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/)I

iglou

@ iglou @programming.dev

Posts
0
Comments
294
Joined
1 yr. ago

  • Roses are Red... I read the front-page... Microsoft quietly deletes Windows 11 doc pushing 32GB RAM for gaming after outrage

    Jump

  • It wasn't that expensive a couple years ago. Unmecessary to go to 128, but not that expensive.

  • Microsoft Edge loads your passwords into memory in plaintext, but Microsoft says not to worry

    Jump

  • Eh. To be honest it indeed does not matter much. Scanning your RAM for passwords is much harder than simply reading them off the browsers files. Sure, it is encrypted and the key is not necessarily on your computer, but remember that if the software can decrypt your passwords without you inputting a password or similar, then anything with access to your device can as well.

    Don't use your browser's password manager.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • You can call VPNs illegal, but you can't enforce it.

    You could make them require age verification for example, or you could ban commercial VPN's and only allow self-hosted ones.

    Neither is enforceable. You can theoretically detect VPN traffic, but you can't tell if it's commercial or not. Even the detectable part will no longer be true if you make VPNs illegal, as providers will work towards "indetectability". You can have a list of known IPs, but unless the entire world follows you in your ban, that is pointless.

    They could also do what Utah did and make it so that you effectively can't access any websites with a VPN

    That law existing is more of a demonstration than an actual law, as it is also unenforceable. Sure, you can have a list of known IPs, but that's definitely not reliable and easy to work around.

    Most laws about the internet are unenforceable unless you simply turn it off. That's why piracy is still an "issue" despite it costing rights owners a gigantic amount of money and therefore not lacking incentive to deal with. That's why even China and Russia, who are trying to control their network as much as possible, are still unable to enforce their VPN restrictions properly. Even if the US turned fully fascist they wouldn't be able to enforce a VPN ban.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump

  • You can't make VPNs illegal. There is a lot of infrastructure dependent on VPNs.

  • Trump’s disapproval rating hits record high, new poll shows

    Jump

  • I don't know how it is done on the US, but it'll always be samples, of course. Which does not make it a useless result at all, statistics on a population sample can be true for the full population if the sample is well done.

    Typically polling agencies will not pick people at random to answer their questions. There is always criteria they respect to have a valid sample. It is of course not an exact science, but done properly and transparently (that's where I don't know if the US does it right) it is very powerful.

  • Logic

    Jump

  • That is not what arbitrary means.

    It is a rational decision grounded in scientific research. That is by definition not arbitrary.

  • Logic

    Jump

  • Again, it is not arbitrary, it is based on what we understand of sentience. Nothing arbitrary about it.

  • Logic

    Jump

  • No. Hard to define, sure, but definitely not arbitrary. Plenty of research on the topic of sentience.

  • Trump’s disapproval rating hits record high, new poll shows

    Jump

  • It does. It reflects the general population's approval and therefore affects the decision making of politicians looking for reelection.

  • Pete Hegseth is now bringing his wife to Pentagon meetings: report

    Jump

  • Looks like your dictionary is not up to date! "Crime" is a word that only applies when your net worth is not high enough.

  • Logic

    Jump

  • I have. None of them claim plants are sentient or are capable to feel suffering. Or any other indication that points to sentience rather than (complex) response to stimuli.

    That is because while you and others might associate these responses to indications of sentience, scientists do not.

    Only talking about credible secondary sources, of course.

  • Logic

    Jump

  • I have read through the two articles that you linked as sources. Neither is a credible source, as neither points at any point to a scientific study that comes close to recognizing sentience in plants. It's once again anthropomorphism. At best, drawing wrong conclusions from real studies, at worst, fiction.

    I have an open mind, but I'm only interested in scientific studies, not unproven hypotheticals or personal interpretations of plant behaviors.

    If you do have credible studies (by that, I mean peer reviewed and published) on plant sentience, then by all means, please share them.

    These sources have as much value to me as some random article on the memory of water.

  • Removed

    githubDownDaily

    Jump

  • Sorry but that is just the reality these days. Instead of having local «it works on my computer» setups you have one place that builds

    You should have both. Having your entire dev team unable to work when one service is down is absurd.

  • Removed

    githubDownDaily

    Jump

  • Nah. If your entire dev team has to be on pause when github is down, you're doing it wrong. Especially enterprise.

  • Logic

    Jump

  • No, I'm making them based on science. Which is more than you can say about yours. Science isn't absolute truth, but it is the closest we have.

    You, however, are making shit up out of your ass.

  • Logic

    Jump

  • Yes, but with our current knowledge, we can only do our best at drawing the line of sentience. With what we know of plants, we can safely conclude they are not.

    If that knowledge changes someday to point at plants being sentient, then we can redefine what is ethical.

    There is no such thing, with our current knowledge, as plant suffering. And that's all we can base our opinion and ethics on. The hypothetical that plants may suffer is irrelevant in ethics discussions until we have any evidence that they do.

  • Logic

    Jump

  • No, I prefer to base my decisions about what is sentient or not sentient on science rather than anthropomorphisms.

    Plants don't scream. Plant's don't feel. Animals do. Deal with it.

  • Logic

    Jump

  • And a whole more stuff happens that doesn't happen with a plant.

    Stupid analogy. But what else do I expect on the internet?

  • Logic

    Jump

  • I know this study. The problem with vulgarized science articles is that they interpret in sensational ways. Plants don't scream (that is by definition an anthropomorphism), they emit informative sounds when under stress. The use of the word "scream" implies pain, which plants do not feel.

    Pain, as far as we know, requires a nervous system to be felt. No study disproves that.

    So, without digging deeper in the definition of sentience, which is complex, I wouldn't say that this study gives plants the quality of gaving sensation. It just says that when you cut a plant, the plant emits sounds.

    Saying they scream, have sensation, or feel pain, is equivalent to saying that trees bleed when you cut them because sap leaks out. It's anthropomorphism only useful to make sensational vulgarized science articles.