unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov @ unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov @lemmy.sdf.org

Posts

0

Comments

280

Joined

2 yr. ago

Head for the extreme northwest and northeast corners of the country; Alaska and Maine both use RCV, including for presidential elections. It's not 50 states of RCV but it's a start!

Linux ISOs are my all-time favorite thing to torrent so this does seem like it requires further research.

• objectively wrong: doubles down
• no expert: the most educated
• dumbed down (thanks!): incomprehensible amounts of wits

Does your LinkedIn profile list, "The School of Hard Knocks", under education? You argue like someone who has never had any serious, formal education.

On the bright side, you should seriously consider running for public office, you check every box for the modern politician in some places.

I think you're both arguing about the wrong things, but did you read the article you cited?

Literally the first sentence of the article:

The Palestinian militant group Islamic Jihad fired a barrage of rockets into Israel on Monday as...

If, like me, you're not an expert in Iranian backed militia groups, it then goes on to say:

Islamic Jihad, an ally of Hamas - both of whom are backed by Iran - said...

Idk about the rockets or any of the details but do try to become familiar with the evidence you're citing before acting like you're an authority on the topic.

This is a matter of perspective.

I disagree, these children are minors and the their behavior, while abhorrent, belies a fundamental lack of perspective and empathy.

I've been a teenage boy before and I did some bone-headed things. Maybe not this bad, but still, I agree with the judge in this instance that it would be inappropriate to impose permanent consequences on these kids before their life even gets started because they were stupid, horny, teenage boys.

Even if we assume that these kids don't all have well-meaning parents who who will impose their own punishments, having a probation officer in high school is not going to help with popularity. Then, mandatory classes that will force these boys to evaluate the situation from another perspective seems like a great add-on.

I know it doesn't feel like justice, but our goal as a society shouldn't be to dole out maximum punishment in every instance. The goal is to allow all of us to peacefully coexist and contribute to society - throwing children in a dark hole somewhere to be forgotten isn't going to help with that.

Having said all of the above, it feels like a good time to emphasize that we still don't have any good ideas for solving the core problem here, which is the malicious use of this technology that was dumped on society without any regard for the types of problems that it would create, and entirely without a plan to add guard rails. While I'm far from the only one considering this problem, it should be clear enough by now that dragging our feet on creating regulation isn't getting us any closer to a solution.

At a minimum it feels like we need to implement a mandatory class on the responsible use of technology, but the obvious question there is how to keep the material relevant. Maybe it's something that tech companies could be mandated to provide to all users under 18 - a brief, recurring training (could be a video, idc) and assessment that minors would have to complete quarterly to demonstrate that they understand their responsibilities.

They were never really hiding it, we just all assumed they were insane fringe ideas and nothing would come of it. Things have changed...

I don't know why people expect these companies to just give this service away.

Idk if you've noticed but there seem to be a lot of people on Lemmy who are opposed to the theory underlying the profit motive. If your product or service is priced above cost then it is automatically bad. 🤷‍♂️

I agree with everything you said and wanted to point out that you offered quite a compelling argument that even current AI tools are capable of significant amounts of damage without even touching on the autonomous weapons systems that are starting to be deployed.

Not even just talking about the military intelligence systems that may or may not have been deployed (Israel: Lavender et al), but we're starting to show off weapons platforms that may someday be empowered to perform their own threat analysis and take real world actions accordingly. That shit is terrifying in more of a Terminator/Matrix way than anything else imo.

The song helped me remember that one much more than I'd like to admit.

Some small part of me dies every time I hear someone allude to the idea that teaching critical thinking is indoctrination.

Like where do you even start with that? A dictionary?

The website makes it sound like all of the code being bespoke and "based on standards" is some kind of huge advantage but all I see is a Herculean undertaking with too few engineers and too many standards.

W3C lists 1138 separate standards currently, so if each of their three engineers implements one discrete standard every day, with no breaks/weekends/holidays, then having an alpha available that adheres to all 2024 web standards should be possible by 2026?

This is obviously also without testing but these guys are serious, senior engineers, so their code will be perfect on the first try, right?

Love the passion though, can't wait to see how this project plays out.

Since we're telling people to Google things, try "anecdotal fallacy" and let us know if it helps you to understand the source of the downvotes.

The OP is about survey data that directly contradicts your position. It's fantastic that you've found a position where you have work/life balance that works so well for you, but it simply doesn't match the experience of many commenting in this thread or those who were surveyed.

Be as obstinate as you like, it won't change the lived experiences of others in the industry.

Is there any chance you're at a kbbq or hotpot restaurant? Because then you get to cook the meal yourself, which is arguably chef-like.

Jokes aside, I see the comparison you're making and it's not a bad one. I'd counter by giving the example of a menu - when you get to a restaurant you're given a menu with text descriptions of the food you can receive from the kitchen. Since this is an analogy and not an exact comparison, let's say that a meal on the menu is like the starting point of the workflow I described.

Based on that you have an idea of what the output will be when you order - but let's say you don't like mushrooms and you prefer your sauce on the side. When you make your order you provide those modifications - this is like inpainting.

Certainly you're not a 'chef', but if the dish you design is both bespoke and previously unimaginable, I'd argue that at the very least you contributed to the creative process and participated in creating something new that matches your internal vision.

Not exactly the same but I don't think it's entirely different.

Not OP but familiar enough with open source diffusion image generators to be able to chime in.

Now I'd argue that being an artist comes down to being able to envision something in your mind's eye and then reproduce it in the real world using some medium, whether it's a graphite pencil, oil paint, a block of marble, Wacom tablet on a pc, or even through a negotiation with an AI model. Your definition might be different, but for the sake of conversation this is how I'm thinking about it.

The work flow for an AI generated image can have a few steps before feeling like it sufficiently aligns with your vision. Prompting for specific details can be tricky, so usually step 1 is to generate the basic outline of the image you're after. Depending on your GPU or cloud service, this could take several minutes or hours before you get a basis that you can work with. Once you have the basic image, you can then use inpainting tools to mask specific areas of the image and change specific details, colors, etc. This again can take many many generations before you land on something that sufficiently matches your vision.

This is all also after you go through the process of reviewing and selecting one of the hundreds of models that have been trained specifically for different types of output. Want to generate anime-style art? There's a model for that, want something great at landscapes? There's a different one for that. Surely you can use an all-purpose model for everything, but some models simply don't have the training to align to your vision, so you either choose to live with 'close enough' or you start downloading new options, comparing them with your existing work flow, etc.

There's certainly skill associated with the current state of image generation. Perhaps not the same level of practice you need to perfectly represent a transparent veil in graphite, but as with other formats I have a hard time suggesting that when someone represents their vision in the real world that it's automatically "not art".

It sounds like someone got ahold of a 6 year old copy of Google's risk register. Based on my reading of the article it sounds like Google has a robust process for identifying, prioritizing, and resolving risks that are identified internally. This is not only necessary for an organization their size, but is also indicative of a risk culture that incentivizes self reporting risks.

In contrast, I'd point to an organization like Boeing, which has recently been shown to have provided incentives to the opposite effect - prioritizing throughput over safety.

If the author had found a number of issues that were identified 6+ years ago and were still shown to be persistent within the environment, that might be some cause for alarm. But, per the reporting, it seems that when a bug, misconfiguration, or other type of risk is identified internally, Google takes steps to resolve the issue, and does so at a pace commensurate with the level of risk that the issue creates for the business.

Bottom line, while I have no doubt that the author of this article was well-intentioned, their lack of experience in information security / risk management seems obvious, and ultimately this article poses a number of questions that are shown to have innocuous answers.

Thank you?

It sounds like someone got ahold of a 6 year old copy of Google's risk register. Based on my reading of the article it sounds like Google has a robust process for identifying, prioritizing, and resolving risks that are identified internally. This is not only necessary for an organization their size, but is also indicative of a risk culture that incentivizes self reporting risks.

In contrast, I'd point to an organization like Boeing, which has recently been shown to have provided incentives to the opposite effect - prioritizing throughput over safety.

If the author had found a number of issues that were identified 6+ years ago and were still shown to be persistent within the environment, that might be some cause for alarm. But, per the reporting, it seems that when a bug, misconfiguration, or other type of risk is identified internally, Google takes steps to resolve the issue, and does so at a pace commensurate with the level of risk that the issue creates for the business.

Bottom line, while I have no doubt that the author of this article was well-intentioned, their lack of experience in information security / risk management seems obvious, and ultimately this article poses a number of questions that are shown to have innocuous answers.

Well to be fair the OP has the date shown in the image as Apr 23, and Google has been frantically changing the way the tool works on a regular basis for months, so there's a chance they resolved this insanity in the interim. The post itself is just ragebait.

*not to say that Google isn't doing a bunch of dumb shit lately, I just don't see this particular post from over a month ago as being as rage inducing as some others in the community.

Everything is transient and eventually becomes shitty, sure, but I generally trust them because they're able to make money just from people using the service. I don't know how profitable they are, but I am reasonably certain that as the card issuer they get a cut of every transaction. Given that they aren't issuing physical cards and have no obvious costs other than maintaining their platform, I don't see a reason not to trust them in the medium term.