defensive driver...
From that perspective, following distance sounds way more like a gap I want to close up than braking distance does.
> In Britain at least we call it "braking distance" and you're supposed to leave 2 seconds at least between you and the person in front. Count it off a lamp post/sign etc.
Indeed, that is the usual definition in the US for following distance. Along with a typical example of how to determine it for yourself.
We usually use the term braking distance to describe the distance that would be required to stop the car based on current conditions and speed. This is not necessarily going to be the same as the following distance.
I do not know how they came up with the 2-4 second following distance recommendation. As you point out, this is in line with what the UK recommends as well. Probably it is a compromise between safety and practicality.
> It would have to be further than braking distance to be at least as safe?
Other way around. Following distance can be less, because the guy you are following cannot stop instantly unless he hits an immovable object or gets into a head-on crash. If he panic stops, then as long as your car performs similarly in braking you just need to have enough distance to allow for your own reaction time.
AFAIK braking distance for most cars is around 5 seconds at highway speed. Few people routinely set their following distance that long.
Braking distance and following distance are two distinct things.
Following distance is the rule that you should leave a 2 second gap in front of you. That is often less distance than the braking distance.
You should be always able to see that your braking distance is or will be clear, and that sets the maximum speed you should drive at as you approach areas with reduced visibility, like corners or the brow of a hill. You must learn braking distances for the driving test.
I guess I should talk about some benefits to users, and who users should be.
For: localisation departments, dev teams who want AI translation with human polish (which persists into future projects), language service providers, translation agencies and solo translators or small teams who want access to LLM work at scale.
Does: traditional CAT tool jobs - fast TM matching across millions of segments, but also full QA (think Xbench, 35+ checks), full LQA (check every segment for linguistic issues), dubbing and subbing uploaded videos or YT links, voice cloning and full timing adjustments.
Innovations: use language assets from any language to improve LLM outcomes, use condensed versions of famous style guides, custom rules per client, connectors with previews and screenshot integration, content creation studio for multilingual inspiration.
I've tried to make the tool appeal to linguists, with speed and features they'll like, as well as the corporate side with detailed analysis, scoring, and maximal use of existing use (penalties, priorities, cross language).
I read it last year, enjoyed the book, no existential crisis.
I already subscribed to the idea of the self and identity being independent and constructs. A lot of reflection around that and physics in younger years maybe helped.
Not to stand up for bad laws, but what is wrong with everyone in the comments? On what planet would they not have considered all angles? The peanut gallery has gotten ridiculously loud of late.
