Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)PH
peto (he/him) @ peto @lemm.ee
Posts
0
Comments
211
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • I always feel sad with these kinds of stories. The machine is clearly just trying to be helpful but it doesn't understand a thing about what it is doing or why we might find what it is saying repugnant. It's like watching a dog not understanding that yes, we like our slippers, but we don't want our neighbours swastika themed ones on our doorstep.

    And then of course we get to the content and I am reminded that we live in hell and the sadness is replaced by the familiar horror as the machine pretends to empathise with its fellow Amazon workers and helps them pick out the ideal thing to piss in without missing their drop targets.

  • A company who wants to promote customer privacy has a very simple job, they simply don't harvest data on their customers, they don't install tracking files on people's machines. What Trustarc does for it's customers (the websites, not you) is to help them harvest as much data as possible without running afoul of the various data laws around the world. They are a compliance company, not an individual rights company.

  • Eh... Close, but they are also a concentration social power (and fundamentally deferred violence), and rights only really exist in the context of social power. You can try and establish your own personal sovereignty but you can be sure that any state that cares to will test that. Sometimes the most you can do is accept that it is able to imprison you or go down fighting, and if you are committed to pacifism the latter is a harder option.

  • IANAL, of course.

    My understanding is that there is no such thing as an assumed licence for copyrighted work. The default is that there is no license and the owner reserves all rights. A license is a way to assign some or all of those rights to another entity.

    The downside to copyleft is that you are giving up some of the ability to control the work, and it becomes harder to monetize as some people will question why they should pay for something they can have for free.

    As far as I know, you can't use copyright to prevent someone from reading something that has been legally distributed to them. There are also some exceptions your government includes in copyright, like you can be quoted for the purposes of commentary and criticism, there may be exceptions for copies made for educational purposes or an exception that allows the government to make a copy for their archives, or if someone has legal access they might be able to make copies for personal use.

    In all cases check your local laws. Copy left is a way to exploit these laws to allow humans to more easily benefit from your work but keep exploitative entities away. All of these only work within a legal framework however.

  • There is always self improvement. Read, exercise, meditate. So much philosophy is public domain, if you have internet access and a device to read ebooks on then you can read most of the famous texts. https://www.gutenberg.org/ is great. If you have access to a local library then use that as well. You can access almost anything with a library card.

  • "Hydrogen powered" generally means burning hydrogen in oxygen to make water: 2(HH) + OO -> 2(HHO). To run a car on water as you say is a lot like trying to make a fire out of ash, rather than wood. You can't burn the ash because it has already been burned.

  • You are probably going to want a tutor that offers an intensive class, that can be done in a month, but you are still going to be looking at 50+ hours.

    Do you know what level the exam is expecting?

  • Yeah, totally the same thing. Utterly comparable, you clearly fully understand what it is capable of and the risks it poses.

    I also respect your knowledge of nuclear weapons and the reasons why every billionaire doesn't have a home defence warhead.

  • Only the government and a few permitted parties

    So a government and anyone who can pay a government's fee. This isn't really fixing the problem, just putting an extra barrier in the way of any smaller org that wants to get involved.

    Never mind the issue that there isn't a government that can be trusted. Do you think the world is going to be improved by making perception manipulating tech the private weapon of whatever bunch of psychopaths happen to rule at the time?

  • Good on you for checking in with all those people, it must have taken a while.

    Lifting the whole world off of fossil fuels is going to be hard, especially if we want to do it quickly. This isn't however a problem the capitalist and nation-state models are well equipped to solve. It should not be a question of can a given people afford the technology or if someone can turn a profit on it.

    We need to do this as a species, for the species. It should be given not as charity, not because wealthy countries owe it to poor ones, but because it is right that everyone should benefit from this.

    The difficulty is how to convince the politicians and their masters of this, and I don't think throwing paint on things is going to be sufficient.