admiralteal @ admiralteal @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

795

Joined

2 yr. ago

A non-starter unless it's building up pro fossil fuel constituency.

/murica eagle screech

You mean like... verifying it is a legitimate request from law enforcement? That kind of security hoop? Ensuring there is a warrant or subpoena? Ensuring proper security in transmitting the sensitive personal information?

Civil rights matter more than making cops' jobs easy.

I see no problem whatsoever with having frustrating levels of obtuse security required before complying with a request from law enforcement.

There is no downside.

It is an absolute privacy nightmare. Nothing should be asking for your identity that doesn't have a DAMN good reason to be asking for your identity.

Age verification is not a damn good reason. Especially since any number of free VPNs can circumventing it with just a few clicks.

Not to be steelmaning for Tesla, but... all the major manufacturers of consumer products do this same shit. Pretend known defects don't exist, fail to honor warranties, blame customers for the mfg's own failures. That's just what happens when your society decides collectively that they prefer a system of civil torts to actual regulation.

The headline is literally exactly opposite the truth, I would say.

I mean, suppose the LLM bot is actually good at avoiding false positives/misunderstandings -- doesn't that simply remove one of the biggest weaknesses of old-fashioned keyword identification? I really just see this as a natural evolution of the technology and not some new, wild thing. It's just an incremental improvement.

What it absolutely does NOT do is replace the need for human judgement. You'll still need an appeals process and a person at the wheel to deal with errors and edge cases. But it's pretty easy to imagine an LLM bot doing at least as well a job as the average volunteer Reddit/Discord mod.

Of course, it's kind of a moot point. Running a full LLM bot, parsing every comment against some custom-design model, as your automoderator would be expensive. I really cannot see it happening routinely, at least not with current tech costs. Maybe in a few years the prices will have come down enough, but not right now.

It could search for all kinds of keywords to enforce rules. For example, scan titles to find question identifiers to suggest a user maybe needed to check an FAQ/wiki, or that kind of thing. Find keywords to detect probable off-topics. That sort of stuff.

At the end of the day, is what the LLM bot doing really any different? I'd say it's more sophisticated but the same fundamental thing.

Huh? The Apollo dev was very specific about why he couldn't make it work. The turnaround was too fast. He had users on multi-month and even annual subscriptions. Users who were effectively owed service by him. The new model would have turned all of those users into giant financial liabilities for him far beyond whatever revenue he earned from them. And theoretically there was no upper limit on how much those users could have cost him.

If they'd give him 12 months notice about the changes instead of 30 days he would have been able to keep the app running. It would have cost quite a bit more as users would have had to pay for his costs plus the api costs. But with only 30 days the only financially sane thing he could do was refund everyone, rather than let them turn into liabilities he couldn't afford.

If you're wondering why he didn't refund all existing users and then roll out an update with the higher subscriptions... I mean, I'm sure he just didn't want to because he didn't feel like it after being forced to go through all that terribleness and repeatedly being defamed by the admins.

That's not really innovative though. Auto moderator bots have been sending out warnings like this based on simple keyword criteria for years.

In a city a connection like that is probably going to be in the area of $60 to $100. I pay $80 all in for a similar fiber connection.

Outside of a city you just aren't going to get it.

There are a few places that have Community ISPs where it will be substantially less expensive, but those are the exceptions and many states have actually made it illegal to operate community ISPs.

It's not a dumb question, but you're presuming standards and exactness that do not exist in practice.

A pub pint is a pint glass that is deceptively smaller than a full pint, usually about 14oz. That's all it is. This can is the same as a pub pint -- both in spirit and practice -- as far as I can tell.

That's not totally true. It probably worsened our military readiness and caused all kinds of knock-on effects fucking with the already terrible bureaucracy of the armed forces.

It also sent a CLEAR message to all enlisted members with uteruses that they need to be aware that their body autonomy may be revoked at any second.

Do the new mainstream Republicans (i.e., bigots and fascists) or the Dems hate him more, I wonder? He repeatedly broke his word and betrayed the trust of everyone on his quest for glory, and didn't even ultimately get to claim the glory.

330 and 440 are standard metric can sizes. 404 is weird.

Nope. The 4ml diff from 400 is within a margin of error I'm sure, so this size really seems arbitrary to me. Wolfram's language model doesn't recognize it as some obscure unit either.

It's a pub pint.
There are a lot of beer can sizes.

Imperial, the common ones are

• 24oz (usually only VERY cheap beer)
• 19.2 oz "imperial" pints (often called stovepipes/smokestacks)
• 16oz pints (usually called tallboys, though larger sizes are ALSO often called tallboys)
• 12oz "classic"/standard cans
• and nips (8.4oz) which I don't know the reason they're the size they are.

However, in bar tradition, a "pub" pint is a typical size, which is what this can is -- about 14oz. These happen a lot since they're served in a shaker pint glass that LOOKS like a typical pint glass but has an extra thick bottom that makes those 2oz disappear. The commonness of this style of glass is why so much EU glassware has the mandatory 40cl line.

Metric cans come in a lot more sizes, but as I understand it the standard ones are 330ml, 440ml, and those same 568ml (19.2oz) stovepipes.

The point is, this ridiculous number is a pub pint. Why that can size exists I do not know.

Statistically not true. And even the retail industry lobbyists has started backtracking on the claims.

The only city that has seen an increase in shoplifting in the last 4-5 years, as I have seen in actual data analysis, is NYC. Everywhere else has seen an overall trend downward.

https://www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2023/11/shoplifting-retail-data-moral-panic/676185/
https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/17/business/shoplifting-retail-crime-stores/index.html
https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/us-retail-lobbyists-retract-key-claim-organized-retail-crime-2023-12-06/

These narratives are all about trying to make you sympathetic to stores, creating justifications to close poorly-performing locations without suffering PR consequences, and to get the public to invest in security for retail stores so that the stores can save some bottom-line cost. And just regular ol' conservative love of the penal system.

In the raw numbers, shrink in general is not a major issue for retail and shoplifting only makes up a relatively small percent of shrink. It's just a great story to point to and makes great viral videos.

Yep, "Organized Retail Crime" is a straight-up moral panic. As are most of these modern crime stories about how everything is getting more dangerous and blah blah blah. It's just conservatives and capitalists lying to achieve conservative and capitalist goals.

The real objective here, as far as retailers are concerned, is to force communities to spend more of their limited policing budget on providing security services for their stores so that they don't have to. And, of course, to have a convenient excuse to close down a poorly-performing store without as much of a PR headache from the community left behind.

Shop local. These national chains exist to funnel money out of communities. That's their purpose. That's the only reason they exist. And if your city council doesn't make it just as easy for a local to open a business as a megacorp, hold your city council to task.

A shame the writers of the law didn't have good enough knowledge of the underlying technology to mandate not just the USB C connector, but specific USB C standards. The fact that USB C cables are very much "you can't even tell what it does without plugging it in" is a bit of a nightmare.

But on the other hand, there's always changes for further revisions in the future.