dudeami0

I was told to steam my eggs at some point because the temp of the water won’t drop from the cold eggs. They’ve always peeled well cooking them this way.

I would argue this ideology falls under absurdism rather than nihilism.

I would say this is a little too pessimistic. Legislation in the EU and California have both forced tech companies hands, it’s why we can download all our data and delete all our data (supposedly, doubtful in reality) on the large tech platforms. The issue I see is getting legislation that attaches itself to a standard controlled by the W3C. You are right that it won’t be something done by the US federal government though.

Nothing, amazon is a leech. Don’t use amazon.

International shipments will be subject to duties and taxes. The seller does not need to notify you of these, this is just the cost of directly importing products from another country.

I do agree that human nature is a huge problem. For a utopian government, I do think that is fairly impossible at the moment. As you have said we will need some novel idea or technology, or human nature will have to evolve in some way (that could take a very long time though).

As for citizens advocating for themselves, you seem to be thinking of peaceful ways to have a government that avoids becoming corrupt. While ideal, as we know humans are far from that and why eventually corruption turns to revolt if the needs of citizens are not met. I am not saying this will solve the issue either. As far as I can tell it just renews the cycle at best, or continues the corruption under a new group at worst. I only say this as technically this is a way citizens will eventually advocate for their rights if the government becomes too corrupt.

As for the desires of laws for each individual citizen, this is essentially impossible as only very small groups will have ideals and values that are homogeneous. In a populace large enough, human nature will lead to conflicting ideas on which laws should exist and how governments should run. In democracies, this plays into the hands of people or organizations with nefarious political goals. These groups can exploit human nature to get citizens to focus emotionally on a small subset of policies and laws. This tactic can be very powerful in places that don’t regulate this kind of propaganda, such as the United States.

I would argue this form of political propaganda being pushed by powerful groups that don’t represent the majority of citizens, towards citizens in other groups is one of the main cause of citizens being politically inactive. This creates biases and causes a lot of people to make decisions based on issues whose prevalence is artificially amplified. While that issue may be very important and should be advocated for, this should not be left to powerful groups or organizations that are not representative of the citizens. This also creates a ton of noise, making other issues that may directly affect or be advocated for by a large portion of the population to be obscured. All of this leads to information overload, fatigue, and complacency which leads to ignoring politics and possibly being politically inactive. I say possibly because people will still vote because it’s their civic duty but will be uninformed which can be even more dangerous than not participating in politics. This also turns politics into a sport based on what the current political “hot topic” is, which a lot of people don’t want to participate in and turns them away from being active politically.

In my opinion, the best solution to get citizens politically active is the need to make politics less biased and present legislation and policies in a fairer fashion. This will not get every citizen involved, but it will encourage more unbiased and informed decisions which will further fight corruption. Politically active citizens can look at legislation and policy proposals and make the sometimes difficult decision of which is the best choice in the present moment. This should also help with “political fatigue” which can cause citizens to not participate. Of course some people will never vote (unless forced to by law), but the best we can do is try to make the process simpler and use less of peoples time and resources.

All this being said, it will still be an uphill battle for democracies such as the United States to undo the influence of powerful groups in politics, and make their democracies fairer and more representative of the people. I wouldn’t say it’s impossible, but to do so peacefully will take a ton of perseverance, hard work, and most likely a bit of luck.

I would argue this is more an issue of when citizens get complacent and stop holding those who govern them accountable. This is when any form of government will eventually start turning to the corruption. Those in power can change the rules while citizens are going about their lives. It works even better if the citizens are too busy and stressed out to worry about “silly things like politics”.

My question is, why give it for free? Has their product developed enough to win in the AI developer space? Are we reaching the point where you could self-host an AI code assistant as good as copilot? Or are projects such as johnny.ai (renamed, I’m not going to advertise it) challenging Microsoft’s market share in the AI developer space?

My only guess is Microsoft wants you to get used to their ecosystem and further ingrain developers into their development ecosystem. At best, once you are used to their ecosystem you’ll stick with them out of familiarity. At worst, they can use your input (prompts, refactors, etc) to further the development of copilot.

To me this smells of typical subsidizing of a product to capture market share then lock in that market share. Anything I’m missing?

Edit: johnny.ai seems to be a domain offered for resale by godaddy. I didn’t mean to link them but I’ll leave it here, don’t give godaddy money as they are a terrible domain name registrar.

To add to this spending some time in custody is inconvenient, but losing your rights being convicted of something you didn’t even do is more inconvenient. You think you know what to say until you say the wrong thing and start digging a hole.

This is good to know, but adds an additional step to simply requiring a passcode to unlock on screen lock.

Just the act of refusing makes the act of seizing your phone legal or not. If you legally give them your phone by your own will, they are able to use all evidence they find in the courts. If you deny to give them your phone, and they seize it anyways and access it you have a valid path to throw the evidence they discover out as an illegal search and seizure of your property. I’m not a lawyer but that is the general thought process on denying them access to your property.

Edit: Just want to say this mostly pretains to United States law and similar legal structures. This advice is not applicable everywhere and you should research your countries rights and legal protections.

I personally rather trust that my device isn’t able to be unlocked without my permission, rather than hope I am able to do some action to disable it in certain situations. The availability of such features is nice, but I would assume I would be incapable of performing such actions in the moment.

My other thought is, how guilty is one perceived if they immediately attempt to lock their phones in such a matter, by a jury of their peers? I rather go the deniability route of I didn’t want to share my passcode vs I locked my phone down cause the cops were grabbing me.

To add to this, don’t use bio-metrics to lock your devices. Cops will “accidentally” use these to unlock devices when they are forcibly seized.

The quotation marks did most of the lifting there, and it’s more of an anecdote of their own projections against themselves. They assume these “welfare queens” are driving around in high end cars and living luxurious lifestyles on the governments dollar, while they are the ones doing such. Sorry if there was any confusion. I agree with all the statements you have stated against Brett Farve though, they are the scum of the system they wish to project onto others.

Despite texts that show Favre sought to keep his receipt of the funds confidential, Favre has said he didn’t know the money came from federal funds intended for poor people. He’s paid the money back, but he’s being sued by the state of Mississippi for hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest that accrued on the money he received. Favre hasn’t been accused of any criminal wrongdoing.

Source: (Yahoo News)

So they could easily of have funded this themselves, but just rather steal public funds because “free money”? Sounds like a so called “welfare queen” to me.

Sadly it wasn’t a bid to open source the AI, rather than a bid for payment.