hedgehog @ hedgehog @ttrpg.network

Posts

1

Comments

869

Joined

2 yr. ago

We don't just consider things as true just in case they might be true

That’s literally what you did in your previous comment when you said that ADHD isn’t environmental. You made a statement of fact about something unproven. By your own logic, your approach is unscientific.

You could say “We haven’t proven that ADHD is influenced by environmental factors,” that research is ongoing to determine the effect of environmental factors, or point out that much of the evidence suggesting environmental factors could simply be correlation - or in some cases that the causal factor is reversed, i.e., that the cause of the environmental factor is the parent/child having ADHD rather than the other way around. But simply saying that ADHD is only genetic is, to be succinct, wrong.

The speed limits they listed seem so low given that 90% of bicycles in Amsterdam (or at least, those that are “victims” in traffic accidents) are unpowered. I’m not even a hobbyist cyclist, but on my (unpowered) entry-level hybrid bicycle I rode faster than 25 km/h (or 15 mph) the last time I took it out… and heck, I can run faster than 15 km/h.

The accident stats also don’t back up the idea that e-bikes are a problem demanding regulation, which makes me think that there’s knee-jerk politics at play here rather than this being a clear-headed response to a real problem. I’ll explain how I arrived at that conclusion.

First of all, as an aside, it’s weird that they said “more than half of all traffic victims were on a bicycle,” when the metric here should be the number of traffic collisions caused by cyclists. But supposing that’s actually what they meant:

• if half of all accidents are caused by bicycles, then the other half are caused by cars and other motor vehicles. Since bicycles outnumber cars 4:1 in Amsterdam, that means cars are 4 times as likely to cause accidents as bicycles (startling low compared to how much more dangerous they are in the US). They recently lowered the speed limit of cars to 30 km/h, but I’m not sure if the stats take that into account. Maybe it needs lowered further, or maybe they should only allow cars with the same sort of smart governors installed that they’re testing out for e-bikes?
• One in ten of those cyclists was on an electric bike (meaning 5% of accidents were caused by someone on an e-bike). 57% of bicycles sold in the Netherlands in 2022 were electric, but bikes last a while and they have a ton of them. As of the start of 2023 they had an estimated 5 million e-bikes, and the country has 23 million bicycles total (more than 1 per person). This means that 22% of their bikes are e-bikes, and (assuming that ratio applies to bikes on the road in Amsterdam) then given that only 10% of accidents involving bicycles involved e-bikes, that means that unpowered bicycles are a bit over twice as likely to cause accidents as e-bikes. Honestly, though, the ratio of e-bikes to unpowered bicycles is probably higher - I would expect people are more inclined to ride the new bicycle they just bought rather than one of the ones they’ve had for several years.

Obviously these stats are fairly sloppy, but I worked with what I could find.

Assuming my conclusion is accurate, this still doesn’t mean that e-bikes are less dangerous than bicycles - the accidents they’re in may be worse - but it certainly doesn’t suggest that e-bikes are the problem. I’m aligned with the other commenters here - this isn’t going to address the problem of people riding already illegal e-bikes.

The tech sounds cool and I’d love if it could be applied to cars, too, even if it’s opt-in only.

If that were truly the issue, why not instead pass a law that prohibits transferring that kind of information to entities that could potentially share it without foreign powers?

I’ve never used Radicale, but I just looked it up and the homepage talks about enabling authentication. It also supports auth via reverse proxy headers, which is great for anyone who wants to use Authelia, KeyCloak, or another similar solution. By contrast, as far as I can tell, Baikal doesn’t support reverse proxy auth, though it does seem to let you set up auth through the web interface.

I signed up back when it was “Google Play Music” and was locked into that deal as well. I didn’t want to lose it, but I wanted to upgrade to a family plan. Customer support promised me that if I upgraded, my family plan price would continue to be honored for just as long as the individual plan price.

Spoiler: they lied.

I had my account using a unique-per-service card with a monthly cap and it started rejected their billing attempts when, about a year ago, they abruptly increased my plan price to nearly double what I had been paying.

I had already been using uBlock Origin and Tidal via Plex (even though I don’t actually use Plex, but when I signed up I hadn’t yet decided to use Jellyfin), since I despise the YT Music UI, so for me there wasn’t much of a change.

That said, if you like YT Music / YT Premium then by all means stick with it. The creators of the videos you watch get comped better when you watch them than when a free user does - that was the main reason I kept my subscription for as long as I did.

Speed limit signs with ranges would make sense if given some additional clarification by the issuing authority. For example:

• The upper bound is the limit in perfect conditions; the lower bound is the limit when the weather is bad in any way
• The upper bound is the limit when there’s no traffic. The lower bound is the limit when there’s substantial traffic.
• The upper bound is the limit normally. The lower bound is the limit during school hours.

Even without a clarification drivers could probably assume it’s some combination of the above.

(A job description could have the same clarification but probably doesn’t, as “minimum” is just an error on the part of the person writing it. But they could say “5-10 years minimum experience, depending on level and nature of education,” and then a reader could infer that a person with a relevant Master’s degree might need 5 years of experience; a relevant Bachelor’s degree - 6 years minimum; a major in something else - 8 years minimum; only a high school diploma - 10 years minimum.)

Generally speaking, doesn’t the buyer pay their fee, in the sense that a portion of what they pay goes to them? If so, wouldn’t it have made more sense for them to have withheld that portion of money when refunding the buyer?

Not really. If your viewpoint wouldn’t catch a Fox News watcher off guard, it’s politically correct. If you want to be politically incorrect you’ll need to change your pronouns to xi/they and brush up on critical race theory.

the researchers say the work is a warning about “bad architecture design” within the wider AI ecosystem

Basically they’re saying that if you build a tool that both reads your emails (or other untrusted inputs) and can also act on those emails, without having a manual human approval step and without sanitization of the emails/inputs in the middle, then you’ll be susceptible to this kind of an attack.

Yes, but not really. You can have multiple users but not multiple libraries.

If you need/want a robust multi-user experience, specifically with private personal library support, then Photoprism isn’t going to work, unfortunately.

• Free:
  • You can create multiple Admin users in the free version, but they all can see and delete everything (unless you don’t give Photoprism delete access)
• Paid (Essentials or Plus)
  • you can create “User” users who can upload photos - but they still have access to your full library
  • you can create “Viewer” users who can’t see private photos (but they also can’t upload photos).
  • you can share links to albums that are viewable by anyone with the link

I’ve been using it single user and it’s been great, though I should add the caveat that I upload my photos to my server using Photosync and don’t give Photoprism write/delete access to my library, so no uploads come from it. I had been using Photosync for years before even hearing about Photoprism so it just fit very neatly into my existing process.

Multi user features are effectively paywalled and not technically FOSS due to not allowing commercial use, but roles are documented at https://docs.photoprism.app/user-guide/users/roles/ and there’s more info at https://docs.photoprism.app/user-guide/users/libraries/

If Photoprism Plus/Essentials features could work for you, but the ongoing subscription is an issue, then you should know that - unless this has changed - you can sub for one month on Patreon or Github, use the info they provide to upgrade to using the Essentials or Plus features, and then cancel the subscription. I still have an ongoing one but I didn’t connect it to my Patreon account or anything so I don’t think anything would change (except for me no longer getting support, if I needed it) if I canceled it.

If you haven’t already ruled it out, I recommend checking out Photoprism. It was the first app I ever self-hosted using Docker and I haven’t needed to change my config because of breaking changes yet.

Laws should be heavily influenced by what is morally right and wrong, but morality as a concept is not influenced by laws. An individual’s or culture’s sense of morality might be, but if laws are derived from morals then that’s fine.

Questions of morality will have different answers when the context changes, so it may be morally unacceptable in one society to do something and morally acceptable to do the same thing in another. Laws have an influence on morality only insofar as laws have an impact on the context in which actions take place. This would not be because the law prohibits those actions.

Some examples:

• If a law is passed outlawing sharing nonconsensual AI-generated pornography, it should be because it was agreed that doing so is morally wrong. The law being passed doesn’t make it suddenly morally wrong.
• If a law were passed making some completely innocuous action illegal, and frequently punished - say, hand-painting Nintendo or Disney characters on an interior wall in your own house - then posting publicly on someone’s Facebook wall about loving their Princess Peach X Princess Elsa mural would be morally wrong, even though it would have been fine to do that before the law was passed.

The context that we have is that it is illegal (in the US) to:

• distribute copyrighted materials
• download copyrighted materials
• bypass DRM even when making a backup, except for specific purposes. With video games, unless you are circumventing DRM because the auth servers were taken down (inapplicable for the Switch) or solely because you have a physical disability and are patching the game to support other input options (standard keyboard and mouse specifically excluded), then it is still illegal.

So in either case you’d be doing something illegal. But morally, in a situation where you’ve purchased the game and are platform-shifting to an unsupported platform (like the “time-shifting” defense used with VHS recordings, DVRs, etc.), then the laws aren’t really relevant. The laws certainly don’t exist because there’s societal agreement that this type of platform shifting is morally wrong.

The reason the person I replied to had to pay someone to rip his own game for him is because Nintendo makes it difficult to do so. Even if the law were different and allowed those actions, I don’t understand why anyone would think that it makes sense that a corporation can morally obligate their customers (who want to consume their product in a particular way) to perform work with no value add when the customers could get what they want by doing something much easier.

Unless you’re actually causing harm (directly or indirectly) to someone by your actions in one instance but not the other, I don’t see how one option would be morally acceptable and the other morally wrong.

If the game were supported on the other platform, then the context - and potentially the outcome - changes. If Nintendo invested a decent amount of money porting BotW to Android phones and it cost them a decent amount of money to do so, then would it be morally wrong to not support them and to emulate it instead? Would there be an ethical obligation to support them? What if the Android port was terrible - would it be acceptable to buy it, then use the emulated version anyway - and if you’d bought the Android version and were emulating it on Android, would there still be a moral or ethical obligation to purchase the same cart you were emulating? What if Nintendo just licensed or repackaged Yuzu and didn’t actually make any changes to the game, so their investment was minimal?

It’s a different situation entirely when determining whether it’s morally wrong to host a site with freely downloadable ROMs. The site could be used by people who did not purchase those games, causing lost revenue to their creators.

Both of those situations have grey areas and I can see why someone would consider them immoral. I have opinions on them, of course, but there’s a lot more nuance there; I can easily see why someone would feel differently.

With this specific situation I don’t understand - and am trying to understand - how someone could come to different conclusions for the morality of the two actions. Are they inferring that you support the site hosting the content when you download it? (If you use an adblocker and don’t financially support them, would it then be fine?) Are they assuming torrenting, where you would have to either leech (which they would consider immoral) or seed, and thus distribute, as well? Or is there some other factor that I’m not thinking of?

but most people either feel like its morally 100% fine to download a copy if they bought one, or don't even know that its technically not legal.

Morally speaking, why would backing up your own copy make a difference, assuming you bought a copy in either case?

This is a fairly big departure from what you proposed here but your comment made me think about it:

If you had one time / every 5 year payments, you could charge a fairly sizable amount and then use a portion of that money to hire people to vet, interview, and take professional photographs of every user for their profiles (which they could of course combine with their own pictures, though those would be unverified). I’m thinking like $500+, to be clear - but for that you get:

• great pictures taken of you
• more confidence that anyone you see or match with is actually the person they say they are
• ability to have your interview used for determining compatibility, such that anyone you’re introduced to on the app is much more likely to be into you and someone you’re into

Are you telling me that Digital IDs don’t operate with a private/public key model; with the private key stored and inaccessible in a chip leveraging WebAuthn (or WebAuthn-like) privacy-respecting tech from a trusted vendor like Yubico; with unique IDs generated per vendor the user signs up with; all within the ID cards/driver licenses that are freely issued by the government; with the ability for a user to mark another WebAuthn device (like a Yubikey) as trusted/untrusted through a government portal that undergoes regular security audits? Because if they did, the scenarios you outlined wouldn’t be feasible without someone’s device (and PIN) being physically taken or the vendor’s site being compromised.

The government would still be able to determine what you viewed if they had access to the sites’ internal data and the vendors stored your info, but that would still require a warrant.

And if they don’t use that or a similar approach, the approach they’re using for their “Digital IDs” is probably garbage.

Its a huge headache for startups sometimes. I had team members I wanted to compensate but just giving them the equity would have been an imediate big tax bill on a non-liquid, and speculative, asset. There's ways to massage it (like vesting) but he will absolutely have that taxed.

Is there an equivalent of the sell-to-cover withholding strategy for stocks that aren’t publicly tradable?

Why is “Israeli” in quotes?

Signal blog post on the topic, with instructions and links to join the beta: https://signal.org/blog/phone-number-privacy-usernames/

The bill is garbage,

Who wrote the sentence I just quoted?