"Must" in a headline means "won't."
this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2025
161 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
67050 readers
3851 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Meanwhile, in tech giants' boardrooms across the country:
“Must”
hello, police? I need to report a misuse of RFC 2119
Since nobody looks things up anymore:
Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels
...
- MUST This word, or the terms "REQUIRED" or "SHALL", mean that the definition is an absolute requirement of the specification.
I shouldn’t be surprised there is an act allowing Big Brother to surreptitiously request data on reporters. Dubs and Dick really stuck it to us over with the Patriot Act and everything that followed.
I don’t see why this doesn’t constitute a constitutional crisis. This is exactly why there is a first amendment.
Yeah... we've been well past the point of constitutional crises that never get addressed or even an eye batted toward them for decades lol.
Press freedom has been fucked for so long.
One of the few things I agree with Thomas Jefferson concerning the actual functioning of the US government is that the Constitution should be revisited and updated more often. It would definitely encourage greater awareness of the document and keep many from both (1) having it used as a dogmatic/pseudoreligious excuse to fit into whatever narrative the oligarchs hope to push and (2) failing to enshrine fundamental liberties in a national codex.
As it is, we're way too far gone for that shit and I think a complete restructuring is in order, which I don't think will happen in our current union. Gonna take some major change and pain to get there.
the Constitution should be revisited and updated more often
Trump would love that...
That's why I'm saying we're way too far gone for that lol I agree. It's predicated on democratic systems working and those have been broken for a while.
Edit: We've been fucked since Marbury v. Madison and the electoral college, but the idea of a less dogmatic approach to the constitution from the get go has its upsides. Way too late for that and I'm thinking in terms of future societies building off of what might have been done better.
I’d argue that FPTP is the real barrier. It makes it a FACT that we can only have two parties.
Absolutely true. I wasn't even thinking about voting systems with my comments but definitely a significant barrier.
Unless it’s a leak within Meta, Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft, or X of course.
America demands retribution.