Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)B

Bazoogle

@ Bazoogle @lemmy.world

Posts
0
Comments
353
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Wikipedia Cofounder Larry Sanger Banned From Site for ‘Canvassing’

    Jump

  • If you base something on facts, it will be left leaning. Right leaning has a higher value in loyalty, authority, respect, and spirituality. They will deny facts if they have to in order to prioritize their other values. Right leaning people tend to be more likely to be on time, have cleaner desks, and speak more formally to someone they deem a "superior". Left leaning often could give a rats ass about authority, and respect is only given once it's earned.

    All that to say, facts and reality are more left leaning by nature. Given many religious folks will deny nature's history for their spiritual beliefs.

  • This month's Windows 11 update broke the Recycle Bin, OneDrive, and possibly your PC's stability

    Jump

  • I know. I said as much. But they vibe coded patches to vulnerabilities found by AI. Vulnerabilities created by humans

  • This month's Windows 11 update broke the Recycle Bin, OneDrive, and possibly your PC's stability

    Jump

  • It isn't. They patched a shit ton of vulnerabilities. In the process, the broke the recycle bin confirmation.

  • This month's Windows 11 update broke the Recycle Bin, OneDrive, and possibly your PC's stability

    Jump

  • Users might experience the wrong name showing in the recycle confirmation dialogue? As far as issues go, that seems relatively minor. Especially if it only impacts some users. So yea, the title seems pretty sensationalised

  • This month's Windows 11 update broke the Recycle Bin, OneDrive, and possibly your PC's stability

    Jump

  • We have monitors where static shock anywhere on the desk will turn off the monitors for a few seconds and then come back on. It's very annoying

  • This month's Windows 11 update broke the Recycle Bin, OneDrive, and possibly your PC's stability

    Jump

  • Idk how to tell you, but it's AI that found the vulnerabilities created by humans in the first place... Of course they didn't have to use AI to fix the discovered vulnerabilities, but it would've taken a lot longer and more than like still be riddled with bugs

  • This month's Windows 11 update broke the Recycle Bin, OneDrive, and possibly your PC's stability

    Jump

  • You can delete it from your run registry, and uninstall it by running

     
        
%systemroot%\SysWOW64\OneDriveSetup.exe /uninstall

  • This month's Windows 11 update broke the Recycle Bin, OneDrive, and possibly your PC's stability

    Jump

  • Are you suggesting the patches are fixing issues the AI caused? If so, that isn't what's happening. AI is finding vulnerabilities from old human written code at a pace unlike anything before. Not because humans couldn't technically find them, it's just that they never did. That isn't me marketing or shelling out for an AI company, there are many different models accomplishing the same thing, and more to come. It's not just with Microsoft, though Microsoft has a lot of vulnerabilities to find. AI is causing chaos for just about every major tech company with all the vulnerabilities being found. And they have to find and patch them before someone else uses the AI to find and abuse the vulnerabilities first. The long standing match of cat and mouse is much faster than it once was

  • This month's Windows 11 update broke the Recycle Bin, OneDrive, and possibly your PC's stability

    Jump

  • A major problem is backwards compatibility. There is so much infrastructure that would break if they wanted to redo portions of code in a more correct fashion. They have a massive variety of systems, and they're all integrated. Any time they want to do something, they're scared of something breaking. This time, AI is finding a shit ton of the vulnerabilities that are in these systems, and at least in part fixing them. It's unclear how much of the code is written or review by humans. But they're making changes to try to fix these vulnerabilities, and things are breaking. The Microsoft code is a giant fucking spaghetti mess, which means it's bloated, slow, insecure, inefficient, and overall shitty. It's not profitable enough to fix all of this, too. Fixing shit you already have doesn't get shareholders attentions. So it's AI in everything instead. New shiny stuff to keep the adult babies with all the money happy

  • This month's Windows 11 update broke the Recycle Bin, OneDrive, and possibly your PC's stability

    Jump

  • I'm curious what the people down voting you thought. You're 100% right. Critical thinking is in surprisingly short supply. If I provide instructions with pictures that have big red circles and an arrow around what they need to click for each step, I still need to make sure the instructions aren't more than like 7 steps otherwise they get lost.

  • This month's Windows 11 update broke the Recycle Bin, OneDrive, and possibly your PC's stability

    Jump

  • There's an argument to be made that it's better than what was previously released, given there are over 200 vulnerabilities to begin with. Though, Microsoft was slop long before AI

  • How did people treat you after losing weight?

    Jump

  • Most people who respect you won't say anything until you do. I wouldn't comment on someone's weight in either direction unless they mentions it and confirmed it was intentional. There are plenty of cases where the weight loss is because of a disorder or disease, and it could be a sensitive subject. Definitely not something to congratulate them over.

  • MIT Study Finds Gas Cars Aren't Secretly Better For The Planet Than EVs, Despite What Everyone On Facebook Says

    Jump

  • I love Alex, literally just watched his fan video, but you can't act like that one video is all we need on the subject. "There's already a video on that" doesn't really help anyone trying to bring awareness to a massive issue

  • Dozens of Stanford grads walk out on Google CEO's speech

    Jump

  • I have absolutely no idea what “platform” you’re talking about though

    I assume they meant android. If it was a Pixel phone running Android, they would be technically correct. But let's be real, there's a solid chance they use an iPhone anyway

  • UK: Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces

    Jump

  • If anything, it would be an example of false equivalence. I don't think it is, to be clear. But definitely not a "classic" example of strawman.

  • UK: Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces

    Jump

  • You only get ID’d for alcohol if you look like a kid

    Depends on the place

    And when you do get carded, they look at your license, check the date, and hand it right back.

    This is true for most places. There's nothing stopping a creep from memorizing more than they should, but that's of course an edge case.

    While uncommon, there are places such as casinos that take everyones ID and use an ID scanner to add them to a local, or not local, database. Places that do that really are no different from websites that want to ID. Except with a website you'd provide it once, and at those facilities you have to have it scanned each time you go in.

    But a blanket request on everyone to ID themselves by default is just not the way.

    I couldn't agree more. It's a terrible idea and is going to spell disaster for many people. I am not arguing we should have websites collect IDs, my argument is about whether age verification on websites should exist in any form, even if it's securely setup. Many people here think age verification is strictly a problem of parenting, and I think that's an absurd argument.

  • UK: Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces

    Jump

  • Alcohol has a negative effect. Historically it has not gone well when countries have tried to ban alcohol.

    Adults can make their own decisions. They can consume things that are bad for themselves. They can smoke, they can drink, they can gamble. Kids, including teens, do not have brain developed enough to comprehend the consequences for their decisions. They might understand the words you're saying if you try to explain the consequences, but they wouldn't fully grasp the magnitude.

    Not to mention there is 100% more damage done to a developing brain. It changes the way their brains function that does not happen when someone starts using social media only as an adult. The same goes for drinking, gambling, and smoking is just bad for everyone.

    In adulthood, social media use is also linked to activation in the brain’s reward centers, but two key differences may lessen harm, Prinstein said. First, adults tend to have a fixed sense of self that relies less on feedback from peers. Second, adults have a more mature prefrontal cortex, an area that can help regulate emotional responses to social rewards.

    https://www.apa.org/news/apa/2022/social-media-children-teens

    ban algorithmic social media in its entirety

    You want the government to define an algorithm? Sorting by newest first is an algorithm... It would just be a ban on social media, which I can guarantee nearly everyone on this site would call absurd as well.

  • UK: Under-16s to be banned from social media, Starmer announces

    Jump

  • Parents should ultimately be responsible for the activity of their child. If you can’t trust your child to use the internet/social media responsibly, they simply should not be given access to smart devices.

    When people say this, I always think about how we ID for alcohol. If it's the parents responsibility, they should never let their kid be able to go to the store to buy alcohol in the first place. The store shouldn't have to ID people. Except most people don't make this argument. I suppose if you agree with that statement, then you'd be consistent.

    If a kid gets onto social media and does stupid things there

    The stupid thing is using it. It's bad for kids development. It's not dissimilar to drinking. You could blame the parents if the kids got into the alcohol in their own home, but the same would also go for kids using their parents social media accounts.

    Empower parents with better supervisory tools to be more involved, no need to violate the rights of everyone else.

    I know I have been playing devil's advocate for online ID, but I think it will be implemented in a way that is a privacy nightmare and am not in favor of the way it's being done. However, is anonymity a right? Before 1980, nobody really got anonymity unless you authored something under a pseudonym, which we can still do. When people were outspoken about civil rights violation, they were often just out there in the public as themselves. Sure they could wear masks, but you couldn't hide like you can on the internet.

    The internet has allowed both for more anonymity than ever and also more tracking of people than ever. I do think it's coincidental that this is coming at the same time as the birth/growth of AI, but it does kind of serve a convenient second purpose of validating humans (or at least you know that a person is using an AI to post on their account). It's unfortunate that it's a benefit, but we live in an age where people using social media/the internet now have to constantly question their reality and if people are even real. I don't see a good solution to that without violating our previous expectations of privacy.

    If age/human verification going to be done, I think it should be done correctly. Age verification could be done through Zero Knowledge Proofs where it only verifies your age and nothing else. I think one day our ID's will have rotating security keys built into them that will be used both for in person and online verification. You'd be able to decide what information is provided to the website, so that if they only wanted to know "Are you 21+" it would only provide a YES or NO, and that's it. I'm sure there will be some online method for doing the same thing before then, but it'd need to be tied to some form of biometric verification like a fingerprint or else it could be used maliciously. The most likely scenario is we start off by using phones to tie the ID to the person, and have the phones require some form of biometric lock.

    All that to say, we are realistically headed towards a future where the the anonymity we were used to will be no more. At least for any website that doesn't want AI spam. While just uploading pictures of our ID's to websites is a terrible idea, it's what the idiots in charge will likely have us do as this new process starts. If they'd let the smart people take their time to do it right, the whole thing wouldn't be nearly as bad.

  • ‘You Will Not Speak on Flock Tonight’: County Commissioner Refuses to Let Residents Opposing Flock Speak at Meeting

    Jump

  • They want them to pass an ordinance blocking their use. They didn't approve it, but they have the authority to stop it