Skip to content

Study finds smartphone bans in Dutch schools improved focus

Technology
52 23 14
  • Google’s electricity demand is skyrocketing

    Technology technology
    11
    1
    188 Stimmen
    11 Beiträge
    15 Aufrufe
    W
    What's dystopian is that a company like google will fight tooth and nail to remain the sole owner and rights holder to such a tech. A technology that should be made accessible outside the confines of capitalist motives. Such technologies have the potential to lift entire populations out of poverty. Not to mention that they could mitigate global warming considerably. It is simply not in the interest of humanity to allow one or more companies to hold a monopoly over such technology
  • NVIDIA is full of shit

    Technology technology
    96
    1
    392 Stimmen
    96 Beiträge
    49 Aufrufe
    J
    I 100% know what DLSS is, though by the sounds of it you don't. It is "AI" as much as any other thing is "AI". It uses models to "learn" what it needs to reconstruct and how to reconstruct it. No, you don't. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Learning_Super_Sampling This is blatantly and monumentally wrong lol. You think it's literally rendering a dozen frames and then just picking the best one to show you out of them? Wow. Just wow lol. Literally in the docs: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/NVIDIA/DLSS/main/doc/DLSS_Programming_Guide_Release.pdf What it does is allow you to run a game at higher settings than you could usually at a given framerate, with little to no loss of image quality. Where you could previously only run a game at 20fps at 1080p Ultra settings, you can now run it at 30fps at "1080p" Ultra, whereas to hit 30fps otherwise you might have to drop everything to Low settings. No it doesn't. It allows you to run a game at a higher resolution for no reason at all, instead of dropping to a lower resolution that your card can handle natively. That's it. Keep claiming otherwise, and you're just literally denying reality and the Nvidia link to the docs right in front of you.
  • 229 Stimmen
    47 Beiträge
    84 Aufrufe
    D
    Oh it's Towers of Hanoi. I have a screensaver that does this.
  • 63 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    J
    Very clever.
  • Mudita Kompakt

    Technology technology
    17
    1
    62 Stimmen
    17 Beiträge
    28 Aufrufe
    anunusualrelic@lemmy.worldA
    There you go then. It's 80 €.
  • 104 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    20 Aufrufe
    C
    Now we need an open source browser runtime...
  • 51 Stimmen
    9 Beiträge
    39 Aufrufe
    H
    Also fair
  • Catbox.moe got screwed 😿

    Technology technology
    40
    55 Stimmen
    40 Beiträge
    56 Aufrufe
    archrecord@lemm.eeA
    I'll gladly give you a reason. I'm actually happy to articulate my stance on this, considering how much I tend to care about digital rights. Services that host files should not be held responsible for what users upload, unless: The service explicitly caters to illegal content by definition or practice (i.e. the if the website is literally titled uploadyourcsamhere[.]com then it's safe to assume they deliberately want to host illegal content) The service has a very easy mechanism to remove illegal content, either when asked, or through simple monitoring systems, but chooses not to do so (catbox does this, and quite quickly too) Because holding services responsible creates a whole host of negative effects. Here's some examples: Someone starts a CDN and some users upload CSAM. The creator of the CDN goes to jail now. Nobody ever wants to create a CDN because of the legal risk, and thus the only providers of CDNs become shady, expensive, anonymously-run services with no compliance mechanisms. You run a site that hosts images, and someone decides they want to harm you. They upload CSAM, then report the site to law enforcement. You go to jail. Anybody in the future who wants to run an image sharing site must now self-censor to try and not upset any human being that could be willing to harm them via their site. A social media site is hosting the posts and content of users. In order to be compliant and not go to jail, they must engage in extremely strict filtering, otherwise even one mistake could land them in jail. All users of the site are prohibited from posting any NSFW or even suggestive content, (including newsworthy media, such as an image of bodies in a warzone) and any violation leads to an instant ban, because any of those things could lead to a chance of actually illegal content being attached. This isn't just my opinion either. Digital rights organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation have talked at length about similar policies before. To quote them: "When social media platforms adopt heavy-handed moderation policies, the unintended consequences can be hard to predict. For example, Twitter’s policies on sexual material have resulted in posts on sexual health and condoms being taken down. YouTube’s bans on violent content have resulted in journalism on the Syrian war being pulled from the site. It can be tempting to attempt to “fix” certain attitudes and behaviors online by placing increased restrictions on users’ speech, but in practice, web platforms have had more success at silencing innocent people than at making online communities healthier." Now, to address the rest of your comment, since I don't just want to focus on the beginning: I think you have to actively moderate what is uploaded Catbox does, and as previously mentioned, often at a much higher rate than other services, and at a comparable rate to many services that have millions, if not billions of dollars in annual profits that could otherwise be spent on further moderation. there has to be swifter and stricter punishment for those that do upload things that are against TOS and/or illegal. The problem isn't necessarily the speed at which people can be reported and punished, but rather that the internet is fundamentally harder to track people on than real life. It's easy for cops to sit around at a spot they know someone will be physically distributing illegal content at in real life, but digitally, even if you can see the feed of all the information passing through the service, a VPN or Tor connection will anonymize your IP address in a manner that most police departments won't be able to track, and most three-letter agencies will simply have a relatively low success rate with. There's no good solution to this problem of identifying perpetrators, which is why platforms often focus on moderation over legal enforcement actions against users so frequently. It accomplishes the goal of preventing and removing the content without having to, for example, require every single user of the internet to scan an ID (and also magically prevent people from just stealing other people's access tokens and impersonating their ID) I do agree, however, that we should probably provide larger amounts of funding, training, and resources, to divisions who's sole goal is to go after online distribution of various illegal content, primarily that which harms children, because it's certainly still an issue of there being too many reports to go through, even if many of them will still lead to dead ends. I hope that explains why making file hosting services liable for user uploaded content probably isn't the best strategy. I hate to see people with good intentions support ideas that sound good in practice, but in the end just cause more untold harms, and I hope you can understand why I believe this to be the case.