Ernest

I fucking love sus chord resolutions inject that into my ears

I’ve been checking out fastmail because they’re pushing JMAP and I love me some new standards

good points!

agro

screaming nerd rage

nawww

lobsters uses it so I assume it’s not actively dangerous

I’ll be chattin’ in there and some person will pop in and be like “can I have an invite? can I have an invite?” and the vibe I always got was that it was unwelcome

I chat in their IRC chatroom occasionally but idk how to turn that into an invite like their about page says <.<

yes! boycotting is collective action, if you individually stop buying a thing that (arguably) isn’t boycotting

I think OP is trying to say that we cannot let “AI” launder the responsibility that real humans have for their actions.

The point (as I understand it) of “guns don’t kill people” is that it is patently absurd to imply that “tools” are wholly neutral implements. The quote is trying to hold the “tool” accountable. While it’s making a seemingly contradictory point to OP, I think it’s more that both can be true at once–OP is trying to highlight the specific problem with “the AI is the one doing all the naughty things”, because Sam Altman et al. would certainly like everyone to think so. I totally agree that “AI” is not merely a “tool” (in the sense of the neutrality so-implied), but that is a separate point.

(re-reading what I just wrote… it kinda sounds like clanker speak?? I swear I’m a real human)

idk if this is the case here but on a firmware level, interfacing with these camera chips almost always requires an NDA that they’ll only sign with very large minimum orders

*we have a typographical source that claims it means azimuth, but no known usages of it

I think Wikipedia’s summary of “unconfirmed branding” is a fair description.

The article is actually written informatively, but for anyone else who may have assumed from the title that this is some failing of Unicode–it is not, the goal of Unicode is to encode all human writing. This includes “nonsense” glyphs that have been widely used or interchanged between computer systems, including the (in)famous “RIGHT ANGLE WITH DOWNWARDS ZIGZAG ARROW” (⍼).

the rich and poor alike are not allowed to sleep under bridges, steal bread, etc. …

we both thought of the same article haha

I saw the RFC for IPv8 recently

nitpick, but I would say “an RFC”, as there’s been a number of these over the years

you’ve gotten a couple responses so far, but I think the central issue is that “complexity” isn’t the problem with IPv6 (and one could certainly argue that IPv6 is actually simpler)–the problem is compatibility. This article lays out the issue very well, and also links to this article (which is a more specific look at the IPv8 proposal you refer to). Both point to the same conclusion, which is that fundamentally–on first principles–existing hardware does not know how to handle the upgrade, which will require some sort of dual-stacking, which is the issue IPv6 currently has. (Not its technical merit.)

deleted by creator

in an ideal world, ipv6 would solve that problem…

😔

their phones do tend to have that already…

e: at least the lower end ones I’ve had

ah okay, I think sharing that entire article is kinda endorsing all the weird stuff in it, but thanks for specifying.

I know those are large numbers, but like, Wikipedia is one of the most visited sites on the internet? “$97.6 million in assets” is peanuts to that (compare it to any other website in a similar range!). The fact that they don’t have that much operating costs is a good thing, right? It means they’re efficient, which is what people love to complain about with non-profits.

Anyway, it’s not like they ask for much–I think the last fundraiser I saw they were asking for $2.75 a year, if you felt like they provided you that much value over the year. I certainly do, and I donate $10/year to them. If you don’t feel like Wikipedia is worth that cost to you that’s fair–but I think telling other people that they shouldn’t donate because it objectively(?) isn’t worth it is a strange thing to do.

… idk, if Wikipedia is pissing off Deepak Chopra, I’m pretty sure that’s a good thing…

edit: I think my downvote probably warrants a less flippant explanation. In the past decade, Wikipedia has started explicitly labeling pseudoscience and “alternative medicine” as such, as opposed to their original policy of being so “neutral” they would say things like “some people think this is bogus, but some people think not”. This has, understandably, pissed those people off, and I suppose in some sense they are right? But in this era of widespread and accelerated sanewashing, I think saying these (true!) things does matter, and the people getting pissed off are really just telling on themselves. I would invite you to read the Wikipedia articles on the quoted public figures for yourself, and verify that they really were slandered the way they describe.

tangentially-related Hank Green video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zi0ogvPfCA

well in general it’s just not really a helpful thing to say… imagine your car won’t start and a bunch of other people say “I have zero issues with mine”