Thanks for the writeup. Researching this to personal satisfaction must’ve been a lot less effort than it was to write a good analysis. I just wanna say you’re cool for sharing it.

“Ready to support” like it says in the headline implies military support, I think. “Cooperate and show sympathy” implies a lot less. Did they say anything actually tangible or is this kind of an empty promise?

Yes, I 100% agree with you. The ‘working less’ solution was just meant as a simple thought exercise to show that with even a relatively small change, we could eliminate this huge problem. Thus the fact that the system works in this way is not an accident.

I don’t think that AI is as disruptive as the steam engine, or the automatic loom, or the tractor. Yes, some people will lose their jobs (plenty of people have already) but the amount of work that can be done which will benefit society is near infinite. And if it weren’t, then we could all just work 5% fewer hours to make space for 5% unemployment reduction. Unemployment only exists in our current system to threaten the employed with.

It doesn’t take much, so you should absolutely just do it. However, you should also realize that most of the time you’re streaming, you’ll have an audience of 0. And when someone does join, they might not stick around.

As long as you don’t have unrealistic expectations, I think this could be a cool hobby!

Your first post read as doomerism to me, but it sounds like quite the opposite actually. We need to organize hard and build something off the back of this horrible state of affairs, right? Maybe something like a general strike until those identified in the documents are behind bars?

The pitchforks are a metaphor, obviously.

I’m not sure what point you’re getting at. We shouldn’t try to do anything, because the guilty are too powerful?

Well, not how USA copyright works, but point well taken. It seems I was too naïve in my understanding of copyright.

I get what they’re saying, but unless the baker is also growing, harvesting and milling the wheat himself, they’ll have to share with 1 to 3 others as well, right?

I’m sure he just needs some more practice. After a few more Nazis are punched, he’ll be an expert, I’m sure.

Exactly. If I use online Photoshop or whatever, and I use the red eye removal tool, I have copyright on that picture. Same if I create a picture from scratch. Just because someone like OpenAI hosts a more complex generator doesn’t mean a whole new class of rules applies.

Whomever uses a tool, regardless of the complexity, is both responsible and benificiary of the result.

You can require everyone to maintain their own blocklist, sure. But new users won’t benefit from it. Making every single person individually investigate and judge every single bad user/community doesn’t seem practical?

People don’t say “I call for the destruction of Israel”, they say stuff like “A state that does that shouldn’t exist” or “let’s create a nation in which the Palestinians can live peacefully”. These are ‘calls’ for the end of the current government structure of Israel, or in other words, the destruction of the Israeli state.

The wording of the rule is purposely vague and broad, while still sounds like it is banning something harmful.

People are being specific, but the rule itself is broad. If you say “everyone involved in the genocide should be removed from office”, that’s specific, clear, broadly agreeable, and yet also ‘calling for the destruction of the Israeli state’.

They are used in the majority of European languages, including French. You might see them natively in Canadian-English written by the French speaking part.

Furthermore, because they are used in ~41 different languages, someone using a keyboard layout in that language will get that character, even if the key they press is labeled with an " icon.

Lastly, you should know that Breton (the language/culture that Great Britain is named after) uses them. Not actually directly relevant, but it does show a direct lineage of using guillemets in English. (And also it’s a neat fact).

If you want a simple explanation why he couldn’t spy:

Imagine that your internet traffic is a bunch of letters. HTTP are postcards. You can read the message and destination both. HTTPS are envelopes. You cannot read the message, but you can see the destination.

When using VPN, you stick every letter/postcard in another envelope, addressed to the VPN company’s address. They unpack the letter, set themselves as the return address, and send it on.

Your friend could previously look at the outside of your letters, and see who you’re sending to, and how much. Now, they can only see you’re sending to the VPN company, which isn’t helpful. (In theory, they can see the volume of data, but there isn’t much they can learn with just that).

The brackets thing is a real and well-known dogwhistle. If I say that the (((city council))) is putting chemicals in the water, then you should know I’m touting an anti-semetic conspiracy theory.

In this case, using «Guillemets» isn’t that, but the thing that they confused it for is real.

Every rule has a back story. You can easily imagine a bunch of kids yelling at each other as they bike down the street. But you cannot make a sign that says “punk kids not allowed”.

It depends what you mean by ‘security’. Obviously, by introducing more layers, you have more places where exploits can life. However, the biggest threat by orders of magnitude is being tricked into giving stuff up, and that risk will remain constant.

Non-human, uncaring machines who amass and hoard wealth beyond human comprehension honestly doesn’t sound any different than what we have now.

Ah ok. That’s not how I understood your comment initially, but that’s reasonable.