TheTechnician27 @ TheTechnician27 @lemmy.world

"Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come t

---

Read more

Posts

171

Comments

1,329

Joined

12 mo. ago

same can be said of FOSS. back channel deals, betrayals, hostile takeovers. all of these things can(and have) happen to FOSS projects. all under a false pretense of "openness". it's stupid easy to change licenses and lock out contributors. it's happened several times. although you can technically argue anything before the license change could be forked, the event usually puts a bad taste in the public mouth and contributions dry up anyway. nobody wants to support a project with uncertainty.

"you could technically argue"??? That's literally, unambiguously the law. That's how the licensing works. This isn't a technicality; it's a fundamental, widely understood feature of the license. That's how the license was designed to work. On top of that, licenses like the GPL have extremely stringent requirements for changing the license. (Here, Jellyfin uses GPLv2, so we'll go with that.)

Everyone with work in the current codebase has copyright over that work under the GPLv2. Nobody relinquishes that to some centralized entity. Thus, you have two options for every single individual person whose contributions are still extant in your project (no matter how large): 1) get their consent not just to relicense but to the specific license you want, or 2) remove their work from the project either because you can no longer contact them or because they've said no.

The fact that you called this process "stupid easy" for anything but the smallest, most insular project is the dumbest fucking thing I've heard today, and I'm not even wasting my time reading the rest of your comment given how shockingly willing you are to not just speak about things you have zero understanding of but to somehow arrive at the most false statement possible about them.

Here's Jellyfin's 'How to Contribute' page.

Here's Jellyfin's 'How to Contribute' page.

Absolutely true for FOSS. For freeware? My opinion is that it's money wasted because, unlike FOSS:

• I have no way of auditing what I'm putting money toward.
• There's no way for the community to keep it going if it stops or goes to shit.
• Money given toward proprietary software is money that would be better donated to FOSS whose developers actually give a shit about and make progress toward bettering the world.
• Proprietary software isn't worthy of your respect or support. At best, use it if there are no FOSS alternatives, but don't give money to something that could rapidly enshittify at any moment with no recourse and no way or recouperating your money.

Here's Jellyfin's 'How to Contribute' page, incidentally, for no particular reason. Let Plex eat up their $90+ million in venture capital instead of taking money from the little guy and then fall off a cliff into an abyss of enshittification.

Exhibit #46,853 for why freeware will inevitably fall out from under your feet and why you should exclusively use FOSS wherever possible.

EDIT: Here's Jellyfin's 'How to Contribute' page.

Not only that, but MediaWiki is FOSS, and all existing content on all Wikimedia Foundation (except for a relative few kept on fair use grounds) is at most as restrictive as CC BY-SA 4.0. So you'd have whatever exists on Wikipedia currently (plus Wiktionary, Wikimedia Commons, Wikispecies, etc., keeping in mind too that there are many Wikipedias besides English) plus the software that interacts with that data, other countries which haven't fully descended into fascism, the members of the Wikimedia Foundation, a bunch of pissed-off editors, and a pissed-off public... I think a new, substantially similar non-profit would crop up in the UK etc., and very few things would have to change about the content that's on the platform (where the UK has more restrictive speech laws).

is it illegal for a majority of people to vote third party

No, we live in a first-past-the-post system where votes disappear into a black hole if they aren't cast for the candidate with the plurality of votes, you smarmy fucking dipshit.

I'm really disappointed not to see Okular there. It's FOSS, and it's very cozy and useful.

Are people even thinking for five seconds about the ideas they're upvoting?

• As we understand it today – given the mix of studies that say it reduces crime, say it increases crime, and say it does nothing at all – a claim that the death penalty deters crime isn't tenable.
• Over 4% of people who are executed are innocent. This is to say that after a trial and after often decades of appeals, they are still murdered by the state on false pretenses. So we're talking 1/20 people killed for something that ostensibly does not reduce homicides.
• "Straight to the firing squad" reduces the cost from being 4x as expensive as life, but then we take that 4% figure and turbo-charge it to some ungodly number (I wouldn't know what that is because we haven't been fucking stupid enough to try it lately). The reason the appeals are so extensive is because the false conviction rate is so high. If it's 4% after decades of appeals, imagine what it is with this stupid bullshit.
• Removing the appeals process would incentivize prosecutors even more than they already are to fabricate, misrepresent, and hide evidence and to falsely accuse. They know that this will never be found during appeals because there is no appeal.
• This kind of rhetoric normalizes the death penalty state-sanctioned murder, but it's a fucking awful practice that doesn't do shit. That's why so many first-world countries and even many developing countries no longer have it and why the US is such an outlier. The US should be embarrassed about its continued use of the death penalty, not clamoring for more and worse.

This is just masturbating your rage boner to fantasy land punitive justice, not a serious policy suggestion to fix a single problem with the police.

To be fair, though, this experiment was stupid as all fuck. It was run on /r/changemyview to see if users would recognize that the comments were created by bots. The study's authors conclude that the users didn't recognize this. [EDIT: To clarify, the study was seeing if it could persuade the OP, but they did this in a subreddit where you aren't allowed to call out AI. If an LLM bot gets called out as such, its persuasiveness inherently falls off a cliff.]

Except, you know, Rule 3 of commenting in that subreddit is: "Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, of using ChatGPT or other AI to generate text, [emphasis not even mine] or of arguing in bad faith."

It's like creating a poll to find out if women in Afghanistan are okay with having their rights taken away but making sure participants have to fill it out under the supervision of Hibatullah Akhundzada. "Obviously these are all brainwashed sheep who love the regime", happily concludes the dumbest pollster in history.

Psychology has an embarrassing history.

It really doesn't?

Half their studies aren't reproducible.

Replicable*, and also see here.

Their most famous study is basically a fraud.

Do you mean the Stanford prison experiment, which is famous because of how terrible it was? The one that's taught in Psych 101 classes as a lesson on ethics and how not to design an experiment? Because while I would argue it's not the most famous study, the entire reason it's famous is because it was so shittily designed that psychologists going forward took lessons from it. No one's holding that up to say "Wow, look at this great study we, the field of psychology, collectively did."

They're behind lobotomies

That was psychiatry and neurology, but I don't expect you to know the difference.

They're behind the Satanic panic

That a random quack psychiatrist came out and publicized this doesn't mean that "the field of psychology" is behind the Satanic panic. Dr. Oz is a fraud who used his platform to sell bullshit supplements; does that make the field of medicine "behind" homeopathy?

They're behind eugenics

This literally isn't true, or at least it's a ridiculous half-truth to put psychology at the forefront of eugenics. Eugenics is – surprise, surprise – rooted in biology after inheritance became more widely understood (read: we knew just enough to be dangerous). Eugenics had its hand in basically every natural science, and so you'll find occasional psychologists like Henry H. Goddard showing up, but you'll see biologists, statisticians, politicians, and so forth. Eventually eugenics spread into fields like psychiatry (note: different from psychology), but "they're behind eugenics" is absolute fucking horseshit that you fail to back up with literally anything.

I’m not anti-intelectual [sic] or a Scientologist or anything

Uh-huh...

I guess what I’m trying to say is that psychologists like Jordan Peterson might want to clean up their own room before trying to lecture the rest of us.

Why are you bringing up Jordan Peterson? Peterson is widely despised among psychologists, he no longer works at the University of Toronto, and instead of contributing research to the field or engaging in clinical practice, he puts out self-help sludge. "I'm not an anti-intelectual, but I'm going to take an entire century-old field of science and compress it into Philip Zimbardo(?) and Jordan Peterson so I can say that science bad actually."

My dad: "The plain peanut butter sandwiches will continue until morale improves."

Yeah, the IUCN listed it as vulnerable in 2016 and then endangered in 2020. "As a population, the secretarybird is mainly threatened by loss of habitat due to fragmentation by roads and development and overgrazing of grasslands by livestock." So cars and animal agriculture – both largely unnecessary in modern society – fuck the planet at a micro- and a macroscopic scale. Not surprising, but tragic nonetheless.

Re: the "Early Life" section, we actually have a guideline about that. Discussion of the subject's religion is allowed only under specific circumstances, namely when "the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." Unlike Christianity, which is far and away the prevailing religion in the US, religious minorities like Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc. are more likely to receive coverage of said religion because it stands out more (for example, Eight Crazy Nights by Adam Sandler is way more noteworthy than some Christian director making a by-the-books Christmas film; religious minorities are more likely to talk at length about how their difference in religion impacts their work and identity; etc.) This is also why you're more likely to see a mention that an individual is gay, trans, etc. than "Jimmy Carter was cis and straight."

For example, Natalie Portman is frequently interviewed about subjects like her Jewish heritage, and her 'Early life' section brings up her Jewish heritage. Penn Jillette frequently advocates for atheism, and his 'Early life' page talks about how he became an atheist in his early teens. Mehmet Oz ("Dr. Oz") has talked about his Muslim faith in the past and was the first Muslim ever nominated by the GOP for the US Senate, so his 'Early life' section brings up Islam.

TL;DR: This happens on articles about famous people who are Jewish at a far higher rate than it happens with Christians (at least ones in the US and other areas where Christianity is the dominant religion), but 1) it happens for a reason within guidelines, 2) for that reason, you're always welcome to challenge that it falls within those guidelines, and 3) as you note, the same thing happens with other religious minorities.

This user’s entire history (username included) is spent signal-boosting attacks against Wikipedia. (Incidentally, they just deleted one from this very community because they got called out for it). This user is a ridiculous troll and should be banned from communities for their transparent, bad-faith agenda. I’m sure if there’s a story worth posting, somebody other than “wikipediasuckscoop” can post it. It’s so transparent that in an age where the Internet is blanketed with far-right disinformation, one of the last remaining bastions of truth that refuses to compromise and bend to said disinformation will come under attack by bad-faith, far-right actors desperately flailing to discredit it. This user doesn't give a single shit about gender equality; they simply aim to discredit a resource standing in the way of their agenda.

A gender gap is a longstanding and severe issue on the English Wikipedia, but there's a lot this article leaves out about its monumental and ongoing efforts to increase its coverage of women and to welcome more women into the project. This especially includes WikiProject Women in Red, far and away Wikipedia's largest collaborative project whose entire purpose is to create new biographies about women. A large part of this biographical underrepresentation stems less from a bias in the editors themselves and more from the way that historical women have often been left out of published, reliable sources, and it's taking scholars enormous efforts to bring those women to the surface today. It also says: "just 10-15% of its editors are female." What this fails to acknowledge is that there's an option simply not to declare your gender at all. To be clear, the ratio is atrocious, but 10–15% is likely an underrepresentation: women may be substantially less likely to self-declare their gender on the Internet than men. The Wikimedia Foundation has outreach, activism, etc. focused specifically on recruiting women to the project and has for well over a decade now. Wikipedia really is trying, and its experienced editors are constantly aware of this.

The article does put forth three hypotheses for why this gap exists, but I don't think they put forth compelling evidence for the hypothesis that it exists because of the culture on Wikipedia or that it's – in general – Wikipedia's "fault".

This user's entire history (username included) is spent signal-boosting demonstrably false, bad-faith attacks against Wikipedia. I have no idea how this post has a ratio of 28–0 when the article's premise is that the ADL of all organizations is a good arbiter of what is antisemitic when it comes to coverage of Israel's genocide in Palestine. The article starts with "This past March, researchers from the Anti-Defamation League accused Wikipedia of biased coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."

Newsflash: it isn't. The ADL consistently treats anyone who dares to challenge Israel's genocide as antisemitic. This user is a ridiculous troll and should be banned from communities for their transparent, bad-faith agenda. I'm sure if there's a story worth posting, somebody other than "wikipediasuckscoop" can post it. It's so transparent that in an age where the Internet is blanketed with far-right disinformation, one of the last remaining bastions of truth that refuses to compromise and bend to said disinformation will come under attack by bad-faith, far-right actors desperately flailing to discredit it.

Edit: I'd like to point out that when the article says "propagandists" (i.e. people opposed to Israel's genocide) and arbitrarily delineates them from "editors", what it's failing to point out (likely because a) its author doesn't understand shit about fuck or b) its author doesn't care) is that any article related to a conflict between Israel and Arab countries is extended protected by default (on top of other heavy editing restrictions). This means that it can only be edited 1) on a registered account 2) which is at least 30 days old and 3) which has made at least 500 edits. This isn't 2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334 typing "Izreel sux lololol" or even just some random sockpuppet account trying to insert anti-Israel bias. You have to be an experienced editor to make changes to these articles. Every single one of these even remotely controversial public changes is put under a microscope and discussed ad nauseum by other experienced editors on the corresponding talk page – not just to make sure that it's covered without bias per NPOV but that its claims are suitably backed by reliable, independent sources.

• I think the Associated Press is in the clear here.
• Seems Reuters so far is good too.
• And The Guardian
• Mother Jones
• ProPublica
• Ars Technica for tech news
• The Conversation (always written by subject-matter experts)
• Deutsche Welle
• Etc.

Thankfully there are still a lot of amazing news sources that have held onto their integrity. Click here to see even more. Number 17 will surprise you!

Seems like it's the most active one too.

Link to the Wikipedia article. It's a featured article*, and there's a subsection that goes over how the species has recently become endangered.