• 0 Posts
  • 299 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle
  • Says the fact that it’s come up multiple times amongst a wide swath of the open source community, and look about you. Those licenses aren’t used. One or two exist and have a vanishingly small usage level and a couple more I have been “in progress” for years.
    The people who write most of the open source licenses have explanations for why it’s not compatible.

    Group behavior is a collective decision and a reflection of the group.


  • ricecake@sh.itjust.workstoFediverse@lemmy.worldBluesky just verified ICE
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    No, you’re not understanding what I’m saying. I’m not the person you were replying to.
    Mastodon is a piece of software. It has a license, just like bluesky or any other. You can put a clause in the license saying the software cannot be used for the dissemination of hate speech. The open source community has discussed this and decided it goes against the principles of free software and open source.

    If you’re mad at one and not the other, you’re applying different standards because being part of the fediverse weighs more.

    Personally I hold platforms to a different standard and so I’m neither mad at mastodon nor bluesky. I just think it’s hypocritical to be mad at someone for publishing a fascists letter but not be mad at the person who gave the same fascist a printing press.


  • ricecake@sh.itjust.workstoFediverse@lemmy.worldBluesky just verified ICE
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 days ago

    So the mastodon service supports Nazis.

    nobody owns it and anyone can run it

    They could have chosen a license that forbid usage for spreading hate. They put “free software” and “open source” above blocking hate speech.
    They’re providing software to Nazis, and I don’t really see how that makes them better than providing a place to post.



  • It’s really not. The people who invented the term “artificial intelligence” both meant something different than you’re thinking the term means and also thought human level intelligence was far simpler to model than it turned out to be.

    You’re thinking of intelligence as compared to a human, and they were thinking of intelligence as compared to a wood chipper. The computers of the time executed much more mechanical tasks, like moving text into place on a printer layout.
    They aimed to intelligence, where intelligence was understood as tasks that were more than just rote computation but responded to the environment they executed in. Text layout by knowing how to do line breaks and change font sizes. Parsing word context to know if something is a typo.
    These tasks require something more than rote mechanical action. They’re far from human intelligence, and entirely lacking in the introspective or adaptive qualities that we associate with humans, but they’re still responsive.

    Using AI only to refer to human intelligence is the missuse of the term by writers and television producers.

    The people who coined the terms would have found it quaint to say something isn’t intelligence because it consists of math and fancy scripting. Their efforts were predicated on the assumption that human intelligence was nothing more than math, and programming in general is an extremely abstract form of math.



  • Right now browser usage patterns are shifting because people are trying new things. Most of those new things are AI integration. If those new things prove popular or have staying power remains to be seen.
    Firefox , in my estimation, is looking to leverage their existing reputation for privacy focus while also adding new technologies that people seem at least interested in trying.
    A larger user base means that people will pay more for ads, which if they maintain their user control and privacy standards users are less likely to disable on the default landing screen.

    It’s why they keep getting flac for working on privacy preserving advertising technology: they want you to use Firefox because they don’t stop you from disabling the bullshit, and they hope to do the bullshit in a way that makes you not mind leaving it on.

    All the AI stuff was mentioned in the same context as discussion about how they need to seek money in ways that aren’t simply being paid by Google.






  • Insurance, benefits and labor expenses. Even in places with little worker protections there are costs that scale with the number of workers instead of the number of hours.
    A brief look indicates employers in India can expect to budget on the order of 18% of an employees take home per year for those expenses.

    There are some circumstances and places in the US where you don’t need to provide as many benefits to employees who work below 40 hours. Then you see employers hire more people and schedule them for just under the threshold to give them benefits.

    The answer is always because it’s cheaper for them somehow.




  • If they hadn’t jumped the gun so badly and tainted the launch with crap results, Google would have been well positioned to do something profoundly useful.
    If it could actually extract useful information with citations and pointers for next steps and work as an interactive search, that would actually be really really useful.
    The whole “hallucinating health advice” and “being terrible” thing really set them back, even if they’ve improved.

    Like you said, I don’t really need help creating. I do need help remembering things or finding information: that’s why I’m using a search engine in the first place.

    At work, there’s a person who knows everything about the job. He regularly gets questions where the answer is just the correct way to find out for yourself.
    That’s what I want. “Oh, you mean X? Try looking at YZ. Oh, you wanted X, but in G conditions. That’s over in FOO. It’s confusing because reasons written down here…”




  • Only for write operations. Reads are effectively free, and cached files are invariably predominantly read heavy.
    Even then, the wear effects of writes on SSDs are exaggerated. Improvements in the technology and wear leveling have made them roughly as reliable as spinning disk.

    For a phone, the storage is expected to remain viable beyond the expected usage lifetime of the device. It doesn’t really matter if caching wears storage a little faster if the device is inoperable before it’s a problem.


  • I mean… Caches, logs, and other system data currently in use by the system is a fairly decent explanation. Computers need space to put stuff while it’s working. It’s not particularly odd to not go to extremes labeling the contents of the junk pile that’ll get discarded if anything comes up.

    Linux is about as open as a system can be and it has several piles of roughly undocumented junk that can be difficult to know exactly what they contain.

    There’s nothing about it to “not trust”. If it wanted to hide something from you it wouldn’t tell you it was there and refuse to explain fully, it would just not tell you at all. It’s not like you can check it’s work.


  • ricecake@sh.itjust.workstoAsklemmy@lemmy.mljho
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    4 months ago

    Management isn’t your friend, but managers are still people. The job is not the person. A good, nice, friendly person can have a job where their work interests aren’t necessarily aligned with yours and still try to do what they can to see that your interests are met.

    If they fire me, no manager is going to ask me how I’m holding up or what my plans for the future are

    That’s just not true. It’s not universally untrue, but it’s just wrong to default to such an antagonistic view from the outset.

    All that to say: it sounds like you’re mainly having difficulty reconciling your thoughts on how you behave towards people with how you behave towards management. If you replace job related words with words like “people” or “person” then the question gets a lot easier.

    I had an argument with this person everyone likes and after thinking about it, it was mostly my fault we raised our voices. She raised her voice first but because I wasn’t listening to her because she triggered me.

    It’s pretty obvious to me that you apologize. Then ask if they’d be open to a conversation about what you feel could have gone better.
    “Hey, do you have a minute? Sorry about how I acted when we were talking the other day. I thought about it and realized that I hadn’t been listening, which wasn’t right of me and made things worse. Would you be open to discussing it now that we have a little distance from it? I’d like to explain myself a bit and share some related concerns that I had, if nows a good time.”

    They’re a person. If you feel your wronged them, apologize. If you feel like you want to explain things and offer feedback, just make it clear this isn’t a prerequisite for the apology or anything.