ricecake @ ricecake @sh.itjust.works

Posts

4

Comments

1,553

Joined

2 yr. ago

I don't know that I'd agree with the notion that games that are engaging need to be rated higher. Is there harm to playing one game a lot?
I've read books that were so engaging I kept reading long after I should have stopped for the night. The author very much intended for the book to be engaging and to hold my attention. Should we rate the book as more mature because I kept reading it?

I don't think balatro is any more addictive than most other games, it just has a low barrier to starting and a quick turn around.

Ratings should be informative and harm based. "This game is full of violence" and "this game has gambling". Factual.
A game being prone to being played alot isn't factual, it's just an observation that some people find it fun. Without an associated risk of harm you're just putting a scary number on something because of your opinion about it.

Well, aside from the boring "routine expression of a spectrum of neurodivergent traits being better understood leading to increased ability to properly diagnose it, and increased awareness and support in the public education system allowing more teachers to see early indicators and advise medical consultation early so kids can get better support".

They used to just call mildly autistic people geeks and best them with rulers. Now they let them wear headphones to reduce distractions if they need it.

Yeah, you're not exactly sounding rational there buddy.

You think we should mistrust doctors who advise you take a preventative treatment that every healthcare system on earth recommends and has since the treatment was created because in one country the people who pay for medicine sometimes don't want to pay for things the doctors recommend (and you're saying don't trust the doctors, mind you), even though the people who pay for it actually recommend it because they make more money if you don't get sick.

Even in a full conspiratorial mindset your nonsense is disjointed.

Antivaxers are fucking idiots because they don't have a coherent internal logic for their paranoid woo, they don't have the ability to understand any of the research that's happened, and they don't want to trust the people who do because those people clearly want to hurt them and give them... A developmental disability. For profit somehow.

"a drink" contains roughly the same amount of alcohol regardless of type, so a daiquiri should get you about as inebriated as a beer.
Some caveats: since drunk people drink more, some places have specials earlier in the evening or on some drinks where you can make it a double for no or low upcharge. That glass now has two drinks in it.
Some drinks are easier to drink fast, which makes you feel the effects faster and stronger, so you might perceive yourself to be "more drunk", even though it's really just hitting you all at once. Delicious sugary drinks that mask the alcohol flavor are notorious for that.

It takes about an hour to process a drink; sugary drinks will inevitably give you an upset stomach; water and food help keep your stomach settled ; you'll have a better time not having a drink you could have and feeling good than having a drink your shouldn't have and feeling gross, so if in doubt say nah.

You'll be fine with one with a meal with someone you know. A second is probably fine in the circumstances but more than that is iffy.

So, for the actual answer to how you get private security: you hire a company like constellis (formerly blackwater, or Iraq war crime fame) or the honest to God pinkertons, who are actually still around.
You pay them unholy amounts of money and get some burly people to follow you around, with skills proportional to how much you're paying them. If it gets to the six figure a month range, they also get more war-crime-y because you're going for the highly qualified special forces folks who miss the fun of combat and murder.
If you try to pay what feels like a reasonable sum for private security you're getting a cop working a second job who is definitely not taking a bullet for you, and probably not doing anything more to keep you alive than what's coincidental to keeping themselves alive.

The company I work for does business in countries where kidnapping foreign business people is a common and lucrative way to make money (it's effectively IT consulting, we're not evil beyond the baseline capitalist level). We hire security people for preposterous sums and basically get former special forces who drive a car, make sure the person who showed up to the meeting is actually who they should be, orders delivery food, and tells you not to do stupid things. They try to keep you from getting kidnapped in boring ways, and if you do get kidnapped they coordinate the ransom exchange. (That I know of the most that's ever happened was someone made the phone call to verify that the car they were about to get into at the airport was the pickup, and were told that it was not, abandon your bag if they've already loaded it and immediately go back into the airport and wait for the guard who showed up a minute later and handled the police interaction)

In general just try to avoid being in a position where you feel like you need to have hired a hero.

There's an interesting, although ultimately flawed, argument that the 22nd says that a person who's ineligible to hold the office of president can't be VP, and that a person can only be elected to two full terms.
It's an interesting argument that he's not ineligible to hold office, so he could be VP despite not being able to be elected.

It's ultimately flawed because the intent of the amendment was clear, and if we're working around it to that extent we're really sort of done with the law anyway.

Correct. It's the cuts to the VA that'll piss them off. The Medicaid cuts will piss them off because it'll impact their families.

While it's inaccurate to pretend the US would just steamroll the EU in a land war in the EU, we also shouldn't pretend like the bases wouldn't be problematic. Everywhere the US operates requires huge supply lines, so it's not the absolute deal breaker it would be for most nations.
Starting with places to land and manage supplies would be a big advantage.
The biggest issue would be that usually they use the bases to house troops during the lengthy process of getting them into place for deployment, so there would be a lot of questions about how to actually move the people over fast enough, but getting the supplies there would be relatively routine.

There's no way the US could take or hold Europe without an aggreable civilian population. Given the differences in expenditures, military size, experience, and developed tools and logistics there's also no real way any European nation is going to be able to effectively stop them. Basically a significantly worse Vietnam type situation, from the perspective of both sides.

https://blog.lukaszolejnik.com/biggest-privacy-erosion-in-10-years-on-googles-policy-change-towards-fingerprinting/

This article actually shares what changed, as opposed to just asserting that there was a change.

If you have reason to believe they are, you explain that reasoning to a court and if the reasoning is sufficiently persuasive the company can be compelled to provide internal information that could show whatever is going on.
Hiding this information or destroying it typically carries personal penalties for the individuals involved in it's destruction, as well as itself being evidence against the organization. "If your company didn't collect this information, why are four IT administrators and their manager serving 10 years in prison for intentionally deleting relevant business records?"

The courts are allowed to go through your stuff.

Just for an example that isn't visible to the user: the server needs to know how it can communicate responses to the browser.
So it's not just "what fonts do you have", it also needs to know "what type of image can you render? What type of data compression do you speak? Can I hold this connection open for a few seconds to avoid having to spend a bunch of time establishing a new connection? We all agree that basic text can be represented using 7-bit ASCII, but can you parse something from this millennium?”.

Beyond that there's all the parameters of the actual connection that lives beneath http. What tls ciphers do you support? What extensions?

The exposure of the basic information needed to make a request reveals information which may be sufficient to significantly track a user.

Most likely not. The vast majority of undocumented persons entered the country legally and simply remain after that authorization expired, which isn't a crime.
Entering without permission re-entering after being denied permission are crimes, but in the majority of cases, including the first example in the article, people are allowed in freely.

Everyone knows the best way to help poor people earn more money into take their money and give it to rich people because rich people are known for spending their money and thusly giving it to poor people.
If we wrongly focus on taking money from rich people, then they won't have as much money to give to poor people, so poor people have less money if we let them keep their money instead of giving it to rich people to give back later.

This is how they start meaningfully erroding abortion rights at the federal level, as well a gay rights.
They've long held that preventing a Christian from interfering in someone else's life is an infringement on religious freedom.
They're going to find ways to end Christian persecution by removing rules that say Christians have to fill prescriptions they think might be related to abortion, aren't bound by anti discrimination laws, are institutionally allowed to break rules governing the behavior of hospitals, orphanages and adoption agencies, or any number of other charities.

So you intentionally chose an example to produce the type of conversation you're then complaining about?

Do you think that removing the dust spoils the appearance?

I don't know what you expected the thread to be about when you gave an example of "wiping dust off a car" and treated it the same as "scraping the paint off with a box cutter". You picked an example that just begs for quibbling over severity.

Though the headnotes were drawn directly from uncopyrightable judicial opinions, the court analogized them to the choices made by a sculptor in selecting what to remove from a slab of marble. Thus, even though the words or phrases used in the headnotes might be found in the underlying opinions, Thompson Reuters’ selection of which words and phrases to use was entitled to copyright protection. Interestingly, the court stated that “even a headnote taken verbatim from an opinion is a carefully chosen fraction of the whole,” which “expresses the editor’s idea about what the important point of law from the opinion is.” According to the court, that is enough of a “creative spark” to be copyrightable. In other words, even if a work is selected entirely from the public domain, the simple act of selection is enough to give rise to copyright protection.

The court distinguished cases holding that intermediate copying of computer source code was fair use, reasoning that those courts held that the intermediate copying was necessary to “reverse engineer access to the unprotected functional elements within a program.” Here, copying Thompson Reuters’ protected expression was not needed to gain access to underlying ideas.

https://natlawreview.com/article/court-training-ai-model-based-copyrighted-data-not-fair-use-matter-law

It sounds like the case you mentioned had a government entity doing the annotation, which makes it public even though it's not literally the law.
Reuters seems to have argued that while the law and cases are public, their tagging, summarization and keyword highlighting is editorial.
The judge agreed and highlighted that since westlaw isn't required to view the documents that everyone is entitled to see, training using their copy, including the headers, isn't justified.

It's much like how a set of stories being in the public domain means you can copy each of them, but my collection of those stories has curation that makes it so you can't copy my collection as a whole, assuming my work curating the collection was in some way creative and not just "alphabetical order".

Another major point of the ruling seems to rely on the company aiming to directly compete with Reuters, which undermines the fair use argument.

I don't think that's the best argument in favor of AI if you cared to make that argument. The infringement wasn't for their parsing of the law, but for their parsing of the annotations and commentary added by westlaw.

If processing copy written material is infringement then what they did is definitively infringement.
The law is freely available to read without westlaw. They weren't making the law available to everyone, they were making a paid product to compete with the westlaw paid product. Regardless of justification they don't deserve any sympathy for altruism.

A better argument would be around if training on the words of someone you paid to analyze an analysis produces something similar to the original, is it sufficiently distinct to actually be copy written? Is training itself actually infringement?

Dumb as fuck. I can also guarantee that if any organization is capable of hiding content it's the NSA. Both via the tricky methods you think of when you think of the NSA hiding data, and the much more boring "having so much data that's so sensitive that no one is allowed to just run a search over all of it, and if they were allowed to they wouldn't be capable of actually doing so".

It's probably going to end up being pages from the HR wiki, random pages talking about historical stuff and things like that.
Dumb, wasteful and pointless, but also not going to actually impact NSA operations, which would really only be a problem if it deleted one of those tidbits of math the NSA figured out and has been sitting on.

More trivia rambling than anything: we do actually regularly send donkeys and mules into conflict. They're better at handling rough terrain than the vast majority of vehicles, so if you can't send a truck you send people with pack animals.

https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/fm3-05-213.pdf

The US army manual for the use and maintenance of pack animals.