Skip to content

Firefox is fine. The people running it are not

Technology
202 105 12
  • Daily Kos is moving to WordPress

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    5 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    10 Aufrufe
    skribe@aussie.zoneS
    Yeah, but why WordPress? The site is blocked in Singapore btw, so I can't RTFA.
  • EU says it will continue rolling out AI legislation on schedule

    Technology technology
    4
    1
    91 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    30 Aufrufe
    A
    I just can't get over how little we hear from academics RE: AI. It shows a clear disinterest and I feel like if they did bother to say anything it would be, "Proceed with caution while we study this further." Instead it's always the giant corporations with vested interest in this technology succeeding. It's just so painfully transparent.
  • 114 Stimmen
    10 Beiträge
    40 Aufrufe
    S
    I admire your positivity. I do not share it though, because from what I have seen, because even if there are open weights, the one with the biggest datacenter will in the future hold the most intelligent and performance model. Very similar to how even if storage space is very cheap today, large companies are holding all the data anyway. AI will go the same way, and thus the megacorps will and in some extent already are owning not only our data, but our thoughts and the ability to modify them. I mean, sponsored prompt injection is just the first thought modifying thing, imagine Google search sponsored hits, but instead it's a hyperconvincing AI response that subtly nudges you to a certain brand or way of thinking. Absolutely terrifies me, especially with all the research Meta has done on how to manipulate people's mood and behaviour through which social media posts they are presented with
  • 1 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    X
    How many times is this putz going to post this article under new titles before they are banned?
  • Firefox 140 Brings Tab Unload, Custom Search & New ESR

    Technology technology
    41
    1
    234 Stimmen
    41 Beiträge
    167 Aufrufe
    S
    Read again. I quoted something along the lines of "just as much a development decision as a marketing one" and I said, it wasn't a development decision, so what's left? Firefox released just as frequently before, just that they didn’t increase the major version that often. This does not appear to be true. Why don't you take a look at the version history instead of some marketing blog post? https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/releases/ Version 2 had 20 releases within 730 days, averaging one release every 36.5 days. Version 3 had 19 releases within 622 days, averaging 32.7 days per release. But these releases were unscheduled, so they were released when they were done. Now they are on a fixed 90-day schedule, no matter if anything worthwhile was complete or not, plus hotfix releases whenever they are necessary. That's not faster, but instead scheduled, and also they are incrementing the major version even if no major change was included. That's what the blog post was alluding to. In the before times, a major version number increase indicated major changes. Now it doesn't anymore, which means sysadmins still need to consider each release a major release, even if it doesn't contain major changes because it might contain them and the version name doesn't say anything about whether it does or not. It's nothing but a marketing change, moving from "version numbering means something" to "big number go up".
  • 479 Stimmen
    22 Beiträge
    98 Aufrufe
    professorchodimaccunt@sh.itjust.worksP
    GOOD lets chance of spAIyware on there
  • 462 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    292 Aufrufe
    L
    Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.
  • 75 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    30 Aufrufe
    L
    Police: Arrest you for having an open beer in public Judge: sentences you to prison The PIC: