I could see it if it was a screen I get to control, akin to a smart mirror. Fridge door would be a pretty good surface since I’m guaranteed to look at it a couple of times each day.

Other than that, push notifications if the door is open? That’s about the max when it comes to usefulness I can imagine. Is that a problem that requires a connected device? No, probably not.

However, depending on the model range, it becomes difficult to even get a model that doesn’t have the “smart” features. No one can force you to connect the device though (yet).

Jesus, how do you people always come up with the most inane conspiracies. I have a company that manufactures devices that communicate wirelessly. The new RED is a huge pain in the ass, along with the CRA.

Absolutely no company pushed for this. The new legislations and directives cause a ton of additional work and obligations for companies, e. g. software has to be certified as part of the compliance check, things that were previously approved via self-reports now involve trusted 3rd parties, and reports of violations to government bodies are now mandatory.

And you know what, even though this costs a bunch of money that could go elsewhere and the whole thing is so new that even the certification bodies have no idea what is going on, even though we have to setup completely new processes, spend endless hours documenting things, I still appreciate both initiatives.

As an end customer, I would love if e. g. the software that runs on the mobile payment terminal taking my card info is certified. I would love if the developer of the software running on the PLC on my shop floor has to check CVEs, inform me about security issues and has to deliver 5 to 10 years of updates.

Not a fan of Samsung and their shitty software, but they’re simply preemptively covering their ass, nothing more.

I’d also still want to unlock my bootloader. I’m sure the whole legal situation will become less muddled, enabling just that.

Yes, but many things can be mapped to “language”, let’s say a grammar describing state machines, so it can be used to generate control actions.

Transformer models etc. are not only useful for conversational AI and translations.

I’d be fine with the approach as part of research advancing the field, but unfortunately, that’s not what we’re seeing.

Congratulations, this is how you get exploited by corporations.

Who says you can’t check their outputs? It’s much faster to e. g. read a generated text than to write everything yourself. Same applies to translations, they’ve been excellent for quite a while now.

Business communication can be handled effortlessly by AI. Of course you read the result before you send it out, but that takes an order of a magnitude less time than formulating and typing all those meaningless sentences.

And honestly, that’s a perfect use case for AI. I wouldn’t compose a love letter to my family using AI, but a pamphlet, feature description, sales pitch, any bullshit presentation deck? You bet AI excels at those.

Same applies to content summaries that help augment search indices. Finding a large number of content candidates (e. g. videos) and have AI summarize the contents of said videos to narrow down the search is helpful and works today.

I’m not looking for AGI. I’m looking for tools to make my life easier, but in an ethical manner that doesn’t advance the destruction of the planet at an exponential rate, just for some tech bro to jerk it and buy another yacht.

Those numbers are baseless exaggerations. There are plenty of tasks which they solve perfectly, today. It’s just that a bunch of dicks operate them, and the cost of operating them are way too high.

Also:

• environmental impact of AI
• unethical acquisition of training data
• dichotomy of how conservative politics treat AI company and private copyright law
• “undress AI” and deepfakes

It’s not that they’re not useful, that’s just nonsense.

Thank you. I’m so incredibly tired of propaganda guilt tripping consumers to feel personally responsible for issues that should be regulated and fixed by a competent government.

I don’t know what your previous setup was, but given that running resolved fixes your DNS issues, run:

ln -sf ../run/systemd/resolve/stub-resolv.conf /etc/resolv.conf

This will point programs that use /etc/resolved.conf during DNS resolution to the local DNS server provided by systemd-resolved.

Then, enable resolved so that it is started when you reboot:

systemctl enable systemd-resolved.service

Finally, start the service so that it is available immediately:

systemctl start systemd-resolved.service

You will want it run those with the required permissions, e. g. via sudo.

The parent comment is correct. CODE is the server, you need the “Collabora Online app” for document editing. I’m not aware if there are alternatives to the ownCloud / Nextcloud apps.

It’s not like Bluetooth started demanding location permissions, the conceptual model of the permission was revised: having access Bluetooth means an app could determine your location via a form of lateration.

In earlier versions of smartphone operating systems, this was not transparent to users lacking the technical background, so Bluetooth also requiring location access is actually an attempt at making users aware of that. I’m not an iOS developer, so I can’t comment on iPhones, but on Android versions prior to 11, having access to Bluetooth meant an app would be able to determine your location.

Today, you can require the permission ACCESS_FINE_LOCATION, which expresses that your app might use Bluetooth to obtain location information on Android. Also, if you’re just scanning for nearby devices to connect your app to, but don’t want users to be confused why your smart fridge app needs to know your precise location, you can declare a permission flag (neverForLocation) and Android will strip beacon information from the scan results, better asserting your intentions.

So, overall: no, there is nothing nefarious going on, it was always possible to determine your location via Bluetooth, and the update to the permission model was an honest improvement that actually benefits you as user.

Now, there are still plenty of shady apps around, and apps that are poorly written - don’t use those.

With type annotations, this problem is mostly alleviated in practice, while still keeping the productivity gains of duck typing.

I think you’re falling into a bit of a trap here: perfect is the enemy of good. Not everything has to be automated, instead of growing pains, there can also be gains.

Remember, we are currently aiming to get these vehicles on the road, alongside regular drivers. They use sensors and computer vision to read street signs, detect people etc., all with the reaction speed of a machine. What if the in-between product is simply a better driver with faster reaction times? That is the current goal, really - no one wants to automate everything, simply because that wouldn’t be feasible anytime soon.

Yes, again, we’re not there yet and these things are far from perfect. But let’s first just aim to get them good enough, and then maybe just a little better than your average driver.

As for the your proposed business model: we have capable drivers now, why do these business models don’t exist right now? Why is there no fast lane that allows me pay to get to my destination faster? What would the technology of driverless cars introduce that would enable these regulations?

It’s not about everything being automated. We also have to differentiate between early incarnations of autonomous vehicles and the desired, final state.

A manual override will of course be part of early models for the foreseeable future, but the overall goal is for the machine to make better decisions than a human could.

I don’t have any quarrel with life or death decisions being made by a machine if they have been made according to the morals and ethics of the people who designed the machine, and with the objective data that was available to the system at the time, which is often better than what would be available to a human in the same situation.

It’s the interpretation of said data that is still not fully there yet, and we humans will have to come to terms with the fact that a machine might indeed kill another human being in a situation where acting any different might cause more harm.

I don’t subscribe to the notion that a machine’s decision is always worth less than the decision of another entity participating in the same situation, just because it so happens that the second entity happens to be a human being.

Yes, you probably are. Please don’t forget that the current available technology constantly improves, and that we actually don’t see any good examples of self - driving cars that much - the most prominent displays are from Tesla, and they arguably build the worst cars we’ve seen since Ford came up with the assembly line.

The technology used in autonomous vehicles, e. g. sensors, have been used in safety critical application for decades in other contexts, and a machine is capable of completely different reaction times. Also, if autonomous vehicles cooperate in traffic sticking to their programmed behavior, observing traffic rules etc., you will get less reckless driving, with traffic flow becoming more deterministic. These benefits will particularly increase once self-driving cars don’t have to share the road with human drivers.

I would always trust a well-engineered, self-driving car more than one driven by a human.

Disclaimer: I used to work on these things in a research lab. Also, we’re not quite there yet, so please have a little patience.

Hey, much appreciated!

Is anyone speaking Chinese able to tell me what the guy in the first scene of the video is crying out? The one where the rocket falls horizontally. I mean, I have a general idea what is being said there conceptually, but I’d love to get an actual, accurate translation.

I have seen plenty of people who make excellent content and who I’d consider to be decent human beings. I also used to believe that YouTube was a cesspool hosting only crap, and I think it was via some new hobbies that I discovered the decent offerings.

That by the way is why I explicitly mentioned channels and personalities I’d like to exclude from my claim that creators that should receive financial support to be able to keep creating content.

Individually, no. But each view not generating ad revenue does still generate streaming costs. If no one would pay Google to host their ads on YT, I doubt they’d keep the platform online.

Now don’t get me wrong, the threshold at which Google decides that the ratio of adblocked to regular viewers is exceeding their business model is most likely based on corporate greed, and the recent crackdowns on ad blocking are due to the same reason. I think they’re doing fine and there is no need for the recent initiative - but it would be equally dishonest claiming running a platform the size and outreach of YouTube could be done without large investments, one way or the other.

That is - political topics aside - the same as getting a YouTube subscription.

I’d still prefer a platform run by content creators, naturally, so I fully support Nebula.

But if you’re paying for Netflix, why wouldn’t you simply pay for a premium account that doesn’t show you the ads? Is the content from your favorite YouTubers really that bad in comparison? I’ll admit, for me, it’s absolutely the opposite.