Skip to content

Reddit users in the UK must now upload selfies to access NSFW subreddits

Technology
269 180 860
  • Republican calls out Trump on GPU sales to China

    Technology technology
    8
    1
    166 Stimmen
    8 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    B
    The Chinese models are locally hostable. This does not, and cannot count entities self hosting the models privately. The research posted by American AI companies (other than huggingface and a few startups) is pretty much a nothing burger. This is what I keep trying to tell everyone. It’s not US vs China nor AI vs no AI, the real battle is corporate APIs vs augmented, locally hosted, open weights and open research models. I hope the future is specialized models on smartphones, occasionally augmented by remote APIs. And that has a lot of gravity because, once set up, the calls are basically free. And AMD/Nvidia are still relevant in that future because they’ll likely be the one training models, at least.
  • 75 Stimmen
    15 Beiträge
    85 Aufrufe
    realitista@lemmy.worldR
    But fascist really fails to capture the ethnic cleansing part. We really do need a new group name to discuss the Israelis who commit ethnic cleansing. Someday I hope we will use it to round up these fuckers for their trials in The Hague. I guess we should call them Likuds or just Zionists.
  • 466 Stimmen
    24 Beiträge
    145 Aufrufe
    J
    Paging Ray Bradbury......... https://www.libraryofshortstories.com/storiespdf/the-veldt.pdf
  • Inside a Dark Adtech Empire Fed by Fake CAPTCHAs

    Technology technology
    1
    10 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    12 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 153 Stimmen
    4 Beiträge
    29 Aufrufe
    J
    Agreed - the end of the article does state compiling untrusted repos is effectively the same as running an untrusted executable, and you should treat it with the same caution (especially if its malware or gaming cheat adjacent)
  • 462 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    416 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.
  • 92 Stimmen
    42 Beiträge
    181 Aufrufe
    G
    You don’t understand. The tracking and spying is the entire point of the maneuver. The ‘children are accessing porn’ thing is just a Trojan horse to justify the spying. I understand what are you saying, I simply don't consider to check if a law is applied as a Trojan horse in itself. I would agree if the EU had said to these sites "give us all the the access log, a list of your subscriber, every data you gather and a list of every IP it ever connected to your site", and even this way does not imply that with only the IP you could know who the user is without even asking the telecom company for help. So, is it a Trojan horse ? Maybe, it heavily depend on how the EU want to do it. If they just ask "show me how you try to avoid that a minor access your material", which normally is the fist step, I don't see how it could be a Trojan horse. It could become, I agree on that. As you pointed out, it’s already illegal for them to access it, and parents are legally required to prevent their children from accessing it. No, parents are not legally required to prevent it. The seller (or provider) is legally required. It is a subtle but important difference. But you don’t lock down the entire population, or institute pre-crime surveillance policies, just because some parents are not going to follow the law. True. You simply impose laws that make mandatories for the provider to check if he can sell/serve something to someone. I mean asking that the cashier of mall check if I am an adult when I buy a bottle of wine is no different than asking to Pornhub to check if the viewer is an adult. I agree that in one case is really simple and in the other is really hard (and it is becoming harder by the day). You then charge the guilty parents after the offense. Ok, it would work, but then how do you caught the offendind parents if not checking what everyone do ? Is it not simpler to try to prevent it instead ?
  • New Cars Don't All Come With Dipsticks Anymore, Here's Why

    Technology technology
    22
    1
    2 Stimmen
    22 Beiträge
    97 Aufrufe
    L
    The U660F transmission in my wife's 2015 Highlander doesn't have a dipstick. Luckily that transmission is solid and easy to service anyway, you just need a skinny funnel to fill it.