Says the fact that it’s come up multiple times amongst a wide swath of the open source community, and look about you. Those licenses aren’t used. One or two exist and have a vanishingly small usage level and a couple more I have been “in progress” for years.
The people who write most of the open source licenses have explanations for why it’s not compatible.
Group behavior is a collective decision and a reflection of the group.
No, you’re not understanding what I’m saying. I’m not the person you were replying to.
Mastodon is a piece of software. It has a license, just like bluesky or any other. You can put a clause in the license saying the software cannot be used for the dissemination of hate speech. The open source community has discussed this and decided it goes against the principles of free software and open source.
If you’re mad at one and not the other, you’re applying different standards because being part of the fediverse weighs more.
Personally I hold platforms to a different standard and so I’m neither mad at mastodon nor bluesky. I just think it’s hypocritical to be mad at someone for publishing a fascists letter but not be mad at the person who gave the same fascist a printing press.
So the mastodon service supports Nazis.
nobody owns it and anyone can run it
They could have chosen a license that forbid usage for spreading hate. They put “free software” and “open source” above blocking hate speech.
They’re providing software to Nazis, and I don’t really see how that makes them better than providing a place to post.
The US has done many horrible things, but that’s an awful list to go by. It mixes US involvement in the Philippines and the nightmare that was with “Israel killed someone and it’s likely the US was aware”, NATO involvement in Bosnia, and the US usage of radio and press releases to influence world opinion in its favor.
Specific incidents in Bosnia? Certainly. But on the face of it, the US joining with other nations to intervene in an ethnically driven civil war isn’t an attrocity. The US being aware of an Israeli operation isn’t a US attrocity. Propaganda isn’t an attrocity.
Hell, one entry literally seemed to be “American soldiers reported a South Korean war crime through appropriate channels, and this didn’t change US foreign policy”
Mixing actual attrocities in with the benign or unrelated things just dilutes the actual attrocities, particularly when the preamble says to play up to emotional outrage.
Why do you think violence would accelerate things? They don’t need the violence to be real to react to it, so if it would accelerate things for them they would just do it. Likewise, protest or strikes aren’t going to magically be treated as peaceful. They’ll just call it an insurrection regardless. . It’s why a lot of people hesitate to act. There’s a big difference between a protest where your local police department might use tear gas if you stick around after they tell you to leave and a protest where the president is encouraging random nut jobs to hit you with a car, has encouraged your police department to shoot you, and is sending the national guard to shoot you.
Yup. The risk of someone breaking into your house and stealing your post-it note is vastly different from someone guessing your password, and the risk changes again when it’s a post-it note on your work computer monitor.
One of the best things you can do with your critical passwords is put them on a piece of paper with no other identifying information and then put that piece of paper in your wallet. Adults in modern society are usually quite good at keeping track of and securing little sheets of paper.
I’m paranoid, so I put mine on an encrypted NFC card that I printed to look like an expired gift card to a store that went out of business. It’s got what I need to bootstrap the recovery process if I loose all my MFA tokens (I keep another copy in a small waterproof box with things like my car title. It’s labeled “important documents: do not lose” and kept unlocked so any would be thief feels inclined to open it and see it’s worthless to them rather than taking the box to figure that out somewhere else. The home copy is important because there’s vaguely plausible scenarios where I lose both my phone and wallet at the same time. )
Stealing my laptop and getting my stuff is a significantly larger risk than me leaving my computer on and unattended without locking the screen.
Passkeys are a good trend because they’re just about the only security enhancement in recent memory that increases security and usability at the same time.
And you still manage to miss the point entirely.
Your party is awash in the blood of Gaza’s children.
There’s no American political party that isn’t by the standards of “supporting Israel or didn’t stop them is complicity in genocide”.
your voters continue to support the leaders that make this holocaust possible.
What leaders would those be? Which Democrat in charge of the Senate, house, executive branch or judicial branch is responsible in your eyes? Has having the Democrats hold next to no political power done anything to help?
When your time comes, I wonder how you’ll feel when others point and laugh?
And here’s the biggest misunderstanding of all: you’re entirely misunderstanding why people don’t have sympathy because you’re mad at Democrats. If Democrats overwhelming voted for and supported the genocide of Democrats people would be justifiably unsympathetic when they got what exactly what they voted for. That’s the key part you don’t seem to get. Person wants X to happen. People tell them X will be bad for them. They vote for X. X happens. Person is unhappy X happened. No one feels sympathy for them that X happened.
It’s hard to feel sorry for someone getting precisely what they asked for.
Ignoring your false premise that Democratic candidates were *in favor of genocide", particularly in a way that any other viable candidate wasn’t, and ignoring that Democratic voters weren’t in favor of those policies: you still have the fact that an Americans opinion on how our government should pressure another government to act towards another group is fundamentally different from an Americans opinion on how their government should treat them.
You’re saying Americans should be genocided because what Israel is doing to Palestine is abhorrent.
I’m saying my sympathy for people who get hurt by what they explicitly voted for is limited to voting for them to not be hurt.
“wished on the wrong party” is a funny way of saying “advocated for hatred and oppression”. And you’re leaving out the part where what’s happening to them is what they said they think should happen.
It’s hard to have sympathy for someone being treated how they thought others should be treated.
I do however have enough sympathy that I’ve consistently done everything in my power to keep it from happening to them.
Yup, that’s a good one.
Purely for discussions sake, I’d say that the video game entity is making a choice, but it lacks volition.
No freewill or consciousness, but it’s selecting a course of action based on environment circumstances.
It’s really not. The people who invented the term “artificial intelligence” both meant something different than you’re thinking the term means and also thought human level intelligence was far simpler to model than it turned out to be.
You’re thinking of intelligence as compared to a human, and they were thinking of intelligence as compared to a wood chipper. The computers of the time executed much more mechanical tasks, like moving text into place on a printer layout.
They aimed to intelligence, where intelligence was understood as tasks that were more than just rote computation but responded to the environment they executed in. Text layout by knowing how to do line breaks and change font sizes. Parsing word context to know if something is a typo.
These tasks require something more than rote mechanical action. They’re far from human intelligence, and entirely lacking in the introspective or adaptive qualities that we associate with humans, but they’re still responsive.
Using AI only to refer to human intelligence is the missuse of the term by writers and television producers.
The people who coined the terms would have found it quaint to say something isn’t intelligence because it consists of math and fancy scripting. Their efforts were predicated on the assumption that human intelligence was nothing more than math, and programming in general is an extremely abstract form of math.
https://www.mozillafoundation.org/en/donate/ if you’re actually interested in donating.
Right now browser usage patterns are shifting because people are trying new things. Most of those new things are AI integration. If those new things prove popular or have staying power remains to be seen.
Firefox , in my estimation, is looking to leverage their existing reputation for privacy focus while also adding new technologies that people seem at least interested in trying.
A larger user base means that people will pay more for ads, which if they maintain their user control and privacy standards users are less likely to disable on the default landing screen.
It’s why they keep getting flac for working on privacy preserving advertising technology: they want you to use Firefox because they don’t stop you from disabling the bullshit, and they hope to do the bullshit in a way that makes you not mind leaving it on.
All the AI stuff was mentioned in the same context as discussion about how they need to seek money in ways that aren’t simply being paid by Google.
Their CEO makes more than I think CEOs should earn in general, but the rest of their executives earn relatively normal to low salaries for their roles and the sector.
Non-profit doesn’t mean everyone works for free.
But that’s just saying that instead of using Firefox and not turning on the feature, you’ll use a less maintained version of Firefox where they didn’t enable the feature. I don’t feel like those projects have much value add in the privacy spectrum compared to Firefox, particularly when one of them was owned by an advertising company, and neither of them actually has the resources to maintain or operate a browser in isolation, which is a major concern regarding security and privacy both.
A very vocal portion of the user base, but we don’t actually know what absolute portion cares. I’m personally unlikely to use possible AI features outside translation, but Mozilla has generally done enough that I don’t feel particularly worried they’re going to mess with my privacy or force me to use a feature I don’t want.
My standard for an orm is that if it’s doing something wrong or I need to do something special that it’s trivial to move it aside and either use plain SQL or it’s SQL generator myself.
In production code, plain SQL strings are a concern for me since they’re subject to the whole array of human errors and vulnerabilities.
Something like stmt = select(users).where(users.c.name == 'somename') is basically as flexible as the string, but it’s not going to forget a quote or neglect to use SQL escaping or parametrize the query.
And sometimes you just need it to get out of the way because your query is reaaaaaal weird, although at that point a view you wrap with the orm might be better.
If you’ve done things right though, most of the time you’ll be doing simple primary key lookups and joins with a few filters at most.
Oh, they totally will. It’ll be another website boom. A lot of the big web presences will be damaged by the bust and hosting costs will fall through the floor. Less barrier to entry for making your little website and some portion of those will become problematicly large due to cheap cost driving bad design and we’ll go through the third or fourth round of this.
Or, for deepest irony, some of the most optimally located datacenters could be converted into steel mills and industrial bakeries.
They likely did do actual training, but starting with a general pre-trained model and specializing tends to yield higher quality results faster. It’s so excessively obsequious because they told it to be profoundly and sincerely apologetic if it makes an error, and people don’t actually share the text of real apologies online in a way that’s generic, so it can only copy the tone of form letters and corporate memos.
So for the first part, I don’t disagree at all. I just don’t think the logistics or theoretical necessity is a bearing on the symbolic-ness of it. Same for the effectiveness of it. Even if it changed literally nothing and no one would ever know I still wouldn’t shake hands with someone I considered evil.
I don’t see defining a subset of what you consider evil, like dissemination of hate speech, to be a downside.
There’s a lot of complex questions around a platform curating ideological content which could possibly make them loose certain platform protections. Right now most platforms are roughly content neutral because it allows them to be viewed as platforms, rather than publishers. This is more a response to the claim that there’s no reason for them not to remove ice. It may or may not be compelling, but it’s a real reason.
As for the use of the word “service”, sometimes my hands type slower than my brain thinks. My intent was to convey “those who develop and control the mastodon license”. Hopefully my original statement makes more sense in that context.
Those are the people providing the printing press schematic analog. Obviously an idea can’t support an ideology in that sense.
I’m not of the opinion either supports them in a way that’s worth getting angry over.
We also aren’t talking about being angry at ISPs for being willing to deliver packets to and from ice or Nazis, or any of the other entities that do less then the most they could possibly do to distance themselves.