Skip Navigation

Posts
3
Comments
197
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Maybe.

    Like, if I could type "extract the audio of this video and re-encode it as a medium quality MP3, break up the audio into 30 consecutive tracks" in a shell, and the next line was populated with the appropriate ffmpeg command, but not yet executed, I could quickly look over the command, nothing looks fishy, so I go ahead and run the command.

  • LLMs have a high coolness-to-code ratio; very cool and not a lot of code. This is the type of thing open source developers are more interested in, so I hope Linux will have some good AI built-in and running locally.

    Half of Linux usage is on the text-based command line anyway, just what LLMs are good at.

  • That kid is superior

  • We often make laws without a way to enforce them 100% effectively. For example, my road has a 25 MPH speed limit even though we haven't yet installed speed limiting chips on every single car in the nation, we still went ahead and put a speed limit on our road though, and it mostly works, but sometimes someone drives 30 MPH.

  • It seems the people who are the most staunch defenders of capitalism and free markets are the most resistant to the capitalist and free market solution.

    Clean air (or rather, air with normal levels of carbon) belongs to the public, and anyone who wants to take it away should pay the public.

  • Two-chubby-chubby

  • Senior developer here, it looks like they are helping to me.

  • They are doing extra work to change the product in ways that customers don't want.

    Can someone explain to me again how "free markets" and "competition" are supposed to work?

  • I'm okay with algorithms not recommending certain posts. I just don't like shadowbans because the platform is lying to the user, the user interface is essentially telling the user "your post is available for viewing and is being treated like any other post" when it really isn't.

    There's a balance between the free speech of individuals and the free speech of the company. I think a fair balance between the two is, once a company is big enough to control a significant percentage of the entire nation's discourse, the company at least has to be up front and avoid deceptive practices like shadow-banning. (This should only apply to large companies, once a company is large enough it has a responsibility to society.)

  • Yet another tool that uses “freedom of speech” incorrectly

    Often freedom of speech is a moral ideal, a moral aspiration, and dismissing it on legal grounds is missing the point.

    If I say "people should have a right to healthcare", and you respond "people do not have a legal right to healthcare", you are correct, but you have missed the point. If I say people should have freedom of speech and you respond that the first amendment doesn't apply to Facebook, you are right, but have again missed the point.

    In general, when people advocate for any change, they can be countered with "well, the law doesn't require that". Yes, society currently works the way the law says it should. But what we're talking about is how society should work and how the law should change.

  • Somehow Trump returned... 🫠

  • A problem is that social media websites are simultaneously open platforms with Section 230 protections, and also publishers who have free speech rights. Those are contradictory, so which is it?

    Perhaps @rottingleaf was speaking morally rather than legally. For example, I might say "I believe everyone in America should have access to healthcare"; if you respond "no, there is no right to healthcare" you would be right, but you missed my point. I was expressing an moral aspiration.

    I think shadowbans are a bad mix of censorship and hard to detect. Morally, I believe they should be illegal. If a company wants to ban someone, they can be up front about it with a regular ban; make it clear what they are doing. To implement this legally, we could alter Section 230 protections so that they don't apply to companies performing shadowbans.

  • Maybe he was speaking morally rather than legally.

    For example, if I said "I believe people have a right to healthcare", you might correctly respond "people do not have a legal right to healthcare" (in America at least). But you'd be missing the point, because I'm speaking morally, not legally.

    I believe, morally, that people have a right to be heard.

  • Yes, because Americans would never consider electing a President with health issues.

  • Careful, the 100,000 kg of pizza will turn into manure.

  • US auto makers were like "we love the free market", then people bought cheaper cars from China and they said "wait, not that free!"

  • You can tell how important working from the office is by the fact that they can't tell whether or not people are working from the office.

    Maybe people need to start talking about unionizing while in the office.

  • I've always felt the nation of Israel is squatting on the name. Like, aren't there people outside of Israel-the-nation that also claim to be Israel (in the Biblical sense)?

  • The government certainly does have the right to protect citizens and make whatever laws are necessary. In this case, the government can do so by amending the constitution. Until then, the 1st Amendment applies to all citizens, non-citizens, and business entities operating in the United States.