"AI assistance" is still not welcome in general. AI security reports are.
52,073 karma · joined January 25, 2010
Fediverse: https://social.joshtriplett.org/@josh
Twitter: @josh_triplett
GitHub Sponsors: https://github.com/sponsors/joshtriplett/
Homepage: https://joshtriplett.org
FOSS developer. Rust Project developer on the language, library, and Cargo teams.
Flock should stop existing. I hope people help them with that, enthusiastically.
It's also the wrong way around: apps shouldn't ask for an age range, apps should provide one and the OS should do the checking.
I also object to it because it's a foot in the door for demanding that websites and apps care about that age range.
And most importantly, devices already provide parental controls in practice, and this law doesn't make those any better, it just unnecessarily cements one aspect of them into law. You can, already, on many devices, say "don't allow installing apps without permission", or "don't allow installing apps except those with this rating".
Llama has never been open source. It's source-available, but still proprietary, under terms that (among other things) say "no competing with us, you have to buy a license for that".
You are assuming that age verification must necessarily happen. It needs to be destroyed at every possible juncture.
It moves the Overton window, making worse things easier to pass in the future. And it enforces requirements on projects the state should have zero jurisdiction over.
It is impossible to win a battle you stop fighting.
"never show fear" and "never engage intelligence" are two different things. Understand what people will do in response to your actions, and act accordingly to achieve the outcomes you want. Please by all means fight the law, and do so intelligently in a way that will actually help.
Also reach out to the EFF, who may be able to help/advise, especially if you genuinely want to fight this.
This is a terrible law. That doesn't mean it's not a law, and courts do not look kindly on people subject to their jurisdiction (which unfortunately often includes state laws to people in other states) who try to dodge the responsibility the court thinks they should have.
(Though, that said, some approaches to rendering sites via JavaScript would still have that text in the initially downloaded HTML file as JavaScript data.)
As for the "or", I read it as "doing either X or Y must", not "either X must or Y must (not necessarily both)", but yeah, I can see either interpretation being valid.
And in any case, at some point after browsers start doing that, I will be unsurprised if some further conditions prevail that provide reason for web servers to stop listening on http at all.
Even if you interpreted the bet generously to allow for a browser to render the content using JavaScript, if I understand the bet correctly, the condition of working with a command-line tool like curl would fail.
The part of this that's most likely to fail at some point is the "http://".
It is also possible that depression itself is more widespread. But it seems exceedingly likely that acceptance, willingness to talk about it, and general understanding that the correct answer to "chemical imbalance in the brain" is not "cheer up!", have improved substantially.
1) It's optimized for the restaurant first, and the patrons second or not at all, and it shows.
2) Someone thinks "hey, we could sell ads on this", and now it's even more a piece of garbage. (This is also what happened with all the little kiosk-tablets on the tables at some restaurants. We just set them face-down on their screen and talk to a human.)
3) Most of them never anticipate unexpected problems. They might have an "order X" button, but they often don't even have a "call server" button. And when they do, it often doesn't work, because the other end isn't hooked up to something that gets people's attention.
The much lower-tech and more enjoyable solution I've seen used successfully many many times is a call button on the table. Press the button if you want service. Bonus if it has a "press this other button if you want to be left alone".
If there were ameliorating details about those events, that might be salient. And if there's something genuinely more important, if they cured cancer, they might get to be known as "MacGregor, who cured cancer and fornicated with sheep", the way that Weiner's biography says "American politician and sex offender" (observe that the author also remembers that he's a politician). But "bridge builder" and "worked on XYZ legislation", by comparison, are not information-theoretically important for people to remember.
And I fully expect that to do it properly, we would need to have a government-revenue-to-GDP ratio higher than our current near-rock-bottom on that scale.
Not automatically, but you can attempt to get them back through the court.
The combination of UBI and healthcare largely should. UBI serves as a better alternative to most such programs (and has much less administrative overhead).
Also, any form of UBI will likely result in substantial spending increases (trickle-up economics is well-established as actually working, incremental dollars handed to the average person are typically spent, not saved), as well as reducing structural friction in the labor market (people can change jobs more easily).
> Without more productive capacity
UBI will also likely result in more businesses/entrepreneurship, R&D, and other substantial improvements to productive capacity. Studies generally show that UBI does not cause people to substantially leave the job market.
Em-dashes have a long literary history, which is where AI got them from, and they're genuinely useful in writing. We shouldn't let LLMs ruin that for us in literature. The fact that they've historically been less common in online writing is in part because of deficiencies in input systems, though they're easy enough to type with a compose key or similar, or a typesetting system that interprets `---` as `—`.