11
points
lemoncookiechip
Joined 1,667 karma
- lemoncookiechip parentAnd Mexico, he just talked about it.
- I've not had a crash on Firefox in like a decade, basically since the Quantum update in like 2016.
- There are no leaders. Every other month a new LLM model comes out and it outperforms the previous ones by a small margin, the benchmarks always look good (probably because the models are trained on the answers) but then in practice they are basically indistinguishable from the previous ones (take GPT4 vs 5). We've been in this loop since around the release of ChatGPT 4 where all the main players started this cycle.
The biggest strides in the last 6-8 months have been in generative AIs, specifically for animation.
- Does the USA even have enough money to rescue the tech giants at this point? We could be talking multiple trillion dollars at worst. And the AI only companies like OpenAI and Anthropic would be the most vulnerable in comparison to say Google or Microsoft, because they have no fallback and no sustainability without investor money.
And Nvidia would be left in a weird place where the vast majority of their profits are coming from AI cards and demand would potentially dry up entirely.
- They're all easily disabled in the GUI itself. The article is exaggerating, the closest argument is that it enables itself by default when it first updated which is fair, but they're easy to disable within the menu itself.
- People thought the President had died just yesterday because of how rapidly his health has declined since taking office in January. Bernie Sanders, for example, has had multiple health emergencies over the past few years.
Using a few famous people as examples is hardly a reliable metric. My aunt is still alive at 103 and will likely make it to 104 if nothing changes. She has fewer health problems than other family members in their 60s if you discount the fact that she’s basically blind, can't hear well, is stuck in a bed 24/7, and has severe dementia that prevents her from recalling things seconds after being told, aside from some specific memories from her youth. Meanwhile, almost all of her children died under very poor health conditions in their 70s and 80s. Her oldest daughter looked like she was a corpse at 80.
Some people just get lucky with their genes, and it doesn’t always pass on to their children or grand-children.
PS: For reference, she had 11 children, almost all dead now while she's alive and can't recall their names or ever having children.
- I find it a tough sell to add another 20 years to life expectancy, considering that by the time you reach 70, most people are already in decline (some worse than others), and the drop from 70 to 80 tends to be steep for many. Those who make it past 80 into their 90s or even 100s often aren’t living particularly fulfilling lives, if you can even call it living at that point.
Losing your vision, your hearing, your mobility, and worst of all, your mind, doesn’t sound very appealing to me.
So unless we find a way to both live longer and to decliner slower, I just don't see the point for the majority of people who will unfortunately live lonely worse lives.
- ROMs, both modded and unmodded. For years, the most reliable way to get Fire Red (U) (Squirrels), which is one of the most used base Pokemon ROMs for modding is the Archive. Luckily it's still there with 1,574,966 views.
- I dunno, man. I think this one is kinda funny.
"You ever notice how self-checkout machines are just training us to be employees? Like, I don’t remember applying to work at Walmart. I’m scanning groceries, bagging stuff, looking around like, do I also get dental? The machine yells 'Unexpected item in bagging area'—yeah, it’s my pride." -GPT5
- >Has society really become this dangerous that we must deploy these things?
Over the last hundred years, violent crime has droped sharply worldwide.
Over the last twenty years, it has fallen alot in developed countries such as Western Europe, North America, Japan and South Korea.
In the United Kingdom, both violent and property crime have gone down in the past two decades. The main exception is fraud, scams and cybercrime, which have increased.
Overall, crime, especially violent crime, is far lower now than it used to be.
So why does it not feel that way? Mostly because we are floded with news about every incident. It sticks in our heads and makes us beleive things are worse than they are. It is like air travel: whenever there is a major crash, the headlines fill up with every minor incident, even though flying has never been safer than it is today.
This is less about criminality and more about control.
There's definitely an argument to be made that things have gotten safer because we have more surveillance, but that argument also has many valid counter-arguments, and giving away your freedom for absolute law and order isn't the way to go in my opinion, especially when you use narratives like "crime in DC is at an all time high" like we've seen in the USA lately which is false. https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/violent-crime-dc-hits-30-...
A balance of surveillance and freedom is necessary for a healthy society. (By surveillance in this context, I mean simple things like CCTVs, police patrols, not necessarily drag-nets, face rec, whatever mind you).
- uBO can also block JS, yes, and I use both add-ons, but I find NoScript's UI to be more intuitive to use to manage JS, and I've been using it for years now.
- This is absolutely true. But personally I find NoScript's UI more intuitive to use for JS domain blocking (mostly because I've been using it for years now). I also used to use uMatrix by the same author as uBO before it was deprecated on Chromium browsers.
- First, I use both uBO + NoScript + ClearURLs (removes tracking from URLs) + FastForward (Circumvents sites like adfly) + A pop-up blocker of your choice (stronger blocking than default also whitelist only in my case). They're all popular add-ons on Firefox and should also be available on Chrome, or variants of them. You don't need them all, uBO is more than fine for most use cases, I've just gotten used to it for a few years.
>Do you just whitelist every site you come across if it's broken?
Mostly, yes, often temporarily for that session, unless I do not trust a website, then I leave. How I deem what is trustworthy or not is just based on my own browsing experience I guess.
>What's the security advantage here?
You can block scripts, frames, media, webgl... Meaning no ads, no JS... Which helps minimize the more common ways to spread malware, or certain dark patterns, as well as just making browsing certain sites more pleasant without all the annoying stuff around.
>Or do you bail if it requires javascript?
If I don't trust a website, yes.
>What about the proliferation of sites that don't really need javascript, but you need to enable it anyways because the site's security provider needs it to verify you're not a bot?
Not all sites require JS to work, or when they do, they do not require every single JS domain on a website to work. An example of this would be something like many of the popular news sites which try to load sometimes JS from 10 different domains or more and only really require one or none to be usable. Take CNN, I do not need to whitelist it's main domain via NoScript to read articles or navigate, but the moment I whitelist CNN.com, i see a flood of other domains to whitelist which are definitely not needed, like CNN.io, cookielaw.org, optimizely.com, etc...
Take Hacker News. It's viable without JS, I can read, navigate and comment, but if I want to use the search function, I need to whitelist algolia.com (which powers the search) or else I just see "This page will only work with JavaScript enabled". The search function not working is the most common issue you'll find if you block all JS by default.
- All the more reason to block all JS by default with add-ons like NoScript or uBO and manage a whitelist.
It's a bit annoying the first few days, but then the usual sites you frequent will all be whitelisted and all that's left are random sites you come across infrequently.
- It depends on the classification system, but yes, whole grain cereal with added sugar and preservatives for shelf-life is often classified as ultra-processed.
That said, I think framing all UPFs or processed foods as "bad" misses the point. What really matters is the nutritional value of the food itself. A food being ultra-processed doesn’t automatically make it less healthy than a minimally processed one.
We should focus more on what’s actually in the food: the sugar content, fiber, protein, fat, micro-nutrients, rather than just whether it’s been processed or not.
TLDR: It's the label telling what is in the food that matters, not the processes it underwent, although that can be VERY helpful for certain people who value how their food is made for moral/ethical/health reasons.
- Ultra-processed doesn't automatically mean unhealthy. It's what it's made of and how it's processed, and the quantities you ingest that can make it unhealthy, just like some unprocessed foods can still be unhealthy depending on what they are.
Whole grain cereal with low sugar contents fall under ultra-processed, and it could still be more nutritious and less sugary than freshly squeezed OJ.
- Decades and decades of unfettered Capitalism.
- Labor protections getting weaker over time, plus courts usually siding with employers. Overtime laws got chipped away, and a lot of folks get called "contractors" when they're basically employees.
- Jobs can move overseas way easier now, so workers don't really have the same leverage they used to.
- Big companies buying everything up, regional monopolies forming, and those non-compete clauses making it harder for people to switch jobs.
- At-will employment, temp work, gig jobs, outsourcing, just makes job security pretty shaky.
- Decades of anti-union talk, pushing this whole "you're on your own" idea, and selling "flexibility" like it's some amazing benefit.
- More workplace surveillance, algorithm-based schedules, and automated tracking, just gives the employer more control.
People quite literally fought tooth and nail with blood sweat and tears to gain their rights over the course of years and years during the 18th and 19th century. Many quite literally died, and a lot more were beaten to pulp by the job owners who hired muscle to do it.
Those gains we made have slowly been eroded.
- - Three major court wins (Illumina, Tapestry/Capri, Kroger/Albertsons), multiple deals dropped.
-Over $1.5B refunded. Significant settlements (Epic, MoneyGram, Amazon delivery drivers, etc.)
- Junk-fees ban, click-to-cancel rule (You can thank the current administration for walking back on this), non-compete ban.
-Right to repair, data privacy enforcement, health-care pricing interventions ( reduced out-of-pocket costs for inhalers and insulin).
- I've posted this before: We shouldn't need Age Verification checks for adults in the first place.
Create a better, standardized, open-source parental control tool that is installed by default on all types of device that can connect to the web.
The internet aspect of the parental control should be a "Per Whitelist" system rather than Blacklisting. The parents should be the ones to decide which domains are Whitelisted for their kids, and government bodies could contribute with curated lists to help establish a base.
Yes, there would be some gray area sites like search engine image search, or social media sites like Twitter that can allow you to stumble into pornography, and that is why these devices that have the software turned ON, should send a token through the browser saying "Parental Control". It would be easier for websites to implement a blanket block of certain aspects of their site than expect them to implement whole ID checks systems and security to make sure that no leaks occur (look at the TEA app) like the UK is expecting everyone to do.
Also, I'm for teenagers (not little children) having access to pornography. I was once a teenager, every adult was, and we know that it's a natural thing to masturbate which includes the consumption of pornography for most in some way. Repressing their desires, their sexuality, and making this private aspect of their life difficult isn't the way. Yes, yes, there is nuance to it, (very hardcore/addiction/etc) but it should be up to the parents to decide with given tools if they trust their kid to consume such a thing.
As for the tool itself. Of course we have parental tools, but they can be pretty garbage, their all different, they're out of the way, and I understand that many people simply don't know how to operate them. That's why I believe that creating a standardized open-source project that multiple governments can directly contribute to and advertise for parents is the way, because at the end of the day, it should be up to the parents to decide these things, and for the government to facility that choice.
Obviously, besides the internet aspect, the tool should have all the bells and whistles that you'd expect from one, but that's not the topic.
And yes, some children would find a way, just like they're doing now for the currently implemented ID checks. It's not lost of me that VPNs with free plans suddenly exploded in 4 digits % worth of downloads. A lot of those are tiny people who are smart enough. Or using an app like a game to trick Facial Recognition software.
Also, I'd be remiss to not point out a very obvious fact. This, and I'm not just referring to the UK, isn't about children, it's not about terrorism, it's not about public safety. It's about control, it's about tracking, it's about documenting, it's about power over the masses. I know some people will hand wave this away, but we have been seeing a very obvious, very fast, rise of authoritarianism since COVID and later the war in Ukraine. It's not a new trend, but it is one that got accelerated at those stages and has been progressively getting worse world wide.
- We shouldn't need Age Verification checks for adults in the first place.
Create a better, standardized, open-source parental control tool that is installed by default on all types of device that can connect to the web.
The internet aspect of the parental control should be a "Per Whitelist" system rather than Blacklisting. The parents should be the ones to decide which domains are Whitelisted for their kids, and government bodies could contribute with curated lists to help establish a base.
Yes, there would be some gray area sites like search engine image search, or social media sites like Twitter that can allow you to stumble into pornography, and that is why these devices that have the software turned ON, should send a token through the browser saying "Parental Control". It would be easier for websites to implement a blanket block of certain aspects of their site than expect them to implement whole ID checks systems and security to make sure that no leaks occur (look at the TEA app) like the UK is expecting everyone to do.
Also, I'm for teenagers (not little children) having access to pornography. I was once a teenager, every adult was, and we know that it's a natural thing to masturbate which includes the consumption of pornography for most in some way. Repressing their desires, their sexuality, and making this private aspect of their life difficult isn't the way. Yes, yes, there is nuance to it, (very hardcore/addiction/etc) but it should be up to the parents to decide with given tools if they trust their kid to consume such a thing.
As for the tool itself. Of course we have parental tools, but they can be pretty garbage, their all different, they're out of the way, and I understand that many people simply don't know how to operate them. That's why I believe that creating a standardized open-source project that multiple governments can directly contribute to and advertise for parents is the way, because at the end of the day, it should be up to the parents to decide these things, and for the government to facility that choice.
Obviously, besides the internet aspect, the tool should have all the bells and whistles that you'd expect from one, but that's not the topic.
EDIT: And yes, some children would find a way, just like they're doing now for the currently implemented ID checks. It's not lost of me that VPNs with free plans suddenly exploded in 4 digits % worth of downloads. A lot of those are tiny people who are smart enough. Or using an app like a game to trick Facial Recognition software.
- Whole chain of comments: https://imgur.com/PU7nROZ
- I find it odd that investors are still so motivated to drop money into AI, specifically LLMs, not because I don't see value in the technology, I do, but because it feels to me like it only takes a few months (if that) for your company which might currently dominate with the leading product, to be left behind by someone else who just came out with a better, cheaper, and faster product.
I guess this is true for most tech, but with LLMs it seems to be at a pace that just doesn't feel worth it to invest knowing someone else will just leap over your investment soon, and that in a year or two, when you want some return (maybe longer), that your tech might have completely stagnated and completely left behind by everyone else's. I dunno, just a weird thought.
- This is speculation on my part: I assume US citizens tend to drive more short distances within cities to get to places, like shopping, while many EU cities are walk-able.
Cities and city entrances have the largest concentration of people and accidents.
- >“Made in the USA” became synonymous with poor quality and high prices.
This. It's like everyone collectively forgot. If that time period had the internet meme culture of today, “Made in the USA” would've become one the same way "Made in China" did.
Capitalism wreaked havoc on quality goods, while prices skyrocketed. Then when given the chance, they all packed up shop of their own free will to create even cheaper goods while politicians did nothing to stop it, and in-fact incentivized it.
Now we blame those countries for "taking away" manufacturing, when it was the greedy capitalistic US company CEOs, shareholders and US politicians who did it, while those countries simply capitalized on the opportunity and built themselves up.
- The comment section in the article is revolting. I don't know if they're state actors, or if they're real people with those beliefs, but my god.
- Fascism had it's roots in Capitalism. The elites not only welcomed it, but they backed it, because it helped shut down workers right movements and keep things stable at a time when the workers right movement was hurting their bottom line by asking their bosses for living wages and humane working conditions, which they saw as Socialism and Communism.