This PR adds split_lock_detect to the preserved_arguments list in anaconda.conf.
Currently, on recent kernels, if an x86 split lock is detected, it can cause the kernel to crash (#AC: crashing the ...
Imagine if a robot was walking down the street holding a bag of something heavy and a mother and child walked past at the same time as the bag broke so the robot steps into the child trying to regain balance. A robot doesn’t have the right to make that kind of mistake, in the same way a drunk person would not have the right to make that mistake. But also in the same way a black person would not be allowed to make the same mistakes as white people.
So where is the line are robots allowed to mistaking walk into children because it will happen if they walk the streets with us? Already see videos of them kicking Chinese children… Which is arguably the organisers faults, which is why organisers won’t let robots walk our streets.
Maybe we should be actually be racist to robots if apartheid is objectively necessary? We are fenced off from robot machines in factories already right… Where is the line exactly?
There are reasons to regulate machines that can harm human. There are reasons to ban heavy robots, and perhaps all robots from places where that kind of things could happen. There are reasons to ban some machines altogether if their existence is a threat.
All rules of this sort apply not to the machines themselves, but to the manufacturers and/or users plus any person with agency in this matter. Just as if someone drove a car off road into a children’s park, it is the driver who is at fault.
None of this requires or justifies recycling racist tropes or rhetoric. Even if you chose to burn a delivery robot in protest, which could be justified, there would still be no need to call it a clanker. And doing so in advance sounds like you’re yearning for a victim that is acceptable to oppress and to call slurs.
You using terms of apartheid means already projecting yourself into a hypothetical future where robots are similar to humans and the separation between them and us is artificial and enforced. Such a future isn’t desirable, creating such a machine would be cruel for the machine first and foremost; and if a machine truly had human consciousness, I believe we should either shut it down and destroy it immediately or give it the same rights as humans; any other option would be literal slavery. But we are far from this point. I kinda think many of the current “AIs” should be shut down and destroyed, but not for that reasons. These robots aren’t aware, have no agency, and there is no reason to talk about them as if they were humans who somehow deserved subhuman status.
Imagine if a robot was walking down the street holding a bag of something heavy and a mother and child walked past at the same time as the bag broke so the robot steps into the child trying to regain balance. A robot doesn’t have the right to make that kind of mistake, in the same way a drunk person would not have the right to make that mistake. But also in the same way a black person would not be allowed to make the same mistakes as white people.
So where is the line are robots allowed to mistaking walk into children because it will happen if they walk the streets with us? Already see videos of them kicking Chinese children… Which is arguably the organisers faults, which is why organisers won’t let robots walk our streets.
Maybe we should be actually be racist to robots if apartheid is objectively necessary? We are fenced off from robot machines in factories already right… Where is the line exactly?
There are reasons to regulate machines that can harm human. There are reasons to ban heavy robots, and perhaps all robots from places where that kind of things could happen. There are reasons to ban some machines altogether if their existence is a threat. All rules of this sort apply not to the machines themselves, but to the manufacturers and/or users plus any person with agency in this matter. Just as if someone drove a car off road into a children’s park, it is the driver who is at fault.
None of this requires or justifies recycling racist tropes or rhetoric. Even if you chose to burn a delivery robot in protest, which could be justified, there would still be no need to call it a clanker. And doing so in advance sounds like you’re yearning for a victim that is acceptable to oppress and to call slurs.
You using terms of apartheid means already projecting yourself into a hypothetical future where robots are similar to humans and the separation between them and us is artificial and enforced. Such a future isn’t desirable, creating such a machine would be cruel for the machine first and foremost; and if a machine truly had human consciousness, I believe we should either shut it down and destroy it immediately or give it the same rights as humans; any other option would be literal slavery. But we are far from this point. I kinda think many of the current “AIs” should be shut down and destroyed, but not for that reasons. These robots aren’t aware, have no agency, and there is no reason to talk about them as if they were humans who somehow deserved subhuman status.
I think you approach the problem wrong. We are already segregated from robots for safety reasons.
This sounds perfectly fine to me. I can see your points but if you cannot yourself draw a line in the sand I’m not going to take your seriously.