This was my first thought lol. Like, there are flattering photos of Hegseth? At best he looks smarmy.

What the fuck is going on in this thread? Feels like there are a lot of new low-quality accounts recently.

I didn’t really get this impression from the post since there was nothing negative about generative AI beyond the pro-copyright argument. Frankly, it seems closer to pro-AI to me. The OP’s reply to the top-level comment doesn’t help either.

I listened to some of the “music.” I’m not sure wtf is going on in his head at this point, and I’m glad I don’t understand.

The biggest risk in terms of human extinction is a government allowing an AI to make unchecked military (e.g. nuclear) decisions.

I knew it was from TempleOS, didn’t realize it was actually a scripting language though.

What is the Main; at the end? Is this like a scripting language where having something like main() is just an idiom? Also is printf() like built-in or something?

Matrix is fragmented too, but it’s generally less fragmented in my experience (if you use a relatively well developed client). Part of this is because most people just use Synapse for their server. With XMPP, server implementations support random combinations of XEPs, and specific servers often are missing random XEPs because they’re not enabled by default and so on (thinking about ejabberd for instance here, the default config probably isn’t what most people want). I also routinely have random compatibility problems between clients pop up with XMPP. As a basic example, retracting messages is very haphazard.

Anyway, yeah, if they standardize on server and client setup for all govt instances, it’d be fine either way probably. The clients may be somewhat janky, but they can probably fix those issues more easily when they’re only focused on one client (although unless it’s like FluffyChat and cross-platform, they may need to standardize multiple clients) and server.

I think there have been some attempts to do so, but they’re just not good enough (and/or end up dead after a while).

The biggest problem with XMPP is what various servers and clients implement is kind of all over the place. For instance, most clients support an older version of OMEMO, but some clients support newer versions, and the different versions are incompatible.

The other issue is some platforms (iOS in particular) have pretty shitty XMPP apps filled with bugs.

I still generally like XMPP more than Matrix since ATM Matrix clients are also filled with bugs/laggy, Synapse (the main server implementation) is very resource heavy, and message syncing is kind of shit if the client doesn’t implement sliding sync (like FluffyChat). I personally think the UI for both XMPP and Matrix clients generally kind of suck, which isn’t great for convincing non-techy people to use them.

Except it is still encrypted to the intended recipient. As the other commenter said, WhatsApp is just another “member” of the group that you can’t see. Basically all they’d have to do is have a server somewhere functioning as a WhatsApp client. Your client sends the message to your intended recipient. It also then sends the message to their “client.” The routing server for the messages can’t decrypt the messages. All the messages are still encrypted per-member of the group and can’t be decrypted until it hits the ends, but WhatsApp is basically a mole siphoning all your messages and storing them.

Obviously it’s deceptive. But if you individually encrypt the messages you’re sending, the one you send to the receiver still can’t be decrypted by Meta, only the copy sent directly to Meta can, so the copy sent to your intended receiver is still “E2EE.”

So, is it basically treating every message as a “group” message where it sends it to some system WhatsApp account and then also to your intended receiver? This is what I’m assuming based on them supposedly being able to see deleted messages. Also would let them say it’s technically still “E2EE” since it’s indeed E2EE to your receiver, but it’s also E2EE to them as well.

If you aren’t arguing that white people have only begun protesting/caring about things now because they think it affects them, then your comic does not make its point clearly.

In any case, after double-checking, two of the non-white people you directly point out as shot and killed by ICE were undocumented. I’m not actually sure one was even shot since skimming a few sources indicates he fell off a roof and died from that during a raid. Obviously being undocumented doesn’t justify getting killed, but that’s another difference (citizen vs. undocumented noncitizen) between Good and Pretti that you’ve chosen to ignore in favor of solely basing your comic on them being white or not.

Also, AFAIK the Porter incident doesn’t have video footage (can’t remember if the others do either). The Good and Pretti cases have significant footage, so it’s particularly easy to spread clips over social media.

“a moderate Orthodox Christian and a humble classical liberal, with one seemingly minor deviation from classical liberal orthodoxy: I worry about the Antichrist.”

It’s disturbing that he considers himself “moderate”

If this were true (which is nearly impossible since you said “all”), stuff like Anubis wouldn’t exist since you could just toss up a crowd-sourced robots.txt and be done with it.

This issue is largely manifesting through AI scraping right now. Additionally, many intentionally ignore robots.txt. Currently, LLM scrapers are basically just bad actors on the internet. Courts have also ruled in favor of a number of AI companies when sued in the US, so it’s unlikely anything will change. Effectively, if you don’t like the status quo, stuff like this is one of your few options.

This isn’t even mentioning of course whether we actually want these companies to improve their models before resolving the problems of energy consumption and potential displacement of human workers.

Corporations want the existing copyright system for their own products but simultaneously want to freely scrape data from everyone else.

I mean, they say earlier that music is actually well-preserved, but it’s disproportionately popular music. If the goal is then to preserve everything, I’d expect them to go for stuff that isn’t likely to be in some random audiophile’s collection or whatever then.

1. Over-focus on the most popular artists. There is a long tail of music which only gets preserved when a single person cares enough to share it. And such files are often poorly seeded.

• We primarily used Spotify’s “popularity” metric to prioritize tracks. View the top 10,000 most popular songs in this HTML file (13.8MB gzipped).
• For popularity>0, we got close to all tracks on the platform. The quality is the original OGG Vorbis at 160kbit/s. Metadata was added without reencoding the audio (and an archive of diff files is available to reconstruct the original files from Spotify, as well as a metadata file with original hashes and checksums).
• For popularity=0, we got files representing about half the number of listens (either original or a copy with the same ISRC). The audio is reencoded to OGG Opus at 75kbit/s — sounding the same to most people, but noticeable to an expert.

Perhaps I’m reading this wrong, but is this not a little backwards? Since unpopular music is poorly preserved, shouldn’t the focus be on getting the least popular music first?