Based dev and I wishlistrd that game because it looks fun and I want to support them for the response alone, but I think I kind of agree with that decision, or can at least see where it’s coming from. Disliking a game for its political message seems entirely valid to me, if someone made an otherwise amazing game but the message is “hitler was great actually”, I’d like to be able to negatively review that. And since it’s not review bombing but actual individual idiots, it shouldn’t have a big impact wrt to the ratio. If anything I read a review like that and become more interested in the game. Allowing it at least keeps them honest.

Though “it has muslims” as a negative review reason still seems like it should be removed just for being racist (or if i were to give the reviewer way more benefit of the doubt than they deserve, sounding racist. I guess in theory they could just not like religions in games, but let’s be real they’d love if it were christians instead).

I forgot where but some time in the last 3 hours I read that the goal for steamOS is to be supported on all PCs, though it’s an ongoing effort.

Powershell is nice for scripting things close to the (windows) OS. But (granted I’m not exactly some PS wizard, I’ve just used it a few times for minor things at work) I agree it often feels unnecessarily verbose and cumbersome. For example the fact that you need to define a whole function to alias even just a single command with parameters. And just overall I find it very hard to read (though maybe that’s on the guy that did the powershell stuff before me, I don’t have great sample size here).

But I’ll take what I can get.

Removed by mod

For us they just make the people that click them do some online training. I don’t think anyone learns anything during that but I suspect not having to do the training serves as a great incentive to be careful.

It doesn’t help though that we’ve had multiple cases of obvious phishing mails everyone just deleted that were followed up by a “no those mails were legit please click the link” by HR…

Well, it’s about maximum profit. So if they could make more, it’s insane that they wouldn’t. But it might be that profit in the short term was higher by not spending as much money on R&D, and if there’s one thing stock markets are great at it’s incentivizing short term profit over long term viability.

The original audio after mastering is also still called a master, but I haven’t seen anyone complain about that. And that (as well as the same meaning for other media) is the word that the branch name master came from, so etymology can’t really be an argument there (though I also think etymology is terrible reasoning for renaming something in general).

There’s also the possibility of having genuinely good intent, but still speaking entirely from your own conjecture of what might make others uncomfortable.

Ultimately, you should always talk to the people actually affected and take action based on that. But anyone can and should start the initiative when they think something is harmful.

That depends on whether the person in charge has any. See rupert murdoch, or the red bull owner basically saying it would be great if he could also be like murdoch.

A company that’s controlled by investors (aka mostly banks trying to get returns) will basically always just chase short term profit though, and that’s most of them.

To pressure these companies into doing the morally right thing, we would have to pressure the banks, but that seems hardly realistic since shifting your money away from one in response to an event like this is anywhere from majorly inconvenient to impossible, plus there’d be a direct monetary tradeoff that a lot of people either can’t or aren’t willing to take.

The good thing is that all sane instances can just defederate and we won’t have to deal with them. They can use the software all they want, and we can shut them out from our spaces all we want.

Smartphones aren’t the issue. You can access the internet in other ways. This feels very boomer yelling at clouds.

That said, as a recommendation, sure why not. People do seem a bit too glued to their phones overall. But I don’t think that’s anything new.

I also don’t know anything about japanese laws, so I have no idea if this is a concern, but anything potentially enforcable that cuts into people’s freedom arbitrarily makes alarm bells go off in my head.

I guess the closest we might be getting anytime soon then is the digital euro. Which is supposed to end its preparation phase soon, and, in spite of being government issued, promises to be private (not like ccs are remotely private anyway, so nothing lost at least).

As always there’s some risk of it getting changed to allow tracking later down the line, but if done correctly it could still be a big improvement over the current situation for EU citizens. If it’s successful, maybe other governments will look into similar programs.

I feel like ideally the digital euro project would work with GNU Taler since the goals seem to align, with the main difference being that the digital euro would be government backed. I don’t have high hopes since governments always fuck this up somehow, but I guess in the best timeline the EU is that champion (since using the same technology even with a different currency would give some trust into the concept, so it could help with finding early adopters - likely outside of the EU since I’d imagine in that scenario the digital euro would just be preferred here)

Someone above linked GNU Taler which seems to go in the right direction, but I’m not sure how mature it is yet. It specifically claims to not be a new currency, so hopefully the speculation part won’t be an issue.

Ehh, I do think people not voting are also responsible (or well, given what I know about US voting only the ones that really had the choice). They actively said “I don’t care if the racist shithead trying his best to emulate hitler will be president”. If you choose not to vote in a democracy you’re saying you’re fine with any outcome.

I don’t think the individual responsibilty there is huge by any means - I’ve also long held the opinion that the average person in nazi germany (and any similar country) only had a very small part of the blame if they simply did nothing, because people have all sorts of shit to deal with. But that doesn’t absolve them of all responsibility either. And at least in sane countries, voting is such a tiny bit of effort that not doing so is hard to excuse (but again, from what I know that’s not always the case in murica).

I think there’s a blurry line here where you can easily train an LLM to just regurgitate the source material by overfitting, and at what point is it “transformative enough”? I think there’s little doubt that current flagship models usually are transformative enough, but that doesn’t apply to everything using the same technology - even though this case will be used as precedence for all of that.

There’s also another issue in that while safeguards are generally in place, without them llms would be very capable of quoting entire pages at least of popular books. And jailbreaking llms isn’t exactly unheard of. They also at least used to really like just verbatim repeating news articles on obscure topics.

What I’m mainly getting at is that LLMs can be transformative, but they also can plagiarize. Much like any human could. The question is then, if training LLMs on copyrighted data is allowed, will the company be held accountable when their LLM does plagiarize, the same way a person would be? Or would the better decision be to prohibit training on copyrighted data because actually transforming it meaningfully can not be guaranteed, and copyright holders actually finding these violations is very hard?

Though idk the case details, if the argument was purely focused on using the material to produce the model, rather than including the ultimate step of outputting text to anyone who asks, it was probably doomed to fail from the start and the decision makes perfect sense. And that doesn’t seem too unlikely to have happened because realizing this would require the lawyer making the case to actually understand what training an LLM does.

Get your own domain and use it for mail routing to whichever email service of your choice. Afaik gmail offers this, and so does probably any other decent email provider. That way if a provider turns to shit, you just need to set up with a different one, but don’t have to change any accounts.

Downside: you will have to pay for that domain for the rest of your life (or change all accounts again)

I’ve been meaning to do this for a while, maybe I’ll finally do it now.

Many countries have restrictions on what you can and cannot post (hate speech being a common one). Turkey in particular has been moving towards autocracy over the last decade or so, so I wouldn’t be surprised (to be clear this is speculation feel free to correct me) if it had restrictions on lgbt issues or political dissent or something.

Idk man “exclusionary” is literally part of terf I don’t think there’s much ambiguity there. Fuck terfs though.

More and more I believe that Mozilla’s current leadership are acting in their own self interest, not for the public good.

I think the salary alone is enough evidence of that. There’s a point, specifics of which will depend on your living situation, at which wanting a higher salary requires the same infinite greed that becoming a billionaire requires. And I’m very sure that this point is far below 1 million dollars a year. Mozilla’s CEO makes over 6 million.

If you feel like you deserve that, you are not fit to lead a nonprofit. You have already proven that you care more about giving yourself obscene wealth than about the benefit of others.