class4behavior

Then write and highlight exactly that! ( e.g. "Never copy or execute code you do not understand! This is only for people who already know what will happen! Confirm:")

Forget about teaching people bad patterns. It's annoying when others assume everyone experiencing something under the same context and considers the same things as them.

> “The easy route for us would be just to cut off foreign involvement entirely and not include foreign authors. And that to us is a concession to some form of xenophobia.”

I mean, what else so you expect if you elect a majority of actual fascists? A fascist discriminates on every front imaginable. Things haven't become much worse simply because of the filibuster.

You're interpreting my post with the assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about. You don't need to explain the protocol to me.

Domain here referred to the area of influence or control, like what the provider of a relay effectively has. The fact that other groups can run any element of the infra themselves doesn't change the fact that the drift towards centralization is much greater with ATP than with AP.

ATP has its own uses (quick aggregation) but it doesn't even attempt to solve fundamental issues of current ecosystem of social networking,. AP, on the other hand, offers the foundation for further development in the right direction.

Although the Manus decision might change things for AI, Singapore-washing is quite rampant among Chinese companies, so I wouldn't call this place of origin an alternative market.

Calling AP services a bunch of small "centralized" services in this context removes all the meaning from that term. You might as well call any web server centralized while comparing them to clouds.

Proper federation is exactly such bunch of small services messaging each other. On the hand, what ATProto leads to is at most a handful of large-scale providers each running the own portion of the network.

ATProto simply ignores the need for decentralizing incentives on a human/community level. What we get is a sort of a "top-down" federation rather than a grass-roots one. Whoever invests in the infra ends up running a domain.

I mean, practically no one is aware of any other ATPROTO provider other than Bluesky whereas the issue with AP is merely the lack of better implementations, so mastodon.social got the most attention and the hype died off with niche success.

Inclusivity is secondary here. Moreover, it's just fallacious to argue the nation has to give up on its own rights and principles and be content with whatever the market provides.

There's a big difference between having to run a particular company's OS and being forced to share private data (whether that's merely your DNS requests or your ID documents and full financial history). with said organization.

Your disdain isn't helpinh you here either as you're just as wrong as parent.

Such public utilities ought to always prioritize privacy, platform-independence, and empowering market competion long- and short-term. And to achieve that you need to start at the design level.

In this case, clearly, you either have to avoid relying on app attestation or lay the foundation for an unrestricted number of independent chain of trust frameworks.

The latter, of course, is a policy-level issue, but the ones responsible for the design and development are the ones who need to pass such concerns up the chain.

Tell me why all MMOs are crap or just fail and as a result turned into a gambling institution.

Anyone's basic expectation is that your sourcedis a valid one, but like Wikipedia is not a source and neither are LLMs/MMMs.

JfC, this is so confidently wrong, it's absurd.

It's really sad no one just looks up the legal principles conservatives are pushing forward together with Trump.

Here, it's the unified executive theory, which is based on how the US system had worked for its first century.

Same with the birthright citizenship. The conservative argument is actually to a degree fairly reasonable. If I say this, then the current SC will surely rule in favor.

Just read the Wiki for an intro on the details.

Misleading headline: It's productivity loss caused by non-essential data collection.

The EU does not mandate banners, it's the businesses choosing to bully their customers into accepting all tracking and profiling.

Privacy is not about secrets.

Privacy is the right to sovereignty over one's personal/intimate sphere - whether it's insight to information about oneself or physical contact. The right to consent, for instance, would be a component of the right to privacy.

It's about power. And by extension it's about the power balance between the people and any intruder of their private sphere, whether it's a friend, a stranger, the public, the state, the law and so on.

In other words, the less privacy there is the less effective power both the individual as well as the entire people have.

That's why it's a basic human right.

The crowd stagnates. Everyone looks to the right, to the left. After a moment of thought they turn around: "Democracy-destroying ad-hell it is then."

Is it the rendering or the selection of fonts?

The withdrawal also once again established that the nation doesn't care about its responsibility and the consequences of its actions (Iraq -> Daesh, AF->Taliban and all achieved progress and hope ruined), only its own costs and troops (go-to excuse for AF: how long do you expect us to stay?)

When it comes to AI, I'm less interested in the aspect of copyright infringement - it's more of an anti-trust issue, imho - as in the privacy concerns that the tech enables, but if you can forbid reverse engineering of your product, I don't see how's that that much different with AI.

Besides, no harm to the market of the original works? They're quite shameless.

Let's not pretend Americans did not eat up all his philanthropy in the name of the children, thus boosting his influence in politics:

https://www.reddit.com/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/qrx02w/sh...

https://www.reddit.com/r/wholesomememes/comments/a8dral/asht...

https://www.reddit.com/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/mo7krd/as...

https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/5uh8rq/ashton_kutcher...

https://www.reddit.com/r/gatekeeping/comments/ca386l/ashton_...

https://www.reddit.com/r/HumansBeingBros/comments/aki1c1/ash...

Afaik all of these threads reached the front page. And that's just the oh so skeptical Reddit community

I get that someone would do it anyway, but why would the poster want to be the one helping an authoritarian entity fix these loopholes? smh

Sure, but how does that address what I said?

As I just argued, due diligence wouldn't have uncovered any surprises. It's merely that Elon could have used the process to ascertain what consequences the acquisition would have for his own assets (compatibility/marketing audit) and what his ideas would lead to.

You need first to understand a perspective before you judge it. That's what cultural difference is and a lot of it is at play here. Good or bad, this is a different style of life. Not to mention that it is not unusual for executives or board members to have their personal priorities, especially in the art industry.

But, even in that context, they did a horrible presentation. At least from this clip they appear like full-blown nerds with low EQ who didn't consider what kind of person their senior they will present this to is like. Any fan could have told them HM wouldn't like the animation and it would not reveal what DL can do.

Due diligence usually refers to the review of the asset you're trying to acquire. There weren't any significant surprises about Twitter's state. Elon's issue was Elon.

You won't get far with that approach in communication with such people on social media. That is, assuming the fault isn't with you, if you're on the spectrum, for instance, etc.

As you correctly realized yourself it is not common for people on social media to read attentively and between the lines, discern fallacies, take prior context into account or to focus on the objective substance of a subject without involving any personal attachments.

So you need to make sure you write down your entire thought process with quotes and examples. Don't skip even the obvious. Tell your position from a personal point of view, like this post, rather than formulating a more generalized, abstract argument.

Naturally, that part applies before someone starts trolling or becomes hostile.

When they do, then mute and move on. If you have no other goals, such a conversation is less than a drop in the ocean.

Whether research is generally undifferentiated, as you claim, is not the same as specific research that proves that screen time is undifferentiated.

In other words, are you saying there are no such evidence as parent asserted?

It's betraying the word shameful in that it's an utter understatement.

If people don't care about supporting companies that enable and spread far-right content and groups, it's they who are a problem.

To say nothing of the pure disregard of the human right to privacy (and with AI now IP as well) that is forced on the the rest of the world by the dominance of the US market.

It's 5 and 10 in AUS/NZ, 15 in Canada, 10 in the UK, 15 in the EU, 10 in Sweden, 20 in France, etc. for normal adults

>In most countries

You claim this based on what data?

Libraries acquire proper licenses for a particular manner of use. That license takes into account what a human and technology are capable of. Moreover, even beyond that, you aren't allowed to just utilize an IP however you wish just because you managed to memorize the contents.

I'm not someone in favor of overly broad copyright and authors' rights but it's certainly not an either nothing or everything dilemma.