hedgehog @ hedgehog @ttrpg.network

Posts

1

Comments

870

Joined

2 yr. ago

The bill is garbage,

Who wrote the sentence I just quoted?

A good night’s sleep, exercise, and a good diet make a huge difference to my ability to focus. It’s a shame that having ADHD means that I’m terrible at getting myself to exercise, eat well, and to sleep at a normal time, even when medicated. (Note that I haven’t watched those specific videos)

There’s a pretty great channel for ADHD on Youtube - the creator of all the videos above - https://m.youtube.com/@HowtoADHD - and I think she’s covered that topic.

Not at all. We just need to provide tools to enable parents to effectively manage their children’s experiences. One component of that would be requiring web and app developers to adhere to a higher set of standards if their website or app is available to children.

Since parents are the ones making devices available to their children, they would be empowered to do one of the following:

• set up the device as a child account that’s linked to an adult account elsewhere
• set up two accounts on the device - one for themselves and one for the child

Then the parents would be able to manage apps installed on the device / sites that are navigable. This could include both apps/sites that are explicitly targeted at children and those that have a child-targeted experience, which, if accessed from a child’s account would be opted into automatically. Those apps and sites would be held to the higher standards and would be prohibited from employing predatory patterns, etc..

A parent should be able to feel safe allowing their child to install any app or access any site they want that adheres to these standards.

It would even be feasible to have apps identify the standards they adhere to, such that a parent could opt to only search for / only allow installation of apps / experiences that meet specific criteria. For example, Lexi’s parents might be fine with cartoony face filters but not with in-app purchases, Simon’s parents might not be okay with either, and Sam’s parents might be cool with her installing literally anything that isn’t pornographic.

If a device/account isn’t set up as a child’s device then none of those restrictions would be relevant. This would mean that if a mother handed her son her unlocked iPad to watch a video on Youtube and then left the room, she might come back to him watching something else. An “easy” way to fix that is to require devices to support a “child” user / experience, which could be managed similarly to what I described above (or at least by allow-listing specific apps that are permitted) even if set up as an adult device, rather than only supporting single user experiences.

The bill is garbage, but it cracks me up that they think this part is a bad thing:

The bill seeks to … limit developers’ inclusion of personalized recommendation systems, notifications, appearance-altering filters, and in-game purchases for apps used by minors.

Every item on that list has been abused by web/app developers in ways that exploit and/or negatively affect the brains of developing children.

In addition to not being cheap, it’s also not disposable. Pilot manufactures and sells refill cartridges - you can get them in office supply stores, on Amazon, at Walmart, and at dedicated pen retailers. And it took me all of two seconds to discover that with a simple web search.

Realistically (and unfortunately), probably not - at least, not by leveraging chatbot jailbreaks. From a legal perspective, if you have the expertise to execute a jailbreak - which would be made clear in the transcripts that would be shared with the court - you also have the understanding of its unreliability that this plaintiff lacked.

The other issue is the way he was promised the discount - buy the tickets now, file a claim for the discount later. You could potentially demand an upfront discount be honored under false advertising laws, but even then it would need to be a “realistic” discount, as obvious clerical errors are generally (depending on jurisdiction) exempt. No buying a brand new truck for $1, unfortunately.

If I’m wrong about either of the above, I won’t complain. If you have an agent promising trucks to customers for $1 and you don’t immediately fire that agent, you’re effectively endorsing their promise, right?

On the other hand, we’ll likely get enough cases like this - where the AI misleads the customer into thinking they can get a post-purchase discount without any suspicious chat prompts from the customer - that many corporations will start to take a less aggressive approach with AI. And until they do, hopefully those cases all work out like this one.

Have you considered not using the Home Assistant OS? You don’t need to run it to use Home Assistant. You can instead set your host up with some other OS, like Debian, and then run Home Assistant in a docker container (or containers, plural) and run any other containers you want.

I’m not doing this myself so can’t speak to its limitations, but from what I’ve heard, if you’re familiar with Docker then it’s pretty straightforward.

A lot of apps use hard coded paths, so using a subdomain per app makes it much easier to use them all. Traefik has middleware, including stripPrefix, which allow you to strip a path prefix before forwarding the path to the app, though - have you tried that approach?

For the former use case, have you considered a dedicated solution? For example: https://libimobiledevice.org/

That’s some wild speculation there.

What you described would be a contrived and inefficient workaround that would have little to no impact on its legality compared to just using the underlying texts as part of a training corpus.

Not sure why you think Spotify wouldn’t want to eliminate the cost of voice actors and production. If you’re self-publishing, recording and producing an audiobook traditionally is a substantial expense. If Spotify can offer something like Google’s Auto-Narrated Audiobooks to authors, then that would enable them to bring those authors to Spotify (potentially exclusively).

Spotify’s goal also is not necessarily to imitate the voices from the existing audiobooks. There is a lot that goes into making an audiobook successful, and just copying the voice alone wouldn’t convey that. For example, pairing tone and cadence changes with what’s being narrated, techniques for conveying dialogue, particularly between different characters, etc.. How you speak is just as important as your raw voice.

That would allow Spotify to create audiobooks using those techniques without using the voice of anyone who hadn’t signed away rights to it. However I would argue that some of the techniques they would likely use are integral to a person’s voice.

It’s also feasible that Spotify wants to be able to take an existing audiobook and make it available with a different voice. This wouldn’t require the audiobook to have ever been trained on - they would just replace the existing voice in it with another while preserving the pauses, tone shifts, etc. (and possibly adjusting them to be appropriate for the new voice).

More closely aligned to the specific derivative work they mentioned would be to implement something like Kindle/Audible’s Whispersync, potentially in collaboration with a non-Amazon ebook retailer like Barnes&Noble or Kobo.

Carbon credits are fake.

Carbon credits should instead be a tax - one that every major corporation has to pay based off their carbon emissions, and the funds should be used exclusively to fund renewable energy sources, renewable goods manufacturing, and to repair the damage done by traditional fuels.

If a law requires then intent then of course intent is relevant.

“I had a drone and I accidentally the whole thing. Is that bad? Should I call someone to help?”

Ultimately because the basic premise of the law could (in general) be the basis for the government to remove our entire conversation here...

It is potentially a tool to do this

In 1984, the government rewrites history and uses a multitude of techniques that trick you into accepting things that are not true as being true.

The laws are completely unlike another, so the progression you’ve described isn’t a concern. One law regulates mega corporations who already have relationships with EU countries; the one you’ve described would regulate ordinary people.

Corporations aren’t people, no matter what they would have you believe. They don’t need to be defended in the same way.

And of course any of those people outside the EU could just ignore them. So even if I thought it were likely that the EU would do this, I wouldn’t care. If the EU sanctioned a Lemmy instance, it wouldn’t ultimately matter; Lemmy instance owners would need to ensure that their hosting setup was outside the EU but that’s it.

I don't object for the sake of my my benefit, I object for the sake of yours (everyone).

I see it a one degree increment on the proverbial frog in the proverbial pot, being slowly but surely brought to boil and it's death, and I don't really care who it affects in the moment.

I’m concerned about people’s freedom being effectively taken away by corporations - e.g., pushing up the price of housing by “investing” in the housing market and making it unaffordable for lower income people; lobbying for regulations that make it unaffordable for small businesses to enter spaces that large businesses already exist in; lobbying for regulations that make it difficult to exert our power against them; heck, just being treated as people and being able to donate to political campaigns in the first place; exploiting workers; exploiting resources; and so on.

I’m concerned about the ways that the US government takes away our individual and collective freedoms - e.g., gerrymandering; refusal to implement a proper system for elections that doesn’t result in people thinking their votes are being wasted if they vote for third parties; the rights of women that have been revoked with Roe v. Wade being overturned and the laws passed since; our public school budgets being siphoned to subsidize private schools for the rich; slashing public aid programs such that we become even more beholden to corporations; and so on.

There is a frog being boiled, but it’s us, and the stove is much closer to home.

No, were just apparently on very different wavelengths here

Agreed. I promise that I'm trying my best to understand your perspective, too.

we’re on friendly terms here from my perspective

No disagreement here.

Do you not think that government determination of what is or is not acceptable on “social media” (quotes because generalizing) is eerily similar to thoughtcrime? And an orwellian policy? Making a 1984 reference in its defense a little ironic?

No, not at all.

First of all, the alternative is that you give the power to determine what's acceptable entirely to corporations. Almost all corporations already prohibited the sort of speech that would be impacted by these laws.

Second of all, thoughtcrime is fundamentally a different animal than what the EU is doing. Thoughtcrime is the policing of thoughts that are contrary to what the government wants you to think, regardless of whether those thoughts are actually harmful, and it's implemented via pervasive surveillance and a lack of privacy. Criticizing the government is, of course, prohibited.

By contrast, the EU is mandating the censorship of hate speech and calls for violence. The sentiments and logic associated with that hate speech are used as justification for violence and to restrict liberties. And this type of speech is not legally protected in the US under the 1st Amendment.

In 1984, the government rewrites history and uses a multitude of techniques that trick you into accepting things that are not true as being true. This is why it's important to be able to recognize logical fallacies - they're used by all sorts of propaganda techniques with the goal of getting people to act against their own best interests, e.g., by getting poor people to vote for Republicans or to support laws that infringe on our liberties by justifying them by saying "It's for the children!" The world would be a better place if misinformation and misleading propaganda at scale (meaning, in advertisement, on news shows, etc.) were illegal.

I don't have to engage in doublethink to accept the justification for the EU's law, but the arguments that you've shared for why I should oppose it would require that of me. Ultimately, what I'm asking you is: why would I be opposed to a law that itself is 100% fine, just because the same legislators might later pass a different law that I don't like? This law doesn't make it any easier for them to pass one like what you described.

Are you drunk?

If you’re copy pasting playlists using plain text files (one url per line) you can download every url in a single file by running yt-dlp -a <filename>. If you have multiple files, it’s straightforward to write a shell script that calls it for each of them.

This article is full of misinformation and reads like the rantings of an angry and incompetent MAGA propagandist.

Does it make sense to have robust protections for an event that will have 65,000 civilians present - and where the equipment and personnel involved can be deployed to other high profile events afterward, even if there isn’t a specific drone threat? Yes.

This year’s Super Bowl in Las Vegas has better protections against rogue drones than the many small U.S. bases in the Middle East like Tower 22

“Many small US bases,” huh? And the author thinks that each of them should be better protected than the Super Bowl? That doesn’t make a ton of sense to me. Is this in a heavy casualty zone or something? No - we’ve had 3 casualties, total, across all bases, since this engagement started.

Don’t get me wrong - I think our soldiers should be kept safe. Leave it to me and I’d have every single one of those soldiers back on US soil. That would keep them safe but probably wouldn’t make the author happy.

Unlike Tower 22, this year’s Super Bowl will enjoy a host of “hardened” measures including electromagnetic weapons that can incapacitate drones.

The bases have anti-drone tech, but they also have drones and one was returning at the same time as the attack, which likely is why a large part of why the attack was successful. Does the author think that the super bowl defenses would have foiled such an attack? He implies as much but gives no evidence in support of that claim.

In fact, the entire region is a no-drone zone. So sure, we can deploy the super bowl defenses to those bases - they just have to understand that their drones will be shot down, too.

To be honest, from my uneducated point of view, the defenses described for the bases sound more sophisticated than the ones in place at the Super Bowl, not less.

That all said, the author’s other article has this tidbit:

Just a week before the attack, the military announced an $84 million contract to work on a replacement to the TPS-75, a mobile, ground-based radar array from the 1960s.

So the military is literally in the process of improving their defenses and they just haven’t been built yet? Strange, in this article the author said there hadn’t been any efforts to improve them.

Compare this hypervigilance with the glib way the Biden administration has discussed the terrorist drone that slipped past military defenses and killed three Americans and injured 41 others.

Glib how? This is what I found for their response:

The president, in the written statement, called it a “despicable and wholly unjust attack” and said the service members were “risking their own safety for the safety of their fellow Americans, and our allies and partners with whom we stand in the fight against terrorism. It is a fight we will not cease.”

Doesn’t sound glib to me.

For the most part. You know, besides the deaths of three National Guard soldiers from Georgia. Working class people with families — the supposed focus of the Biden administration’s “foreign policy for the working class.” But who cares about them?

I imagine at least the victims of the 85 retaliatory attacks the US made cared.

It’s unclear what the author wants, other than to wave a “Let’s Go Brandon” flag around while getting drunk and posting misinformation.

Stating that it applies to Lemmy today is categorically untrue. If you think that explaining why you were wrong is the same as sticking my head in the sand, then that’s evidence that you’re failing at basic logic and reasoning, because that progression is unsound. Are you just mad and not thinking straight or is this indicative of your normal capacity? If the latter, would you like help improving at that or are you committed to carrying on as is?

Your second paragraph is an example of the slippery slope fallacy and your last is simple fearmongering. Do you have any reason to believe those statements or are they, too, just your “opinions?”

I get the impression that you might be under the understanding that you can say anything and call it an opinion. That isn’t actually how opinions work, and in fact, “I’m entitled to my opinion” is a logical fallacy when applied to statements of fact. It’s an especially dangerous one as it’s a thought stopper that enables cognitive dissonance, which is how you end up in a cult. (If you’ve read 1984, “doublethink” is an extreme example of cognitive dissonance.) I suggest you disabuse yourself of the fallacy.

Ok, well it was intended to be an opinion, so your assertion that I'm incorrect is incorrect because its my opinion, but that aside, which part?

My understanding is that your opinion is “This is bullshit because X” (where “X” refers to this law applying to Lemmy and thus having the implications you outlined) but your comment was almost entirely about it applying to Lemmy and the implications. If your opinion were “It would be bullshit if it applied to Lemmy,” I would agree with you, but point out that it does not.

This essentially adds up to government proctorship of any "public forum" on the internet, including here...

This is incorrect because the law does not apply to Lemmy. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Services_Act and the associated sources for more details on why. If you believe that Lemmy has more than 45 million users in the EU please share where you’re getting those figures.

So if I randomly throw an "all lives matter" right here mid-comment, which while at face value is a ridiculously benign thing to say, can be and almost always is considered to be hate speech, lemmy is entirely obligated to immediately remove my comment or face heavy sanctions from the EU.

This hypothetical scenario is irrelevant and the conclusion about Lemmy’s obligations are incorrect because the law does not apply to Lemmy.

It's an extreme caricature of an example that I assume won't go anywhere, but the point is that it could, and the deciding factor on that isn't anyone here, the deciding factor is a bunch of rando EU officials...

“The point is that it could” is incorrect because you have misinterpreted the law as applying to Lemmy when it does not.

If some Karen in Wales in the right position decides she doesn't like my comment, she could initiate a "hefty" fine against lemmy admins.

See above. Karen could do no such thing, even if she was in the EU.

It's an absurd concept, and I don't say that in the context of tuker Carlson (who I simply don't give two shits about in any context), I say that in the context of us, as a "social media" community.

This is the 5th sentence.

We are subject to this proctorship, this censorship...

This is incorrect because as Lemmy users, we are not subject to it, as the law does not apply to Lemmy.

Technically this would be true if you made this statement about those of us who are users of social media platforms to which the laws do apply, but that would be incongruent with your previous statements (and would assume that we are all users of those platforms - and many Lemmy users are not), so I find it fair to not allow for that possibility.

That isn’t ergonomic. Look at how her wrists are splayed and how her shoulders are uneven. She’s just begging for an RSI.