Skip to content

Do you remember Windows 95? How about Windows 96?

Technology
29 21 0
  • 1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 82 Stimmen
    6 Beiträge
    4 Aufrufe
    merde@sh.itjust.worksM
    (common people, this is the fediverse) [image: 922f7388-85b1-463d-9cdd-286adbb6a27b.jpeg]
  • 133 Stimmen
    16 Beiträge
    1 Aufrufe
    V
    Ah, yes. That's correct, sorry I misunderstood you. Yeah that's pretty lame that it doesn't work on desktop. I remember wanting to use that several times.
  • An earnest question about the AI/LLM hate

    Technology technology
    57
    73 Stimmen
    57 Beiträge
    8 Aufrufe
    ineedmana@lemmy.worldI
    It might be interesting to cross-post this question to !fuck_ai@lemmy.world but brace for impact
  • 24 Stimmen
    14 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    S
    I think you're missing some key points. Any file hosting service, no matter what, will have to deal with CSAM as long as people are able to upload to it. No matter what. This is an inescapable fact of hosting and the internet in general. Because CSAM is so ubiquitous and constant, one can only do so much to moderate any services, whether they're a large corporation are someone with a server in their closet. All of the larger platforms like 'meta', google, etc., mostly outsource that moderation to workers in developing countries so they don't have to also provide mental health counselling, but that's another story. The reason they own their own hardware is because the hosting services can and will disable your account and take down your servers if there's even a whiff of CSAM. Since it's a constant threat, it's better to own your own hardware and host everything from your closet so you don't have to eat the downtime and wait for some poor bastard in Nigeria to look through your logs and reinstate your account (not sure how that works exactly though).
  • X/Twitter Pause Encrypted DMs.

    Technology technology
    52
    2
    258 Stimmen
    52 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    L
    There may be several reasons for this. If I had to guess, they found a critical flaw and had to shut it down for security reasons.
  • 463 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    3 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.
  • Revolutionary cooling technology emerges from Slovenia

    Technology technology
    8
    43 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    S
    You know what's even cheaper to run than this "new technology"? Breathy promotion pieces that give no evidence whatsoever to support it's claims. Way to go, PR folks.