Same.
We can defederate at any point, and I think it’s too early to say federating would definitely cause harm to our community. I’d prefer to see how things go, keeping our hands close to big red “defederate” button.
Same.
We can defederate at any point, and I think it’s too early to say federating would definitely cause harm to our community. I’d prefer to see how things go, keeping our hands close to big red “defederate” button.
Thanks for the info on crossposting! I thought I’d seen someone mention a cross posting feature but couldn’t see any button to do it. I’m using the Jerboa app on Android which I guess doesn’t have that button, but I see it on the website now as you say.
It’s also good to know that linking to the original URL is generally better and the rest can be handled by the UI - that does seem nicer.
I’d be happy if we’d just accepted “referer” as the correct spelling for everything, but instead we have the “Referrer-Policy” header, so now I need to check the correct spelling for anything involving referring…
I do sort of like the idea that because we want to keep backwards compatibility on software we just change the language instead since that’s easier.
Last time I checked companies don’t share backdoors they’ve added in release notes.
What better headline would you propose in this case?
I don’t think that rule is valid here, the question isn’t there because the answer is definitively “no” and they just want clickbait, it’s there because the actual article is about the question.
(Side note: I’m aware most people here will strongly argue that the answer is no, and I agree, but that is not my point.)
Of the 1,723 adults surveyed across the UK, 73% said technology companies should, by law, have to scan private messaging for child sexual abuse and disrupt it in end-to-end encrypted environments.
Found this interesting. I found the survey results here: https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/68pn2b6b57/NSPCC_OnlineSafetyBill_230427_W.pdf
The exact question I believe is being referred to was:
And do you think technology companies should or should not be required by law to use accredited technology to identify child sexual abuse in end-to-end encrypted messaging apps?
This seems like a really bad question, since it implies a coexistence of end to end encryption and big tech companies being able to read people’s messages, which doesn’t really make sense (or at least requires more clarification on what that would mean). The question as it is is basically “do you think child sexual abuse is bad”.
I wish I could have extensions default to off and be able to turn them on selectively on sites. For things like darkreader I don’t want to use it 90% of the time so it shouldn’t need to have at access to site data.
By the way, I don’t like the title of this article, how is it done “remotely”, it’s just a list in about:config, no? Sounds clickbaity.
Is “scrapping” autocorrect, a typo, or intended? Not meaning to be rude just interested because I’ve only heard of “web scraping” but often see people write “scrapping”.
🎵 You start a conversation, you can’t even finish it 🎵
(because you reached your daily tweet view limit)
Google yeah, but I don’t think YouTube is too much of a stretch, especially now they have posts and polls and other stuff.
I believe if you hosted your own instance you would have to get access because of how federation works, so it might stay as something like most apps/uis won’t expose it because it’s a little invasive, but it’s definitely still accessible without too much work.
On that note, I think a post view limit would be good too. Maybe 10 posts a day for accounts who haven’t donated and 100 for those who have?
I don’t really understand AdNauseam. Can’t they also not build a profile with a normal ad blocker, but you also completely avoid interacting with the trackers (so better for performance, data usage, etc)?
Not entirely related, but I wonder how things like Lemmy/mastodon/other fediverse things compare to Reddit/twitter in terms of search engine indexing. Would posts like this even be indexed? Since posts are accessible through many instances would it be indexed multiple times? Would this affect ranking?
I’d assume it’s just because everything is under quite a lot of load at the moment, and eventually things will sort themselves out
Agreed, and the questions I have that MDN doesn’t answer would probably be ones even less likely for the AI explain to get right.
Confusable characters get a little yellow box which is different from the squiggly underlines most linters and stuff use which at least makes it a bit more recogniseable.
Personally I can’t stand having underlines all over my code, so I’ll usually just “fix” the non-issue if possible, or otherwise just disable whatever the warning is entirely.
To be fair, it’s no worse than articles some people write on those nonsense websites.
I think calling it just like a database of likely responses is too much of a simplification and downplays what it is capable of.
I also don’t really see why the way it works is relevant to it being “smart” or not. It depends how you define “smart”, but I don’t see any proof of the assumptions people seem to make about the limitations of what an LLM could be capable of (with a larger model, better dataset, better training, etc).
I’m definitely not saying I can tell what LLMs could be capable of, but I think saying “people think ChatGPT is smart but it actually isn’t because <simplification of what an LLM is>” is missing a vital step to make it a valid logical argument.
The argument is relying on incorrect intuition people have. Before seeing ChatGPT I reckon if you’d told people how an LLM worked they wouldn’t have expected it to be able to do things it can do (for example if you ask it to write a rhyming poem about a niche subject it wouldn’t have a comparable poem about in its dataset).
A better argument would be to pick something that LLMs can’t currently do that it should be able to do if it’s “smart”, and explain the inherent limitation of an LLM which prevents it from doing that. This isn’t something I’ve really seen, I guess because it’s not easy to do. The closest I’ve seen is an explanation of why LLMs are bad at e.g. maths (like adding large numbers), but I’ve still not seen anything to convince me that this is an inherent limitation of LLMs.