You just don’t get it by only concealing IP address. I bet if they also managed to avoid browser fingerprinting and giving clues about their location through their use of the site, that would have been enough that Reddit isn’t showing advertising based on location.

Should have said ok and then destroyed it once it’s legally your posession

They say that, but I can almost guarantee you the feds get direct access without asking and keep it a secret, because that’s how tech companies do things in general. Flock cameras/data is openly used to provide a combined search of all cameras, this partnership implies Ring is going to go further in that direction too.

When I see this type of thing my default assumption is the actual source is ChatGPT. The article is attributed to “the editorial team” but that link just goes to a list of other articles and credits no-one. But somehow they’re putting out like 20 a day, all of them similarly lacking sources or authors, and only linking to other articles on the same site. Plus the writing style is full of AI-isms.

It was a wildly controversial change within the dev community

Sounds like it would be, isn’t the reason to keep storage expensive that everything included in a transaction needs to be stored forever by every single network participant running a full node?

It’s ok, Bush made sure the government backs a lender’s investment by ensuring those loans are an inescapable weight students can never get away from, no need to do risk analysis.

There should be some kind of automated certification for git repos, where if the described install process does not complete on a default install of the most popular OS, the software gets a big red “does not work” label.

it’s in their own interest to not divulge the whole picture.

Could you give an example? Do you mean they will fail to report or falsify the real prices, or something else? I’ll admit I like the idea of more decentralized betting markets (wish Augur had gotten big instead of platforms like Polymarket), but something that egregious seems like it would be tough to get away with without people noticing.

Ring, etc are either slow or not responding

Nice.

My theory is that not many people at all ever actually thought art NFTs had value beyond something to gamble on. But the idea that they did was used to create the plausible impression that there were a lot of “greater fools” out there who would buy the bags of said gamblers, and this idea was also attractive to people who despised the whole thing and like the idea of stupid people to look down on, so both groups collaborated to signal boost it.

What the author seems to be proposing is something like true crime media but for environmental crimes.

And if you’re tempted to turn around and say that environmental crimes don’t happen because of individuals, but because of “the system”, I hear you. Social structures, ideologies and politics have a profound impact on human behaviour. Using this term – the system – can feel like a profound contribution to a difficult discussion, underpinned by the desire not to over simplify. But exactly who, or what, is the system?

A serial killer also lives in a society, and we can blame society for any hardships they may have faced. But if on a true-crime show I were to simply cite “the system” as a motive for murder, people would want me to be more precise. We understand that choices are involved, and motives are personal, not just systemic. Otherwise, wouldn’t we all be criminals?

Seems like a cool idea.

Imagine if someone kills you for fun but they aren’t even having fun with it anymore they’re just bored, that would extra suck.

Sure, go ahead, make and sell a convenient, locally contained, home surveillance solution, that is incapable of being externally networked.

Realistically it would probably have to be externally networked to have a comparable level of convenience, but that could be done with encrypted open protocols and software.

You seem to think this is a technical problem, an engineering problem, a business problem.

It is not.

It is political, legal, educational and sociological problem.

The former is not irrelevant to the latter. The whole reason encryption itself hasn’t been widely banned by now is its deep integration in a wide range of technology and its relevance to business. Whether people actually use a technology is directly relevant; they can call something criminal and ban it, but that costs political capital proportionally to the required disruption and how many people are affected. You don’t need a “total solution” to increase that cost for them, such a one and done measure is probably impossible anyway. Do you even have an idea there, or do you think it’s just hopeless and everyone might as well give up?

A central problem is that people are using these products, and the best available solution absolutely involves paying attention to why they use them and what weaknesses they have. Check out spaces such as r/homeautomation, people mostly don’t care about privacy but that doesn’t mean there isn’t any room to displace these things, they suck in a lot of ways some of which are inherent to proprietary services.

fwiw my own camera is a waterproof usb one fed through the wall and plugged into a raspberry pi. I’m sure it can be made easier for people than that.

Not the kind of problem that can be solved by individual consumer preference choices.

I’m not sure you’re right about that. People might choose more private solutions if they were as easy to use. There’s other disadvantages too like proprietary IOT devices accumulating a reputation for spontaneously becoming ewaste. It might not be a total solution but I think the level of accessibility of self managed (or at least end to end encrypted) security cameras matters and is everyone’s problem.

The problem is that also means the rest of us get centrally surveilled, and those people don’t necessarily have to care

the bigger issue is that it’s being used in a GPL3 project which kind of isn’t allowed

I followed the links and I think the original argument being referenced has been twisted around a bit game-of-telephone style, GPL prohibiting inclusion of LLM generated code isn’t what it’s claiming, it’s more that they think AI trained on GPL code violates it when it happens to reproduce it exactly:

it is readily apparent that GitHub Copilot is capable of returning, verbatim, already extant code (although it does attempt to synthesise novel code based on its training data). This immediately raises the issue, what happens when that code (such as the previous example) is licensed under a copyleft license such as the GPL or AGPL? How is the matter of copyright in this instance resolved?

https://github.com/ZDoom/gzdoom/issues/3395

https://www.fsf.org/licensing/copilot/on-the-nature-of-ai-code-copilots#5. What About Copyright?

It might also be the case that the GPL prohibits LLM generated code somehow, I don’t actually know, just want to point out that no one has made an argument for that.

Mythologized history to serve their racist worldview:

Right, ancient Greece and Rome were actually quite diverse and the concept of “whiteness” didn’t have much meaning thousands of years ago. Race, as we know it, is a fairly recent category. But the far-right relies on this construct of Western civilization, which for them means white civilization and culture. So they craft a narrative that begins with Greece and Rome and then continues into the medieval period up through the emergence of modern Europe.

The reason I’m thinking of it is I recently read this lemmy thread. The article itself is probably AI and not that convincing but I think people are making some good points about the pressures imposed by expense of housing and how those affect the desirability and difficulty of having children.

Of course a prerequisite for that to matter is that not having children is more of a real choice than it is for people with no resources in a state of poverty. But it isn’t necessarily the case that the difficulty of raising children decreases with country-wide affluence, because wealth inequality is a thing, required resources (like housing space) might become more expensive relative to income despite overall increase in income, and other factors like an increasingly atomized career focused society where community can’t be relied on as much to help raise children and the expectations placed on parents are higher, maybe requiring high daycare expenses.

So bringing capable workers in means they pay into taxes that support the aging and school-age population, and never had to have their school-age years paid for. They’re a productive member with half the cost over their lifetime.

I agree in principle with the logic here, but if those capable workers are being placed in competition with a population that is financially struggling, and those taxes are not being used to give those people more breathing room, that productivity isn’t helping and is being employed on the wrong side of a class struggle.

I’m not sure what you mean, in this case the definition of public would be anyone who can see the state of the market (everyone), and so can see when insider trading visibly moves the price. The idea being that doing the insider trading unavoidably leaks the information in this way, they can’t hide it unless they can manage to actually prevent all insiders from substantially trading on their inside knowledge.

I don’t think immigration is bad, but if the “problem” of fertility below replacement is caused by the other problem of people who might otherwise want kids not being able to have them because of economic constraints, focusing on solving the first problem by importing competitive and ambitious skilled professionals seems at least kind of questionable.