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/)P

PeriodicallyPedantic

@ PeriodicallyPedantic @lemmy.ca

Posts
6
Comments
1061
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • I finally understand Cloudflare Zero Trust tunnels

    Jump

  • Idk about audio but they rate limit video pretty quickly. Audio might be low enough bandwidth for them to not care, but be cautious

  • I finally understand Cloudflare Zero Trust tunnels

    Jump

  • Is there a reason not to use pangolin for the public stuff too?

    I'm just about to make the switch from CloudFlare to pangolin on VPS, and I wanna make sure I'm not missing anything

  • What are some gross or disgusting facts about the human body that people aren't aware of?

    Jump

  • Yeah, but have you considered; penises?

  • What are some gross or disgusting facts about the human body that people aren't aware of?

    Jump

  • Penises.

  • Your task is to blow a job interview in the first 30 seconds. What do you do?

    Jump

  • Good to know. Idk why someone would do that on Lemmy, but I guess I'll have to keep an eye out

  • Your task is to blow a job interview in the first 30 seconds. What do you do?

    Jump

  • At the very least it wouldn't get you kicked out of an interview at Tesla

  • Your task is to blow a job interview in the first 30 seconds. What do you do?

    Jump

  • What the fuck?

    I think you need to clarify, because it sounds like you're saying that the only reason that people have a problem with Nazis is PC culture.

    and that you're saying people making a big deal about Nazis is a bad thing, people should either not care about Nazis or return to not doing anything about Nazis even if they cared?

    Keep in mind this is in the context of doing a full Nazi salute, which is pretty unambiguous.

    Is that really the hill you want to die on?

  • Your task is to blow a job interview in the first 30 seconds. What do you do?

    Jump

  • Naw.

    Poop on their desk

  • Your task is to blow a job interview in the first 30 seconds. What do you do?

    Jump

  • Well they didn't say you couldnt get arrested.

  • Your task is to blow a job interview in the first 30 seconds. What do you do?

    Jump

  • A few years ago I'd have said a Nazi salute.

    But now I have to ask clarifying questions, like the location of the interview

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • Good in theory, problematic in practice. A goal to strive towards but not achieve.

    The main problem is that the dictatorship of the proletariat is so easily corrupted into a regular ol dictatorship. It's supposed to be a transitional period, but when that much power is in play, it's hard for people to give it up - and even when they're willing, they can just get ousted by less scrupulous people.

    Making it safely through that passage is like a Great Filter of socio-economics

  • Promised myself I will support them after they go stable. They kept their promise and so did I

    Jump

  • They do basically what I'm describing, just not as well because they don't have as much of an incentive. Are end users willing to pay for these more advanced models?

    Well there you go. It could be authoritarian, except an authoritarian govt isn't subsidizing it. Exactly like I described.

    Governments, however, are willing to pay that amount. Why?

    You keep walking straight into the points I'm making.

    That, in itself, isn't authoritarian

    Wrong. Setting up a super invasive surveillance system is inherently authoritarian, even if they initially happen to use it for reasons that don't typify authoritarianism. You have to bend over backwards so hard to keep it from becoming authoritarian, that it will just naturally corrupt any entity that deploys it, even making the monumental assumption that an entity that deploys this didn't have the intention to use it for nefarious purposes from the start.

    it's only authoritarian of there's some enforcement arm to enforce obedience or punish disobedience.

    Is a rather clumsy piece of mental gymnastics. Not only have you said it before. You can use this argument, coupled with your earlier "it's constituent parts aren't authoritarian" to argue that nothing is authoritarian.

    Again, I disagree. Something is only political when used for political ends.

    And again this is just the pro-gun argument. Fine on paper, useless in reality.

    I'm making the argument that it is possible for software to be political even if it wasn't created as such. I only need to show that a single case is possible. You are making the argument that it is impossible, and you keep trying to prove it by example.

  • Generation Nero

    Jump

  • Welcome, it's been like this for a while.We have no idea what to do about it.

  • Promised myself I will support them after they go stable. They kept their promise and so did I

    Jump

  • Again, in theory in a vacuum, I agree. But I disagree that anything you describe could actually be both commercially viable and deployable without authoritarian involvement

    In your example do you not see all the gymnastics and bending over backwards you need to do to avoid the inherent nature of the system? I'd go so far as to say that the people in your theoretical HOA are analogous to supporters of a authoritarian regime.

    You're making a pro-gun argument here, and it's not convincing for similar reasons: products are more than the sum of their parts, and the actual application of a product matters more than the theoretical use. If it is nearly impossible to meaningfully use apolitically, then it is not apolitical.

  • Promised myself I will support them after they go stable. They kept their promise and so did I

    Jump

  • Surveillance has a lot of use cases outside of government. Palantir could have sold its services to non-profits like the ACLU as a check on local, state, and law enforcement agencies.

    In theory, yes. In practice no.

    ALCU could not roll a system like that out; never mind securing the resources needed to deploy this meaningfully; using it would go against their ethos, because using it would make them authoritarian, or adjacent.Similarly, even if HOAs could deploy a system like that, that'd make them authoritarian.

    Mass surveillance products like these don't have a lot of non-authoritarian uses. Even if you could find such a use (of which I'm skeptical), it'd almost certainly need to be subsidized by an authoritarian customer. We're not talking about security cameras around you personal property, here.

  • What's your silly little website.

    Jump

  • That and theBestPageInTheUniverse were formative

    (I say, realizing that I remember nearly none of them besides vibes)

  • Promised myself I will support them after they go stable. They kept their promise and so did I

    Jump

  • I mostly agree with you, so we're probably not really doing much in this discussion. I'm trying not to be pedantic, but as my name will tell you, I find that to be a challenge lol.

    I agree wrt how to regulate. If disallow the govt from broad indiscriminate surveillance and disallow the govt from circumventing that rule by subcontracting it to private entities, then these companies and products that perform the mass surveillance would naturally become unprofitable and collapse. I would argue that such a product would be by its nature political, because it's only practical use case was the furtherance of a political goal.

    Cameras aren't political, but the use of cameras for mass govt-level surveillance is political. So a system that does so (like the ones sold to the govt) is a political software product.

    To me where it gets tricky is when private entities grow to government-sized proportions, and begin to use these same tools for similar purposes. I think that is also a problem, but it becomes harder to frame it.

  • Promised myself I will support them after they go stable. They kept their promise and so did I

    Jump

  • So this is why I'm trying to avoid using the term fascist, because it means something specific but nobody can really agree what that thing is. For the purposes of this discussion, I'd prefer to say "authoritarian".

    I wouldn't call traffic cameras invasive because they're only at (some) intersections. But it's still kind of borderline. A private citizen recording people in public and the government doing so are fundamentally different. I think that having the government subcontract away that responsibility to maintain privacy is an abdication of that responsibility and is an intentional act to move towards authoritarian on the part of the govt. Now if the private company intends to help the government do that, is immaterial; that is the only major use case for their product, so it is functionally a tool with an authoritarian purpose.

    Is it such a dichotomy in reality? No. But we need to be exceptionally careful when we see these gray areas

  • Promised myself I will support them after they go stable. They kept their promise and so did I

    Jump

  • Like the fascist LLM example I gave, or a training simulator that is hard-coded to only present fascist ideology.

    Right. That's what we're talking about. But I think the bar is a little lower. I think it's enough to be primarily useful for (eg) fascist goals. If it happens to have minor non-fascist uses, I don't think that materially changes anything.I don't think that Lemmy is primarily useful for furthering tankie goals.

    I think that privacy invading surveillance systems are primarily useful for furthering authoritarian goals, by intention or not. There are some nice alternative uses, but I think that the use case of primary importance is in service to authoritarianism, which makes it authoritarian software.