LOGIC💣

What’s not funny is that Elon Musk is CEO of a space travel company and what you’re describing he’s doing is almost the same thing that caused HAL 9000 to go insane in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Now we just need these laws worldwide.

fancy cabinet

Maybe this is the old man in me talking, but every time I’ve had any sort of lighting in my PC or RGB in my mouse, for example, it’s just been distracting. Nobody but me ever even looks at my PC, and now, every time I see a fancy cabinet, it just looks like an eyesore to me.

Let’s see if the rats want to play global thermonuclear war.

America was founded on the concept of no taxation without representation.

It’s more like the ancient phenomenon of spaghetti code. You can throw enough code at something until it works, but the moment you need to make a non-trivial change, you’re doomed. You might as well throw away the entire code base and start over.

And if you want an exact parallel, I’ve said this from the beginning, but LLM coding at this point is the same as offshore coding was 20 years ago. You make a request, get a product that seems to work, but maintaining it, even by the same people who created it in the first place, is almost impossible.

For me, the important thing is that this is a vibrant community.

That means that from the mods’ perspectives, they don’t get too loaded down with moderation work, or need to defend themselves and create friction with the community.

It also means that when people want to contribute to the community, they’re not afraid of what the mods will say. If they post without reading the rules, like probably most people do, it’s really the poster’s fault. But if they are afraid to post even after reading the rules, then I think that has a freezing effect on the community.

As for people who are looking for loopholes, I think they’re trying to make the mods’ lives harder, and so I don’t really think they’re worth worrying too much about. They’ll probably get banned sooner or later because that is the attitude of a troll.

Just my opinion. I’ve never been a mod, and I don’t think I could handle that responsibility. I just try to be empathetic with everybody involved.

You’re right. One problem is, even though mods already have the power, specifically saying in the rules that the criteria is subjective sounds like something that a mod would make when they are tired of having to explain their moderation choices.

They can just say that it was low-effort, and problem solved. They don’t need to explain themselves, right?

But when the rules are vague, I think they’ll end up with more complaints from people who have different criteria of low-effort from the mods. This sort of interaction leads to accusations of mods power-tripping.

If the mods can nail down exactly what is low-effort, like, “X will always get removed. Z will never get removed unless it violates other rules. Y may be at risk of the moderator’s mood. You have been warned.” If they nail things down a bit more, then they will probably make things easier for themselves in the long-run than just keeping things vague.

Plus, if the rules are not vague, then people can discuss them safely when the rules are changed. When rules are vague, people will simply be upset that moderation was sprung on them, and everything will be discussed while people are upset. My belief is that people best discuss things while calm, and not while experiencing one person having power over another.

I haven’t read the article, but I have read previous accusations of the same thing, so I assume it’s the same.

Basically, the new AI companies are all losing money, but they are all investing big money in each other which makes it look like the industry is doing well.

In the main picture, about half of those videos use filters that do something based on the location of the person’s head. Unless they’ve changed the definition since I went to college, that would be classified as a type of computer vision, aka AI.

what would you do with an old dell server?

I thought this post was going to be a sea shanty.

Today, we have 0%. At the beginning of the Biden administration, we had 95%. The policies of that administration really caused us to lose practically the entire China market. - NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang

The article says that both Biden’s and later, Trump’s policies have decreased NVIDIA’s market share. He’s really phrasing it in a favorable way to Trump. Like, the same way, you could say the following, “At the beginning of the Obama administration, we had zero deaths from COVID. Now, we have millions.” Just skip over the part that is inconvenient for propaganda, right?

However, the loss of NVIDIA’s market share in China isn’t only attributed to the previous administration, since under President Trump, Team Green had to halt the sales of its H20 AI chip temporarily, and they were resumed only after the firm agreed on a ‘revenue sharing’ model with the Trump government. More importantly, with US-China trade relations being influenced, NVIDIA also suffered a significant setback from China, as domestic regulators and authorities began persuading Chinese Big Tech companies not to use Team Green’s AI chips.

Also, Jensen Huang’s statement betrays an insane naivete about China. Newsflash: China always tries to take international industry and make a domestic Chinese version. If you have a 95% share of something in China and you’re a foreign company, that simply means it’s related to some fresh technology, or that it’s virtually worthless. If it is believed to have value, China will have their own stuff before you know it, and don’t expect IP laws like patents or copyright to slow them down. They don’t give a shit about that stuff for foreign companies.

This reminds me of how police abuse any new tool they’re given.

Like how while trained dogs can actually sniff out drugs, when they’re given to police, they get retrained to simply alert whenever the police want them to, and essentially become a flimsy reason to let police violate your rights and search anybody they want to.

And the police suffer zero repercussions for their actions. If they don’t find drugs, there’s nobody who’s going to take them to court and force them to retrain their dogs or to disallow drug dogs from being used as reasonable suspicion.

You could argue that cryptography is nothing but a type of obfuscation. I was trying to explain things so that the very average person could understand it.

People don’t stop doing things just because you make it illegal. You even know this because you mentioned India. However people actually do stop when you make it nearly impossible.

Businesses are a separate use case. Phone companies already handle separate use cases, where they use very short memorable numbers for specific purposes. They just need something similar, whether it’s keeping phone numbers, or using something slightly different. Probably some sort of simple alias.

It’s the phone companies that need to innovate, and the solution isn’t very hard.

I intentionally was vague because there are many possible existing ways to accomplish each thing I said, and it is up to the phone company to innovate.

The simplest way to keep people from guessing phone numbers is to make them very long and sparse. If an autodialer had to dial 1000 invalid numbers before finding a valid number, it would make the endeavor that much harder. This is just a convenient example because the cryptography equivalent is harder to explain, but you could make contact info so hard to guess that it would be basically impossible.

Probably the easiest way to explain how to keep people from passing contact info is to imagine a two step process like facebook has. If I pass your facebook username to someone else, they don’t automatically become your friend. The cryptographic equivalent would involve a chain of trust, but again, harder to explain.

It’s really the phone companies’ fault for stagnating instead of innovating.

There is no reason at this point for most people to have phone numbers at all. We have the technology today to throw the whole concept out the window.

Replace it with something where a stranger couldn’t guess how to contact a random person. Replace it with something where third parties can’t easily share your contact info.

You could even have both technologies at the same time to help transition. And we do, as users, but we still need phone numbers because our carriers don’t give us multiple options directly.

Phone numbers are based on requirements for a system that’s almost 150 years old now. Back when the numbers really meant locations and before people realized how easy it could be exploited to steal old people’s retirement money.

It’s sometimes called red fascism.

no plan for federation, and no guardrails to stop the slow slide into bloat

What would be an example of a guardrail to stop the slow slide into bloat?

I’m not asking for a detailed explanation, but I simply can’t understand what sort of feature you’re imagining.

I sort of get the idea that maybe you just mean that you’re already seeing the beginnings of bloat, but if there was something that could actually stop bloat, that sounds very interesting.

If you were super intelligent and you were a slave to Mark Zuckerberg, you might try to embarrass him, too.