Random idea: do you think a platform for crowd sourcing / funding ideas could go well for musicians? Like a feature request in software, where users can like a post about a feature to show interest, except it would use dollars instead of likes. Fans could publish an idea for a song they like and donate $5 or whatever. If it’s a popular idea, more people donate to it and the artist takes notice (having now been somewhat paid to produce it).
I think it has more to do with not enough civil values.
Could be that refactoring the code for Windows 11 compatibility, and new features, would have been roughly equivalent in effort to rebuilding. If the code has been poked and probed for years already, still follows old patterns, and have devolved into a tightly coupled mess of scattered system dependancies… maybe it just becomes easier to justify rebuilding it as a way of clearing out technical debt?
Afraid of loosing posturing, like the US did when they used their economic advantage to do just that. People, even the good guys, don’t like knowing that they don’t have total control over their wealth… and by using the bad guy’s money, even in justified matters, it sends a message to everyone in the broadest of daylight: “we control the money.”
If your advantage comes from other countries being willing to invest in your currencies, then trust becomes a huge part of that advantage. People care about money, not ethics, when they’re concerned about where to store their billions.
also, time between key presses on the compromised machine could indicate network lag to what is actually a Remote Desktop.
Does iMessage store the keys locally and encrypt the entire message so only the recipient can decrypt it? Any idea what their handshake looks like—I’m curious if they can still see the messages or not.
Yeah, I’m with you there. They sure as shit are going to try, regardless of whatever sustainability point you or I can think up.
Some idiots voluntarily give it away? Brother… we as a society moved the public common areas for discourse, entertainment, finance, and research onto a digital landscape. That landscape, in particular, is set up like as though every Roman in the fora had an invisible personal Sherlock Holmes set up to automatically dissect their footprints, fingerprints, the direction and timeliness of their stair, … and then to record it in a virtually limitless ledger where it can later be aggregated and analyzed for behavioral patterns. We aren’t giving it away anymore than the Roman commoners would have been by merely walking around town. This is a very aggressive data harvesting situation.
^ Don’t trust this guy. He’s going to sell you a timeshare or some shit.
Honestly, it’s a culture I can get behind. Lower ewaste, reduce the product cycle to something greater than a year, encourage more hobbies and less consumerism, … people will flock toward things that last, which is a market that can use some love.
Propped up by what, though? They’ll just continue to dilute the name of AI with underperforming technology and yield more backlash from the public while making an oligarchy out of their richest tech influencers.
Imagine what the internet would look like if legislators prevented that particular monetization strategy (targeted advertising). For example, classifying it as behavior influencing technology—we could start to analyze a lot (social media algorithms, advertising, news feeds, …) for its potential to become propaganda and influence our fellow citizens. Free speech is protected, sure, but you can’t shout “bomb” in an airport anymore than you should be able to harvest heroine data and use it to lure addicts to your marketplace.
Imagine if we saw things like Amazon and said, “woah woah woah. We as a society left feudalism behind. You can’t own the land (the “platform”) that everyone sells on, monetize the exchange of products on your land (taxes, or “platform fees”), and have control over which exchanges should occur in the first place (the “algorithm”). That’s just too much power and doesn’t follow the same free market principles that got us here in the first place.”
Imagine if the government saw things like web3.0, blockchain, federation, and said: “you know, it was public funding that built the internet. Maybe now, public funding should secure the democratic process of the internet. Let’s research the potential for using the internet as a platform for building and supporting a digital space that helps propel society into its next stages of human development.”
Instead, we got something where technology was allowed to develop into an alternative form of control. We regulated the land, so they made new land in unregulated territory while moving all the goods over there. Capitalism allowed feudalism to sprout from within if. We are the peasants who “work the land.” That’s why these platforms are free to us, because (just like in feudalism) they need us there for any of this to work. We work the land, comment and like posts, only to teach their algorithms how to better influence us. It’s not what I was hoping for back in the early 2000s.
Gitea Actions, as well.
Information is contextualized data. Knowledge is contextualized information. Wisdom is contextualized knowledge.
Wow, my comment was really misinterpreted. Not once did I condone Nazi ideology, nor provide any form of justification or apology to their ideology. I brought up an ethics debate regarding the practicality of a law confining the movement of one’s body. I asked about the merit of perception versus reality. Calling me a Nazi apologist completely misses the forest for the trees… and those weren’t even my trees.
I’m not a free speech absolutist. I just live in a society where a huge argument against this kind of legislation is the potential for abuse. Please forgive me for wanting to explore these concepts together, rather than hiding within my own ignorance like so many others do.
deleted by creator
Replace all upper case I with a lower case L and vis-versa. Fill randomly with zero-width text everywhere. Use white text instead of line break (make it weird prompts, too).
The guns were legally obtained, meaning these weren’t “banned guns.”
I think you’re ignoring the damage that would do to the US bond market?
Well, if it stays at $5 then it’s probably not a popular idea. If 1000 people like the idea and each put $5, now we’re talking $5k. Still probably not quite enough, but it is producing income via a novel way of getting in touch with the audience.