Muehe @ Muehe @lemmy.ml

Posts

9

Comments

243

Joined

2 yr. ago

Ubuntu ∈ Linux distributions ⇒ Linux can do that

It is the GenX/older millennials who got off on [that].

Doomer Shooters? /s

coughs in snap

How the fuck do we still have quacks that are allowed to be called Dr. in this day and age?

Well the answer to that is rather multifaceted, but a few significant patterns seem to emerge:

• Ambiguous use of "Doctor" as an academic title in general and "Doctor" for the title "Medicinae Doctor" specifically. This just confuses a lot of people.
• "Paper mill" universities, selling "degrees" for money basically.
• Adjacent to that, recognition of foreign degrees. It is worth noting here that this is largely a legitimate process which is just occasionally abused, specifically by paper mills.
• Semi-adjacent to that, variance in title laws by jurisdiction. What education is allowing whom to bear which protected title under which circumstances is very different from country to country.
• Regulatory capture, aka "I will create my own degree, with Blackjack and Hookers". Several branches of medicine considered by many to be pseudo-scientific have managed to get themselves actual academic degrees recognised in several jurisdictions. For example the "Doctor of Chiropractic", or D.C. for short, is a recognised and protected academic title in many countries.

Is there a solution to all this? Not really. I guess educating the general public on the significance of academic titles could help, better global alignment in title laws as well. Preventing pseudo-sciences, or whatever someone considers as such, from establishing their own branches of science and academic titles seem highly dangerous though. Just think what this would imply for gender studies in the current political climate for example. Pseudo-science is just the price science has to pay for freedom of research, and when it bore theology being a branch since its inception than it will survive the D.C. as well.

Do you mean not initially designed to support? Because at least for displays and networking (in the sense of being able to send X events over the network) that seems wrong, a network capable display server is basically X's entire purpose? And for keyboards and mice there are extensions now, so x.org as a standard now very much supports those by design. Actually to my knowledge Wayland basically just forked their keyboard standard, the X Keyboard Extension.

Is some decade(s) old post of mine from some old forum really still floating around somewhere out there on some random old server chugging along?

The No Such Agency probably has a copy in its data centre in Utah. Other nation state actors probably have one as well if it's the singular and not the plural (decade).

I can fuck up your vision through drugs, none of which actually affects the physiology in your eyes.

So? Thus? Therefore? I can fuck up your vision by poking out your eyes, none of which actually affects the physiology in your brain. Both of those are nonsense statements in the context of this discussion.

The brain is the one that transmogrifies the light and reassembles your world.

It's involved, but so are all parts of the eye and the visual nerve connecting them to the brain. I still fail to see how this is relevant.

It’s the brain that puts it all together. And that processing matters.

Not to (most) colour perception, that happens in the eyes and the visual nerve. For example our cone cells would be perfectly able to perceive ultraviolet light, but for most people it never reaches them because the lens of the eye filters that wavelength. There are people born without a lens, and they can indeed see ultraviolet light.

And glasses can’t help you. Even if you somehow fixed your cones to see colour, your brain would still be left in the dark. It’s… complicated. More complicated than putting a film over your eyes.

Well that might be true, if your entire premise wasn't wrong from the outset. You don't fix the cones, you fix the light. You take light of a wave length that would be indistinguishable to the cones, refract it, and then you have light of a wave length that is distinguishable by the cones. No brain or eye surgery necessary.

It’s a scam.

Enchroma? Yes. But not because they sell something that doesn't work, but because they sell something that does work for some colour blind people at inflated prices while lying about what it does exactly.

Damn, TIL I became a Nazi when I first visited my grandparents as a child. Thanks for letting me know, at least I can lean into it now. /s

We've had TWO incidents of legislative violence (Sumner slavery incident and 6 January incident).

I mean I guess it depends on your definition of "legislative violence", but I feel like you are forgetting a certain "states rights" incident here...

Minors can and have used more or less most of the internet safely. What is most of the internet? Services like Omegle or Chaturbate or Stripchat surely are not on it.

Well that claim is a bit arbitrary IMHO. For one I don't see a reason to exclude those services you mentioned from being part of "most of the internet". On the contrary, from what I see all of them are clearnet services, accessible to the public, so this extraordinary claim would need some evidence toward it I would say. Secondly the latter two are explicitly pornographic in nature, so I don't really see the relevance towards the point of children being harmed by accessing them; They shouldn't be there in the first place. There is of course a valid discussion about moderation to be had if they are used to distribute CSAM, but that seems orthogonal to the question of parental oversight of minors internet use.

Minors have used social media all this while, and other than what Facebook/Instagram on behest of US capitalist machinery has done to minors, [...] most services do not abuse human psychology to this degree.

Again, only according to your arbitrary definition of what "most services" are. Basically all of social media is doing attention hacking, large swaths of of the gaming industry intentionally abuse dopamine cycles to sell worthless "digital goods", the www is full of dark patterns in large part fuelled by advertisement delivery. I mean Meta is indubitably a front runner in the race of surveillance capitalism, but isn't that an argument in favour of Omegle in the context of this discussion? Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp are much more certainly than Omegle a part of "most of the internet" after all, however you define that, and they are a clear and present danger to children.

However, children’s minds are highly neuroplastic until adulthood, and a lot of the internet is damaging to the psyche of children, which is an entirely different discussion. If that seems like flipflopping, it is because internet safety has various degrees to it and the definition of safety varies from healthy usage to consumerism to addiction to gray area to developing deviant persona and even illegal uses.

I don't think it is a different discussion at all, rather it's exactly the crux of the issue. The psyche of children is vulnerable; How do we best protect it and who is in the best position to effectively do so?

It is fairly known how peer pressure wins over parental control on minor access to internet, so the “parent’s duty” argument is very flaky and invalid. Education on things rest of the society is freely using is not very conducive to children at the age of puberty (12-16), and 18 is supposedly the adult age.

It might not be a definitive argument, but certainly not invalid. A parent is chiefly responsible for the safety, education, and behaviour of their children in basically all other areas of life. This responsibility doesn't go away because the neighbours kids peer pressured them into throwing stones through a window or drinking alcohol. Why should access to the internet be any different?

So is the argument now going to be letting kids do whatever they want by the time they are 18?

Well yes, but within the confines of legality obviously. That's literally the status quo in most jurisdictions, isn't it?!

Or will this be decided upon a combination of evaluation of mental age using tests related to Asperger’s, neurodivergence, ADHD and so on? How frequently will these tests be taken by kids?

Gee I hope not. That sounds like the abyss below the slippery slope. But I don't think anybody argued for that.

Will there be exposure of the child to concepts like “absolute American freedom” and various forms of consumerism? Because that is what the child will get exposed to, as soon as he/she meets people outside home, or goes to the market with parents.

Again, I don't see the relevance to the Omegle situation. This is just life, the world is a dangerous place and while society can help by creating laws and such in the end the ones in the best position to safeguard their children according to their own world view will be the parents. Of course that is a duty in which every individual parent will inevitably fail by some metric, but so will society. Case in point, many children will be exposed to "absolute American freedom and various forms of consumerism" inside their own homes already, so if that's your metric as a parent the only one who could ever protect a child from that is you, by preparing them for their inevitable confrontation with those concepts and hoping they take that lesson to heart.

Their argument comes off as distasteful, even though a whole decade of video streaming exists as proof of Omegle being a key mainstream hub for minor sexual abuse content, with no kinds of methods used by the evasive service owner to combat it. Read the link I supplied in above comments regarding that.

Yeah you claimed variously that it is a key part of Omegle "content", for which I don't see much corroborating evidence in the links you provided. Both the BBC story and the NCOSE piece seem to reference the same case of an 11 year old girl using the service unsupervised.

Which leads me to why I'm taking issue with the statement of Omegle having content. It doesn't in the sense most people would understand that. It revolves around having a conversation with an absolute stranger, and either side of this conversation can record it or publish it. There is no content here unless one participant creates it and distributes it elsewhere than Omegle, or takes other content and distributes it on Omegle. Everything on Omegle is content in the same sense as a phone call is content, to which I would argue it isn't, at least not inherently. It's an ephemeral conversation unless a participant records it.

It might be content in the sense argued by the law and the court in the "A.M Vs Omegle" case, but that apparently ended in the motion to dismiss being partly granted and partly denied, which to me as a layperson sounds like a win for Omegle, at least temporarily.

Furthermore you say Omegle and Brooks didn't do anything against the abuse, but this is in direct contradiction to what Brooks claims in the message in the OP:

Omegle worked with law enforcement agencies, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, to help put evildoers in prison where they belong. There are “people” rotting behind bars right now thanks in part to evidence that Omegle proactively collected against them, and tipped the authorities off to.

And this is all besides the point that giving an 11 year old unsupervised access to Omegle is kind of the same as letting them out into the shady part of town to talk to random strangers (when you ignore the added risk of physical harm there of course). That's what the website was principally about, meeting random strangers. And if a parent were to let their child do that unsupervised in offline life we would put at least part of the blame for any harm on them.

The internet wasn't designed with the safety of children in mind, in fact not with anybodies safety in mind. Saying that it should be is an opinion, but in any case not the current reality. That leaves the majority of responsibility for the safety of children on the parents. And there is a bunch of things they can do, like not giving them networked devices in the first place, or restricting network access with whitelists, or educating them before the parents or others do give access. Yes, this parental control breaks down in social settings, but that is the case for a lot of different aspects of life and I don't see how purging everything dangerous for children from the public internet is either a possible or even a desirable solution to this problem.

Take for example what you and the NCOSE argued for, age verification. The state of the art for that on many explicitly pornographic services is a simple dialogue asking if the user is of legal age in their jurisdiction. The infrastructure to do otherwise, which would require a governmentally issued digital ID of some kind, doesn't exist in most countries let alone globally. Never mind the implications this would have for user privacy. Some services use a certain identifier so that their service can be automatically filtered, but that again leaves the parents with the responsibility to set up and maintain said filter. And in the end there will not be a way around that at all, unless you purposely rebuild the internet with a level of control it simply is not engineered to provide currently.

You should be able to see clearly that I am quite interested in such discussions without the moderator part.

Well the one who brought that into the discussion was you. Not to diminish your efforts, but I stand by what I said on the matter earlier.

Minors can use most of the internet safely.

I beg to differ. Minors can't safely use the internet at all, it's the internet. Every depth of the human psyche is mirrored onto it, and frankly any guardian letting a child onto it without at the minimum strong primers on its dangers is derilict of their duty. Which might have been excusable 20-30 years ago when everybody was confused about what the internet even is, but not so much in 2023.

If you make another deranged argument like that, you will get the banhammer.

Just for clarity, I'm not the person you said this to, but I think if you are out here threatening people with bans over a rhetorical question, you might want to take a break. Nevermind the disconnect between you saying you haven't used it at all but purpoting to know exactly what kind of "content" was on it these last years, when it didn't even really have content in the usual sense of the word.

They used both terms as well as "Machtübergabe" (transfer of power) to refer to Hitler being appointed chancelor, but that was neither the beginning nor the end of the multi-step coup the Nazis enacted, which is what I wanted to highlight. The term makes it seem like a singular event, when in reality it was a longer process.

This somewhat misleading, Hitler and the NSDAP were indeed voted into the position to seize power by democratic means which they then abused, the voter supression mainly happened in later elections when the undermining of institutions and the consitution was already well underway. "Machtergreifung" is the propaganda term the Nazis used themselves to describe the process of what happened after the fact, which in reality was much more cloak and dagger-y than the term suggests.

P.S.: Germany didn't have a two-party system, so having a majority wasn't that important. You would form coalitions of parties after an election which then had a majority, or even form a minority government that then has to actively hunt for their missing votes from other parties to get any legislation passed.

As Shelena said it means Artificial General Intelligence. It's a term coined to distinguish a hypothetical future system with actual intelligence in the colloquial sense of the word from currently existing "Artificial Intelligence" systems, because that has turned into an almost meaningless buzzword used to sell machine learning systems to investors and the general public over the last two decades or so. Don't get me wrong, "AI" has indeed made impressive progress as of late, I'm not doubting that. But the existing systems are hardly "intelligent" in the sense that most people would define that word.

More than 5,700 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli airstrikes since the war began, according to the Hamas-run Ministry of Health in Gaza, the New York Times reported.

I would take this number always with a grain of salt.

Understandable, it's a claim made by a partisan faction after all. That said, according to this random X/Twitter account the IDF itself claimed two days ago to have made "over 10,000 targeted strikes" on Gaza since the beginning of the current conflict, so the casualty number given by Hamas works out to about 0.57 fatalities per strike, which doesn't seem like that outlandish a claim to me given how densely populated Gaza is.

Well sorry. No offence intended.

Unclear to me, according to the OP the service is set to manual start. But there is an event trigger attached to the service and the article doesn't mention what that event is.

I think you misunderstand. The way Wikipedia uses the word is the original usage, so only funny if you don't know about it. Applying it to bar fights and such is the tongue-in-cheek usage.

From Latin belligerans (“waging war”), present active participle of belligerō (“I wage war”), from belliger (“waging war, warlike”), from bellum (“war”) + -ger (from gerō (“I lead, wage, carry on”)).

A VPN provider has the same level of insight into your traffic as an ISP does when not using a VPN. If having one installed without your consent isn't a privacy issue I don't know what is...