Tetsuo @ Tetsuo @jlai.lu

Posts

1

Comments

576

Joined

2 yr. ago

But discrediting someone's opinion by just posting this meme is NOT toxic ?

So it's toxic to assume someone might be a Russian bot but it is not toxic to disregard the opinion of everybody that said that ? You know there are bots online. Maybe not much here but there was definitely many on Reddit. So bots are real but someone that points out a bot must be wrong.

This is weird.

So yeah, it appears we shouldn't trust what Putin says publicly.

Obviously, he could say he prefers Biden and then pull every trolling ressources available to make Trump wins.

This statement from Putin doesn't have any value whatsoever.

He would say openly the opposite it would still be extremely unreliable information.

So basically:

Russian bots do exist but they are "not that bad". Also if someone from Russia they are not necessarily a bot because they have a different opinion...

That's all fine to have that position but who are you to tell other people if they encountered a bot or a real human being ?

Do you have any idea how prevalent Russian bots are ? What are their latest strategy?

I cannot answer these questions and you shouldn't either.

The people you are bashing for pointing at "Russian bots" could be completely right. Their perception of internet is not the same as yours.

If anything it's good that people are suspicious of any Russian information on the internet. It's much better in my opinion than your alternative which seems to be built on contempt for people falling for bots and a very prominent ego yourself for thinking nobody ever got you.

There would be no reason to adhere to complicated EU rules everywhere else globally.

But there are a ton of websites that do adhere to complicated GDPR rules even though they serve 99.99% US based clients.

I think this has nothing to do with EU and it's just some far fetched bullshit excuse from Microsoft.

Do not forget that accessing stuff on Google can probably get you to prison.

When you see something illegal on Google that should have never been published publicly you need to immediately avert your eyes and plug your ears. 🙉

Don't be the next Aaron Swartz...

I follow closely what is happening in the US from France because even though we have a very different culture I still think US politics is a preview of what's to come here.

Right now I consider we are at the step where our media are crumbling and becoming unable to properly inform us. A step that has been reached a couple of years ago in the US in my opinion.

The next step will probably be our own coup attempt in a few years and a steady increase in the division of the country and far right movements.

I want the same thing I just don't think taking what is inherited is the way to do it.

I would much rather see the ultra-rich pay properly their taxes when they are alive.

It's not like taking inheritance money is the only way to finance things. I don't see the reasoning.

I can totally understand why someone with huge revenue would pay more taxes but I don't see why someone who inherits has to pay taxes at that exact moment.

In any case, I think you are missing the point and answering the question "for what purpose?". Instead of "why?".

I want to know why it's more logical to pay taxes when you die rather than paying them in the first place when you got the revenue.

Obviously, the money collected is useful I just don't see why it has to be collected when it is a time of sorrow for a family.

Also where I live it's like 50% of the inheritance that is taxed. It is not just significant, it is 50% of the work of a life that goes in one shot to the state when someone dies.

Edit: I was mistaken, I did some calculations and a practical example: If I inherited 200 000€ I would have to pay around 18 194€ (20%)for one taxation and some additional applies but it's nowhere near what I was told. This rate goes from 5% to 45% for the largest inheritance. In reality, to get a 45% taxation in France I would have to inherit more than 1.5 million euros.

I still think this taxation is too high and I regret that my comment is not clear. I don't want less taxation overall I just think it makes more sense to take the money over time on the revenues. Anyway, taxation for inheritance is still something people here are very much concerned about. Parents want their children to inherit as much as possible of their wealth obviously so seeing a good chunk going to taxation is not great. Again I'm ok to pay taxes. But we have 192 different taxes here (that's the exact number calculated in 2014) so I would prefer a system where most of the taxation comes from revenues and what you own and that's it.

Since when does wealth be shared when someone dies ?

No, the money will go to their descendants who will try to get even richer than their parents. A large part of that money will also be taken by the state because ?? and ??.

Nothing would change.

Maybe people didn't frequently have weird hobbies before.

The way I see it internet widened enormously the diversity of knowledge we get to check. And that's these weird rabbit holes online that create the similarly weird new hobbyist.

I care, what do you think I could do ?

Israël is backed up by the most powerful country in the world both politically and militarily.

Many people do care, it's just not something they can fix.

We can donate to lessen the suffering but at the end of the day, one dude in the Whitehouse could probably get a cease fire in minutes if they really wanted to.

The devs said "improve AI" I don't understand it as make it godlike and unbeatable.

I disagree completely with your perception of AI in games.

I think AI are way to weak and primitive in this day and age. And it shouldn't. It should be scalable and able to challenge players who want to be and be braindead for others.

Right now in most game AI is borderline braindead.

An old game like FEAR has much better AI than most modern games and it's from 2005.

So yeah, I think AI being very limited in most modern games is definitely an issue and unfortunately nothing specific to the game in this topic.

I chuckled when I read this :

privacy safeguards from Google

And now our partner, the NSA will demonstrate the privacy safeguards they implemented in our latest software..

To be fair, this is one magnificent piece of paper.

I would lay on it.

Seriously, some people are that good that you know they could do almost anything very well in a matter of days.

So why not ? I always have a lot of respect for someone that is willing to drastically change their lives in order to improve.

He wanted to infiltrate the raccoons. There was just a minor flaw in the plan.

My instance tried to disable downvotes and it was a fiasco.

So yeah a lot of people are keen to remove user feedback in any way possible in the hope to lessen toxicity until they notice that it's a double edged sword. People can't dislike stuff just to troll or for bad reasons. But people couldn't even downvote a spam bot and you essentially are at the mercy of anybody if a mod is not close by ready to act. Likes and dislikes are a way to outsource moderation to the users. So either X has a secret army of moderators or that will just result in a lot more trash being on the foreground.

No likes on X means that the spammers, racists, stalker will essentially be at the same level of visibility than any other user.

I'm sure that will go just fine...

There were a lot of people making the case that anybody who can open your computer because they have your password (abusive partners included) could then have a lot of access to your activity.

Isn't this true for any process with elevated privileges on your computer?

The valorant anticheat could just as well get all your data without you ever knowing it.

At the very least it's better to have that feature in a secure setup rather than the Microsoft approach where it seems like an afterthought at best.

You know I'd rather people be on Linux where you can check what is going on rather than blindly trusting Microsoft (or Apple) that they only do what they tell me they do on my system.

I'm just saying that it's not good to immediately assume what Apple will do will be as bad as Microsoft. They could take a bad idea and make it a slightly less bad idea.

Also security and privacy has very little value for the average consumer so it's naive to think the feature won't be used and useful to many people.

Most people give willingly their data to social networks so these kind of feature and their effect on privacy seems a bit pointless to me. If you don't like that kind of feature maybe a closed sourced system is not for you after all.

It's like people are worried about leaking data on what they do on their Windows computer all the while they already sent a ton of telemetry to Microsoft for years. Nvidia will happily scan all the apps you start for troubleshooting purposes.

Every little bit helps but I really think using windows and asking for your privacy to be respected is strange.

Windows 11 was already a privacy nightmare before this feature was tested.

I disagree, I think Apple will do this feature with privacy/security in mind which Microsoft didn't do.

I absolutely don't like Apple but I think it's undeniable that they try to keep their OS secure. It's still a golden prison but at least it takes privacy fairly seriously.

Microsoft didn't seem to think about the challenges of that feature and it looks like a draft from an intern after a 1 hour meeting.

Obviously, something that scan a user screen has some implications that are hard to miss.

So yeah it's easy to point at people and say they are fanboys. But in this case the fanboys would be probably right in the sense that Apple already did better than Microsoft when it comes to privacy.

At the end of the day both are businesses that you shouldn't trust with your data but I would trust a lot more Apple than Microsoft for doing this right.

We have a great macrocontroller, a brain.

Maybe not as reliable but definitely easier to program.