Hizonner

37 ms·

751.
by Hizonner 2y ago
> Despite what Google's literature says about being safe and private, they have a history of retroactively opting people into features and our corporate information cannot be submitted externally. Wait, what? Anything you do in any
752.
by Hizonner 2y ago
How about a permanent ban from collecting it in the first place ? And you can apply that to the rest of them, while you're at it. > The five-year ban prohibits G.M. from sharing information about individual drivers, but it can st
753.
by Hizonner 2y ago
Not the same situation at all. PGP would run on any computer you happened to have around. The source code was small enough to fit in a book. The people who already had the code wanted to release it. Lots of people could have rewritten it
754.
by Hizonner 2y ago
> The patriot act was supported by everyone when it became law. I was at the time a US citizen, and I thought it was moronic authoritarian bullshit. It was basically written by taking every obnoxious proposal that various cops and spies
755.
by Hizonner 2y ago
You think forced rushed sales don't depress market prices?
756.
by Hizonner 2y ago
> Is it? Congress has the authority to regulate international trade. Not as a pretext for speech regulation. And the right to free speech in the US is understood to include the right to listen . > If TikTok was shipping books into th
757.
by Hizonner 2y ago
Turns out that US law (and custom) says the US can't do that particular kind of "tit for tat". I wasn't aware that China had a veto over the US Constitution.
758.
by Hizonner 2y ago
The bottom line is that you're demanding that LLMs somehow magically get to a certain level of functionality, without using input that you are allowing humans to have before you evaluate their functionality. How that input is use
759.
by Hizonner 2y ago
> A pass is a model with no human training data input that is able to reason on human content. OK, then humans fail hard. A baby raised with "no human training data" (no conversation, no active teaching, no social interaction,
760.
by Hizonner 2y ago
... because it's unthinkable that the "high touch sales processes", which add zero value and suck for everybody other than whoever's taking home the huge commission, should change .
761.
by Hizonner 2y ago
> That is true, and part of that would have to be enabling people to make money from web type content without shoving ads in it (or it being an ad for something else). While I think that would be good, I did say personalized advertisin
762.
by Hizonner 2y ago
Very hard to link with your name or other elements of your "real identity" (unless you ever give them out over Tor). Probably only slightly hard to link all the things you do using a given installation of the browser to each othe
763.
by Hizonner 2y ago
You're not going to even improve the problem without completely shutting down the entire "personalized" advertising industry. Which I'm totally on board for, mind you.
764.
by Hizonner 2y ago
What is with everybody suggesting this or that browser? They're all going to be fingerprintable. Using a less common browser just makes that easier... not that it will ever be hard. You might get some relief from some tracking, i
765.
by Hizonner 2y ago
No. Not unless every other aspect of browser, many aspects of the computer, and many ways you can configure them were identical with every other user. In fact, Safari narrows you way down all by itself.
766.
by Hizonner 2y ago
No browser is immune to fingerprinting, or even a little bit hard to fingerprint.
767.
by Hizonner 2y ago
I guess it'd make a difference if anybody'd been following the policy or Google'd been doing anything effective to enforce it. I find this, um, improbable.
768.
by Hizonner 2y ago
After learning how bad people who know a little microeconomics are at noticing or accepting it when their "explanations" diverge grossly and repeatedly from what happens in reality, it can be hard to take them seriously.
769.
by Hizonner 2y ago
> You mean you you'd be wanting to consent to one session, while actually affirmatively consenting to something else. Valid consent requires knowing what you're consenting to. This is not a new principle.
770.
by Hizonner 2y ago
> Don't give them a picture of your face to mess around with if you don't like them messing around using a picture of your face. OK. In fact, I'll do better than that. I won't interact with any of their products or se
771.
by Hizonner 2y ago
Because they are standards compliant and you aren't, and you are legally required to provide an unsubscribe service or whatever without undue barriers around it.
772.
by Hizonner 2y ago
Their problem. They are not entitled to make it other people's problem.
773.
by Hizonner 2y ago
Dipshits write handwringing clickbait articles about it?
774.
by Hizonner 2y ago
> It may as well have been designed to shut down free porn altogether. There was and is a fairly coordinated program of shopping this around to various legislative bodies (not only US states). It started maybe two years ago, I think. It
775.
by Hizonner 2y ago
> Audits also aren't done in person; stings are. What? First, that has nothing to do with anything. Second, it's not true: most auditing has an in-person component, and many stings don't. Do you actually know what an audit
776.
by Hizonner 2y ago
I saw explicit pornography before ever kissing a girl. So did everybody I knew well enough to have known whether they had or not. In the 1970s. We did not have an Internet. No, the volume wasn't nearly as high, nor was the technical qu
777.
by Hizonner 2y ago
Nobody sane actually cares what you "disagree" with, other than maybe being reminded to be sure to avoid people like you getting any actual power.
778.
by Hizonner 2y ago
You didn't read the post you were replying to. That would be a "math nerd solution" that the states have not committed to accept, regardless of whether it actually works. Also, that sort of thing tends to require active coop
779.
by Hizonner 2y ago
> No way at all to do a verification that's immediately tossed in a privacy preserving way? Not if you want to be able to pass any kind of audit, no. Not unless the authority issuing the ID participates in a complicated cryptographi
780.
by Hizonner 2y ago
I've been using it on the desktop for about 30 years now. I've never used Windows for anything. It's not ready.

More ›