Bio field too short. Ask me about my person/beliefs/etc if you want to know. Or just look at my post history.
Clearly, English is incapable of having homographs. Caps and “Caps”, and all Caps and ALL CAPS. (sorry, Froggy, that last part was in all caps, which you can’t see)
Froggy here can see caps, as well as other types of hats, but cannot see all caps. THEY Froggy, CANT we SEE love THIS you PART, but they can still see capital letters, since they don’t comprise the whole word. EXCUSE THE LACK OF APOSTROPHE IT WOULD COMPROMISE THE WORD
I don’t have a link, but I remember an exposé a few years ago where some politician sold out their constituents for like 10k-100k in campaign contributions.
The response was along the lines of, ‘why don’t we just make a Kickstarter to buy them back’
Obviously this results in a bidding war we probably can’t win… And it’s, in theory, what PAC is supposed to be; but it might be useful in both defining a given politicians price, and in driving up the cost of corruption.
That feels very ‘free market’ to me.
edit: fixed autocorrect typo.
The LitRPG series ‘He Who Fights With Monsters’ does this in a later book and it’s a really good story arc.
One of the characters meets a deity named Hero, who can supercharge a person after they have committed to dying to protect others, but the supercharge ensures that they do die even after the threat is eliminated.
I tripped over this awesome analogy that I feel compelled to share. “[AI/LLMs are] a blurry JPEG of the web”.
This video pointed me to this article (paywalled)
The headline gets the major point across. LLMs are like taking the whole web as an analog image and lossily digitizing it: you can make out the general shape, but there might be missed details or compression artifacts. Asking an LLM is, in effect, googling your question using a more natural language… but instead of getting source material or memes back as a result, you get a lossy version of those sources and it’s random by design, so ‘how do I fix this bug?’ could result in ‘rm -rf’ one time, and something that looks like an actual fix the next.
Gamers’ Nexus just did a piece about how youtube’s ai summaries could be manipulative. While I think that is a possibility and the risk is real, go look at how many times elmo has said he’ll fix grok for real this time; but another big takeaway was how bad LLMs still are at numbers or tokens that have data encoded in them: There was a segment where Steve called out the inconsistent model names, and how the ai would mistake a 9070 for a 970, etc, or make up it’s own models.
Just like googling a question might give you a troll answer, querying an ai might give you a regurgitated, low-res troll answer. ew.
I think it’s been adapted enough to be safe.
My (white American) family has something similar, but probably has a common origin:
On Jan 1, we will have a fire. Fireplace, fire pit, even a candle. We then write our regrets on paper and burn them. It’s private, and you don’t have to share what you are burning, but you can.
We’ve been doing this since I was a child.
Yeah:
“The most hurtful thing (Trump) said, which is absolutely untrue, is he called me a traitor, and that is so extremely wrong,” Greene said, “and those are the types of words used that can radicalize people against me and put my life in danger.”
Despite her vitriol having put tons of other peoples’ lives or at lest livelihoods in danger, she seems to want to change when it’s aimed at her.
fucking traitor (to the US).
You cannot ‘ironically’ wear a symbol of hate.
I’m not against having a maga hat as a relic, since it hopefully has historical context if we still study history in 10 years, but wearing it endorses the movement regardless of your intent.
Maga people will see you wearing the hat and have no context. They will see the hat as validation, even if you’re just doing it for the lulz.
Hell, I don’t submit help requests without a confident understanding of what’s wrong.
Hi Amazon. My cart, ID xyz123, failed to check out. Your browser javascript seems to be throwing an error on line 173 of “null is not an object”. I think this is because the variable is overwritten in line 124, but only when the number of items AND the total cart price are prime.
Generally, by the time I have my full support request, I have either solved my problem or solved theirs.
I agree that this is a problem.
“Responsible disclosure” is a thing where an organization is given time to fix their code and deploy before the vulnerability is made public. Failing to fix the issue in a reasonable time, especially a timeline that your org has publicly agreed to, will cause reputational harm and is thus an incentive to write good code that is free of vulns and to remediate ones when they are identified.
This breaks down when the “organization” in question is just a few people with some free time who made something so fundamentally awesome that the world depends on it and have never been compensated for their incredible contributions to everyone.
“Responsible disclosure” in this case needs a bit of a redesign when the org is volunteer work instead of a company making profit. There’s no real reputational harm to ffmpeg, since users don’t necessarily know they use it, but the broader community recognizes the risk, and the maintainers feel obligated to fix issues. Additionally, a publicly disclosed vulnerability puts tons of innocent users at risk.
I don’t dislike AI-based code analysis. It can theoretically prevent zero-days when someone malicious else finds an issue first, but running AI tools against that xkcd-tiny-block and expecting that the maintainers have the ability to fit into a billion-dollar-company’s timeline is unreasonable. Google et al. should keep risks or vulnerabilities private when disclosing them to FOSS maintainers instead of holding them to the same standard as a corporation by posting issues to a git repo.
A RCE or similar critical issue in ffmpeg would be a real issue with widespread impact, given how broadly it is used. That suggests that it should be broadly supported. The social contract with LGPL, GPL, and FOSS in general is that code is released ‘as is, with no warranty’. Want to fix a problem, go for it! Only calling out problem just makes you a dick: Google, Amazon, Microsoft, 100’s of others.
As many have already stated: If a grossly profitable business depends on a “tiny” piece of code they aren’t paying for, they have two options: pay for the code (fund maintenance) or make their own. I’d also support a few headlines like “New Google Chrome vulnerability will let hackers steal you children and house!” or “watching this youtube video will set your computer on fire!”
Not just the primaries! My city is pretty purple. We tend to vote republican by a slim majority in larger races (think 51/49), but in the mayor and city council race that just happened, the republican mayor won at like 66/33. Vote every chance or you cede your power to the people who do.
The fix is to start local. Bob’s right: that school PTO experience will be on the candidate’s bio when they run for mayor, even if they are the karen-est karen, and it will sway a few people. That ® mayor has power over a huge amount of how the city is run and many of the things people are locally unhappy with are a direct result of them electing a rich asshole. If we elect Dems locally, we might be able to sway people to our side when the situation gets better under our leadership.
We individuals have the power but it’s got a bit of a lag-time to it. Become informed about how the DNC structure works (best done by joining your local precinct, even if you do nothing more than joining a few meetings). The precincts vote for who runs the county, the counties vote for who runs the state, the states vote for the nation and it’s all based on head-count of participants: a large precinct by population might only have a relative few people engaged and will not have as large an impact when voting in upstream elections. If we’re mad at DNC leadership or the options we have for congress/president, the fix is to ensure people at the precinct-level are the right ones.
This comment is a direct response to anyone saying “both sides”, “dem’s are still corporate shills”, or similar defeatist comments. The “spineless dems” currently have power at the top of the party, but we can fix that. It will take work. It will require time, and that time will be hard to justify with little immediate result. This is the battle we need to fight right now, though. It just needs to be constant and not only complaining online and voting every 2-4 years.
While I believe that this is accurate, as a broad stroke and specifically of the DNC itself, any individual democratic politician is not necessarily corrupt and playing a foil. Especially as you get more and more local.
Don’t let cynicism prevent you from voting for a local candidate for mayor or city council, for example. It’ll take time to see if Mamdani is what he claims to be, but it’s not unreasonable for someone who is mad at the current situation to run for office with a real intent to improve things.
The way we fix things is by getting the local orgs to throw their weight around. Those precinct orgs get votes in the district and district vote in state and state vote nationally. If you’re mad right now or were mad in 2020, then get involved. Find your local democratic organization and become the change. Under our Representative Democracy, we don’t always directly elect our leadership, but we do get to elect the people that elect the people that elect the people… Gotta start at the bottom and ensure that first step has our values in mind. Right now, too many people only get involved every 2-4 years and are mad at the results.
“President” and “Senator” are important titles, but so is “County Chair”. Doing this and pushing the Democratic party further left will be more effective than sending a protest vote for a third party every 4 years, but you can do both.
I’m happy you provided a few examples. This is good for anyone else reading along.
Equifax in 2017: Penalty was, let’s assume the worst case, 700$M. The company in 2017 made 3.3$B, and I’d assume that was after the penalty, but even if it wasn’t, that was a penalty of 27% of revenue. That actually seems like it would hurt.
TSB in 2022: Fined ~48.6£M by two separate agencies. TSB made 183.5£M in revenue in 2022, still unclear if that was pre- or post- penalty, but this probably actually hurt.
Uber in 2018: your link suggests Uber avoided any legal discovery that might have exposed their wrongdoing. There are no numbers in the linked article and a search suggest the numbers are not public. Fuck that. A woman was killed by an AI driven car and the family deserves respect and privacy, but uber DOES NOT. Because it’s not a public record, I can’t tell how much they paid out for the death of the victim, and since uber is one of those modern venture-capital-loss-leader companies, this is hard to respond to.
I’m out of time – and won’t likely be able to finish before the weekend, so trying to wrap up – and Boeing seems complicated and I’m more familiar with Crowdstrike and I know they fucked up. In both cases, I’m not sure how much of a penalty they paid out relative to income.
I’ll cede the point: There are some companies who have paid a price for making mistakes. When you’re talking companies, though, the only metric is money-paid/money-earned. I would really like there to be criminal penalties for leadership who chase profit over safety, so there’s a bit of ‘wishful thinking’ in my worldview. If you kill someone as a human being (or 300 persons, Boeing), you end up with years in prison, but company just pays 25% of it’s profit that year instead.
I still think Cassandra is right, and that more often than not, software companies are not held responsible for their mistakes. And I think your other premise, that ‘if software is better at something’ carries a lot: Software is good at explicit computation, such as math, but is historically incapable of empathy (a significant part of the original topic… I don’t want to be a number in a cost/benefit calculation). I don’t want software replacing a human in the loop.
Back to my example of a flock camera telling the police that a stolen car was identified… the software was just wrong. The police department didn’t admit any wrongdoing and maaaaybe at some point the victim will be compensated for their suffering, but I expect flock will not be on the hook for that. It will be the police department, which is funded by taxpayers.
Reading your comments outside this thread, I think we would agree on a great many things and have interesting conversations. I didn’t intend to come across as snide, condescending or arrogant. You made the initial point, cassandra challenged you and I agreed with them, so I joined where they seemed not to.
The “bizarre emotion reaction” is probably that I despise AI and want it nowhere near any decision-making capability. I think that as we embed “AI” in software, we will find that real people are put at more risk and that software companies will be able to deflect blame when things go wrong.
The burden of proof is on you. Show me one example of a company being held liable (really liable, not a settlement/fine for a fraction of the money they made) for a software mistake that hurt people.
The reality is that a company can make X dollars with software that makes mistakes, and then pay X/100 dollars when that hurts people and goes to court. That’s not a punishment, that’s a cost of business. And the company pays that fine and the humans who mode those decisions are shielded from further repercussions.
When you said:
the idea that the software vendor could not be held liable is farcical
We need YOU to back that up. The rest of us have seen it never be accurate.
And it gets worse when the software vendor is a step removed: See flock cameras making big mistakes. Software decided that this car was stolen, but it was wrong. The police intimidated an innocent civilian because the software was wrong. Not only were the police not held accountable, Flock was never even in the picture.
We can learn a few things from the French. They seem to have good ideas about how to protest for sure.
A question: How do you think you get to the point where the quiet majority feels confident enough to show up in force? To ‘disrupt the system’?
We Americans, by our own devices, have become a very insular people. We have social media, which puts us all in our little bubbles and cellphones, which distract us from the actual people around us. We sit in despair about rising prices and the tragedies inflicted on ourselves or our neighbors, our world. We watch our rights get eroded.
These protests are a symbol that we are not alone. That there are others out there that are also mad. These protests burst the bubble that technology has trapped us in. Read through the comments with this in mind: How many people were surprised at the turnout being larger than expected. And for each of those, there’s a comment indicating it could be larger. As we come to terms with how many allies we have, we gain collective power. Sure, we have it now, but we’re not willing to wield it yet. Building the confidence that you will be one among many is the key to wielding that power. Ten people protesting will be intimidated by the local police. Ten thousand will intimidate the police instead. Ten million will intimidate the government.
I write actual responses to throwaway comments all the time. I don’t do this for Auli or Fresh, I do this for those that might agree with you on the surface. This protest was not intended to make immediate change. It was intended to build pressure, to unite the people and to show support for the cause. When we show up and make a scene, we provide a shield for those who are not as willing to be in front to join in. When they join in, we grow and are able to pull in even more. Every thumbs-up from a car is someone who is on our side, but due to life commitments or fear did not attend… this time.
Edit: Followup: If you want faster change… do it. What’s your idea? Build a movement and implement or shut the fuck up. You might find that it’s hard to find other people willing to risk their safety and arrest to block a street, or to risk losing their job to strike with only a few people involved. When we have the numbers to make the system fear what we could do, we will win, even if we never have to do it.
This feels really insightful, and I wonder if there is a source other than ShaggySnacks.
Can anyone expand on or contradict this comment? I honestly want to hang it in my house so my children can see it and understand they power they have.
Super This:
Organized, non-violent protests are not riots. They are people, in mass, using their freedom of speech to complain about something.
A common issue is that some people, either within the protest group, or outside instigators, will then prod the protest into violence in order to discredit it. Two examples:
It’s important that if you are involved in a protest that you stay calm despite what is thrown your way. The protest is the message and fighting back during that event is only harming your message. Please do things like capture pictures/videos of people inciting violence, of police using crowd control on peaceful protesters, of generic unfair treatment; but during that event, the goal is to be calm. Afterwards, you can take all your grievances to the medias. If you’ve been harmed during a protest, find a lawyer – many will work pro-bono for cases like this and if your first pick doesn’t… fuck 'em: Name and shame – and then fight back after the event, when you have legal standing.
Your grievances are real. Your pain is real. The people in power will use every trick to discredit your issues. Don’t give them ammo.
I’m going to expand on TrickDacy’s comment:
Every both sideser is either extraordinarily lazy or a closeted right winger
and instead state: It is OKAY to be mad at democratic politicians. Especially the spineless ones we have an abundance of right now. And there is certainly some rage we can all aim at the DNC as an organization, which appears to be trying to hamstring any actually progressive candidates.
But there really isn’t a competition in the race for ‘who is most evil’ between D and R. One side is at least appearing to fight for worker rights, healthcare, equality, peace and other progressive/liberal goals. The other side is actively dismantling the government… like actively and they told us they were going to. There’s no both sides here.
So, by ‘closeted right winger’, what I think Trick means is that anyone boldly claiming ‘both sides’ falls into one of a few categories:
So. What is your purpose in your post. Are you lazy, and just know that democrats also suck, but want to sound smart on the internet? Are you gullible, and really think that democrats would be just as bad if they had power? Or are you malicious, and trying to make the people that would otherwise “do politics” give up and become lazy?
If you are not trying to make people give up, STOP. There is no both sides. There is the fascist, authoritarian, oligarchic, billionaire side, and then there are the people. If you want to make a real difference and move the needle, then the time is now, but it’s not in a forum post saying ‘both sides are bad.’ It’s going to be in your local democratic organization, trying to find candidates to run for local or regional offices and then supporting them. The people THERE are definitely on our side, since they are just us. And if we can build strong networks THERE, then we can push people into the national stage who will also fight for us.
The democrats who act like republicans need a strong local network to primary them. Be the change you want to see.
I think this is a potential windfall for gaming… Sure, it could be terrible, as other commenters have stated, but EA was already terrible. A national investment fund may very well have a better understanding of long-term investment and pull away from lootboxes and microtransactions. I’m certainly not holding my breath… but if I were in a position to buy an entire catalog of IP that people loved in their youth, I think this could be a sound strategy.
If Saudi Arabia took EA and all it’s properties and made it what 90’s gaming was… this would be monumental and I think it’d pay off; as well as a slap in the face of the modern game publishers’ business model.
We just saw this with Silksong: Make a good game, treat your customers with respect, and we will break records for you, even if it takes a decade. If the Saudis don’t act like vulture capital and instead play a longer game, they have the money to fund actual quality development.
HK was that good.
If you are at all a fan of souls-likes, metroidvanias, environmental storytelling, then you need to give the original more than 10 minutes.
Enjoy it as a metroidvania and beat the final boss – then realize you still have places you haven’t fully explored…
Same. Good times!