• 1 Post
Joined 2Y ago
Cake day: Oct 02, 2020


sorry late reply, got sucked into work and thing. finally back.

yeah i agree with you here. all i meant re. responsibility was along the lines of, when people ask “is it ok to mistreat animals for <whatever> gain?”.

my response would be, no, not only is it wrong because its plain wrong, but also because we have responsibility.

That is good information that it has been ratified.

To put it in ethical terms, it may be good to give a very wide berth on where the definition of sentience might be. (ignoring or including that the capability for suffering may not be identical to sentience. but agreed its a good starting point to establish a bounds.)

To put it in intellectual or scientific terms, no numeric value can be correctly assigned to a real world quantity without an associated error. The maximum radius of that error is roughly what I would ascribe to the “wide berth” mentioned above.

The limits of our perception meaning there’s a chance we may be wrong, and in this context i’d rather be wrong for the right reasons - so to speak.

There’s alot of discussion around humans being more valuable because of our elevated perception and sentience. I would put it the other way: with the increased sentience comes a duty of care, that is where our responsibilities to other species comes from imo.

I know I didn’t say anything to disagree with either of you, just continuing the enjoyable discussion.

well said.

re. ‘capability to suffer’: this seems (imo) to have been a stumbling point or crack which has occasionally been widened to facilitate destructive behaviour.

how to determine this capability to suffer? for every obvious example there will be some cruel person making a devils argument for why we can’t be 100% certain (and therefore “all bets are off”).

i think its good to give a very wide berth on all species with mobility. not foolproof (eg. plenty of plants fall under this category), but its a good start imo

Extremely true.

Or if people must post a video, they need to have a reasonable length text to explain it, so everyone can participate without having to watch the video.

and there’s a transparent log of commits

yep, its ridiculous. and its only going to get worse

there is some/broad consensus that we can do better than iptables these days

oh yeah i have no doubt about that. just wondering what a healthy timeline looks like for the transition.

i don’t follow it especially closely, but had the impression bpf is still in the maturing phase regarding vulnerabilities. hopefully that is at least in part a sign it is being actively inspected and hardened with this purpose in mind - and i’m sure iptables still has many lurking vulns.

in summary, agree some form of transition is likely inevitable. wondering what the timeline will look like.

eBPF is powerful for sure, is it yet mature enough to replace iptables?

that is a good point, and thanks for the recommendation.

though its also good to be mindful of privacy respecting re. search terms vs privacy respecting re. data leaks. and some timing leaks are independent of the plaintext payload, ie. easily grabbed in transit.

Cool, thanks for the new details.

Just my 2c, be wary of search bar suggestions if it may leak data to 3rd party, including accidental typings etc, timing info etc

Wow, great job. Very much like your work and your guide.

Quick note, what do you mean by?

enabled search engine suggestions

I tried to check with your user-overrides.js but the file is gone?

thanks for the good info.

could you please provide a brief overview of the core concepts you have implemented in your user-overrides.js?

depends how its done… if it was like “we fucked up, pls don’t continue down this negative road because of our mistakes”*

that could be considered a form of pressure. and maybe not be considered colonialist…? (what do you think if they said it that way?)

there’s about a billion other ways they might pressure, and it would be colonialist.

is it safe to assume its mostly the latter?

The consensus is: yes, platforming alt-right authoritarians like Trump leads to more harm, including more people radicalized, and more people silenced by abuse they and their followers dish out on such platforms.

i could certainly see how it might be worse, because they just statistically reach fewer people. and perhaps also because it helps establish a line for what constitutes being too obnoxious, so other people will tend to moderate themselves a bit too because they know we dislike this offensive attitude.

what worries me is we’re only seeing our side of that line, where we think its nice now because the problem has “gone away” - and honestly it has been nicer lately lol.

but has it really gone away? or are we just more comfortable now because its happening behind a fence we can’t and don’t want to see past?

imo it seems a bit too early to call where all the harm is eventually going to land and take root. i imagine at this stage, although it could very well be true, calling it a consensus is pretty optimistic, unless there’s details i’ve missed?

Yes he did, in the article he talks specifically about Trump.

i read the article, imo its not yet clear whether he singled trump out or journalists steered it that way. if he has general ban policies which trump doesn’t (yet) fall under, that is an entirely different conversation than if musk is specifically unbanning trump because he wants more people like trump in the world. if i’m missing something or there’s a much more complete source out there let’s know.

The problem is not that Company X decides to ban a person or platform a person. The problem is that such a decision by Company X has such gigantic consequences. And that comes directly from the fact that Twitter is a centralized walled-garden monopoly.

Think of it this way: if any e-mail provider (even Gmail) “banned Trump”, that would be way less of an “issue”. Why? Because there are many other mail servers he can go set up an account on. So this particular e-mail provider’s decision is no longer “censorship” really, it’s “I really don’t want to do business with that toxic person”.

And that’s where we need to get to with social media. Centralization is a danger to democracy.

100% agree with everything you said about centralized walled-garden monopolies. that was part of my point, who made twitter this central power to begin with? it’s completely ridiculous.

Should downvotes require a summary textfield?
across a variety of modern up/down vote based platforms, some make it a personal mission to avoid downvoting (the only real exceptions when someone is being utterly objectionable, ie. ridiculously racist/sexist etc or blatant spamming ^(1)^ in general, it is almost always better to have a respectful discussion than mindlessly downvoting and moving on. if two parties can meet for respectful discussion the outcome is almost always superior to the text-book divisiveness of a downvote war etc ^(2)^. in a great many cases people usually find they don't disagree as much as previously thought, have their mind opened to a valuable new perspective, or at worst accept to disagree respectfully. definitely a better outcome. yes it is time consuming, but don't we all generally want quality over quantity? ^(2)^ the original idea of a self-moderating community through up/down votes is a good idea, yet appears to have been hijacked by the modern social-media-type weaponised web, which is being turned against humanity to divide and polarize us against eachother. and is particularly suspectible to bot manipulation. ^(1)^ which can have eg. their own flags