There’s security and possible support implications, and a general concept of reducing data use and storage, but I don’t see why they should take precedence for something like this.
Overall, yes, it can’t be significantly more than a few database records sitting around. The avatar image is probably more data than the rest of the account metadata.
Well, shit. I only recently started using Trilium. If it were only some Claude commits, I would probably ignore it. But with your documented bad/issue experience, I guess I’ll seek alternatives.
it seems to me that he is almost admitting that he wiped the phone intentionally,
Seems like he’s trying to change the system, to do a public good, rather than only escape his conviction.
I appreciate that they challenge the system, even if it’s not individually advisable and at significant personal risk.
You call them anti imperialist while cheering for imperialist states.
What do you think is bullshit? It’s an investigation since 2010. The court document is quite extensive in their documentation.
What I didn’t like is the article title focusing on scan targets rather than successful targets. Which doesn’t seem related to govt influence.
Recent email: “get a 4k € reward”; reading beyond the teaser/bait, it’s a raffle you buy into with points, which I interpreted as you won’t win anyway, so it’s just throwing the points away.
21.3 percent disable automatic emergency braking outright
For HGVs and buses, the law changed to prevent drivers from deactivating them so they can driver closer to the vehicle in front.
Those changes were raised after crash inquiries which found some lorry drivers regularly switch off their AEB systems to drive closer to the vehicle in front. The regulation change will limit system deactivation to 15 minutes with automatic re-engagement after 15 minutes. - Wikipedia
I don’t know about their quality and false-positive rate in cars, and maybe car usage is simply different, but I’m sure automatic emergency braking prevents many accidents.
A security advisor at work recommends migrating to SaaS so we don’t have to manage any of the infrastructure. This makes me wonder.
These topics often get “why is it even connected to the internet” comments. This makes me wonder if they’re buying a “complete system solution” where it’s not an operator decision but a manufacturer decision, and maybe even reasonable in regards to generally being accessible and manageable, with critical systems separated within the whole-bundle system. But often, the necessary safeguards and system separation are not in place anyway. Offloading responsibility doesn’t mean it gets done well, unfortunately.
Note that I wrote larger than comfortable, though. :)
I wish websites would simply respect the browser’s default font size, and then people can make their choice according to their needs and wants.
FAQ says
Jack Dorsey doesn’t own Divine, although he has provided funding through a grant from And Other Stuff (AOS). He holds no equity and has no ownership. He supports projects like Divine to advance open protocols without VC-led, extractive business models.
I guess it was important enough to point out.
(just quoting for context; I can’t say anything about the claim)
When Twitter shut down Vine in 2017, volunteer archivists from ArchiveTeam and the Internet Archive preserved a large collection of public videos before deletion.
Divine (which is unaffiliated with Vine or Twitter/X) has imported some of these archived videos and is giving them a permanent home on decentralized media servers. Archived videos are marked with a special badge.
Interesting. Certainly a good way to prefill the platform with some content. I guess it’s kinda questionable if you think about ownership, copyright, and the original authors. Depending on how you see it.
That’s a very dark take, but not wrong, unfortunately.
I think this is the first time a website I visited has had a font size larger than I can comfortably read. :) Usually they’re normal, acceptably smaller, or too small.
The statement alone is already very problematic, but even worse when you put it next to their own written policies.
These pages and individual creators posted content that appeared to be in clear violation of Facebook’s own hate speech policies.
Potentially, this is not about stopping them. Can Wikimedia provide this copyleft-licensed data to AI companies when it knows they will ingest it and reproduce it without any copyleft? Lawfully? Morally? Maybe the act itself legitimizes the transformation into non-copyleft form?
If the authors, the contributors to Wikipedia, feel like their work is being stolen, the managing org should not sell and benefit from these acts but at the very least stay neutral or represent and act upon their contributor’s values.
I don’t know how they all feel about it, but the article makes a valid argument saying that copyleft is not retained. And the org actively participating in these activities with the other context provided by the article, it seems malicious/toxic/high discrepancy to the community values.
Thank you for your service!
Out of tokens; I’ll come back with a response next month.
Ultimately, things like this may well change human behavior through changed LLM behavior.
Human language evolves through use and social context. People use LLMs.
Much like youth speak becoming mainstream, people may eventually use words or formulations inspired by LLM use.
If they can publish a dataset of all of GitHub* then they can publish a dataset of all books.
* main branch head state, + some filtering and manual opt-out-apply logic
I use Nushell as my CLI shell, and I set up aliases/commands, so now I use
dl,dl firefox,dl opus firefoxetc.It also helps in remembering or looking up what the syntax to include chapters, sponsorblock sections, or for downloading only a timeframe arguments and synax is.