The mail (a web service), the calendar (a web service), YouTube (web videos), YouTube Music (web music), Google Maps (a web based mapping service)…
You get the picture.
Android spies on you when you’re doing things locally on the device. But, the rest of these are web-based services.
It bans some versions of this, but it can’t ban all of it. The obvious way is fully banned and hard to get away with: pay someone to delete unflattering things about you on Wikipedia. But, you can do a much more costly, slower, but much more likely to be acceptable version: you can buy a newspaper and arrange for that newspaper to write flattering articles about you. Since those articles qualify as a primary source, you can then have someone update Wikipedia to include things from that article using the article as a primary source. That doesn’t delete the unflattering things, but it pushes them down the page and surrounds them by flattering things. If you’re a billionaire, you’ll find a way to get the articles edited in a way that is permitted by the Wikipedia rules.
there’s always at least one guy who’d hyperfocus on monitoring something like this
That’s the thing, there’s only about 3000 billionaires worldwide, but 8 billion other people. Let’s say out of those 8 billion, there are maybe 20 who really, really hate Bill Gates. All it takes to undermine all Bill Gates’ attempts to launder his reputation is for a few of those 20 to keep an eye on his Wikipedia page in their spare time, and challenge any changes that try to whitewash his reputation.
Trickle down economics doesn’t work well, but at least this causes a trickle down effect. Gates spends millions with PR firms to keep his reputation clean, including vandalizing Wikipedia. Those PR firm employees are unethical assholes, but they’re not billionaires. Gates (indirectly) pays their wages. These PR firm assholes then spend Gates’ money to buy BMWs and prostate massagers. That ends up trickling down to car mechanics and massager manufacturers.
So, every time you edit Wikipedia with unflattering but true information about billionaires and middle eastern oil states, you’re causing some wealth to leak out of the billionaires’ pockets as they fight to contain that information. And you can do this damage while just sitting on a toilet.
I don’t think anybody, other than maybe high-school kids, thought Wikipedia was some perfect site with no flaws. Even with these flaws, it’s really an amazing achievement and deserves massive amounts of praise.
Just compare it to what came before: Encyclopaedia Britannica and the like. Wikipedia is estimated to be about 95x bigger than Encyclopedia Britannica. So, it goes more in depth on almost everything, and has orders of magnitude more articles than Britannica had. And, do you think Britannica didn’t face pressure to not publish controversial or unflattering information on rich people? It was probably much, much easier for the rich to get things their way when it was a single, for-profit publisher, rather than a worldwide group of volunteers. And then there’s the issue with being factual or having a neutral point of view. That’s always going to be a challenge, but it’s much more likely there will be systemic bias for an American-owned for-profit company than it is for a volunteer-based non-profit with editors worldwide.
Also, the way Wikipedia works, it’s much harder for these PR firms to completely hide things they don’t like. Nearly all of Wikipedia’s edit history is easily visible just by clicking a link on the page you’re reading. If someone removed something unflattering, you can often find it just by going through the edits. It would be nice if the rich couldn’t adjust the main pages, but at least it’s extremely hard for them to make unflattering information completely disappear just due to how the editing process for Wikis works.
Finally, paid PR professionals can’t just edit whatever they like. Wikipedia editors are notoriously proud of what they do, and annoyed at seeing their site vandalized. Often edits will be rolled back, or pages will be locked. Eventually a billionaire might get what they want, but to get a fact changed on Wikipedia they’ll probably need to pay a reputable news site to make a counter claim, then have one of their paid PR flacks to use that news article as a primary source to allow it to be used on Wikipedia. That’s an expensive and fragile process. Do it too often and you damage the reputation of the news site so it can no longer be used for that kind of thing. And, all it takes to undo that is a good journalist doing their job and reporting the truth and a volunteer Wikipedia editor updating the page.
So, don’t lose hope, just think that billionaires are spending millions to try to launder their reputations, and often those attempts are being undone by some girl in sweatpants casually updating Wikipedia on her phone while she binges Critical Role.
Sure, some people were initially against electricity. But, it’s not like they had to beg people to use it. There was enough demand that the main issue was deciding between AC and DC, not whether to do it at all.
The way that sort of invention often works is:
If it truly is a world changing invention, step 4 is “world is amazed, inventor can’t keep up with demand”. There are also frequent cases where the world goes “meh, not for me”. Now occasionally those are when an invention is ahead of its time, and years or decades later the inventor is vindicated. The other case is when the invention really isn’t good, and there simply isn’t and will never be demand for it.
Somehow, the AI bubble is built with people ignoring the feedback from people that keep saying “meh, not for me”, and the various “inventors” burning more and more of their money trying to change people’s minds. Has that ever worked?
Has there ever been a true world-changing invention where the “inventors” had to beg the public to use it?
Capitalism says that the market won’t reward people making those things, and the companies might fail as a result.
But, we’re no longer in a capitalist world. We’re in a corporatist world where it’s closer to technolfeudalism where it doesn’t really matter how bad your idea is, because you aren’t out to make a profit, instead you’re out to extract rent.
This is the thing I hope people learn about LLMs, it’s all hallucinations.
When an LLM has excellent data from multiple sources to answer your question, it is likely to give a correct answer. But, that answer is still a hallucination. It’s dreaming up a sequence of words that is likely to follow the previous words. It’s more likely go give an “incorrect” hallucination when the data is contradictory or vague. But, the process is identical. It’s just trying to dream up a likely series of words.
I’d rather program a normal way than try to wrangle some of the abominations I’ve seen in excel sheets
That’s the way I also think about learning fancy spreadsheet stuff. Spreadsheets are good for putting data into a graph. They’re good for basic numeric stuff where there’s a simple pattern that repeats. But, pretty soon you’re in a situation where you should either have a real database or a real program. If you’re doing a lot of manipulation of data, you should have a program with loops, conditionals, errors, exceptions, etc. and most importantly with comments. If you’re storing a lot of data, you should be using a real database, not hundreds of lines in a spreadsheet.
If, at the end, you do want something visual, and don’t feel like dealing with a graphics library, you can always export the data to a CSV and import that into a spreadsheet.
Let’s just say AI truly is a world-changing thing.
Has there ever been another world-changing thing where the sellers of that thing had to beg people to use it?
The applications of radio were immediately obvious, everybody wanted access to radios. Smart phones and iPods were just so obviously good that people bought them as soon as they could afford them. Nobody built hundreds of km of railroads then begged people to use them. It was hard to build the railways fast enough to keep up with demand.
Sure, there have been technologies where the benefit wasn’t immediately obvious. Lasers, for example, were a cool thing that you could do with physics for a while. But, nobody was out there banging on doors, begging people to find a use for lasers. They just sat around while people fiddled with them, until eventually a use was found for them.
IMO they’re just being lazy. If you just reboot you don’t have to worry about resolving the dependencies for things you upgraded.
Fuck that reboot. It’s almost never necessary under Linux. Unnecessary, forced reboots in Windows are one of the last straws that made me fully switch my last remaining Windows system over to Linux.
Reddit existed long before Digg died, and was so much better before the Digg refugees streamed in.
I’ll say what I just said on a similar thread: if the internet goes down tomorrow, mesh will mean very little compared to ham radio.
For what purpose? Hanging out with friends? Watching porn? Getting vital information around?
AFAIK, ham is really mostly geared towards synchronous voice communication, whereas most of the Internet is asynchronous communication in a variety of forms: text, voice, video, etc. In an emergency, synchronous voice is pretty important. But, for day-to-day life, asynchronous dominates most people’s usage of things.
So, if the Internet goes down tomorrow and you need to know why, what happened, etc. your best bet is probably not ham radio but normal TV and radio broadcasts, not rumours being spread by other random people using ham radio. If you live in a country where a complete overnight shut down of the internet, and complete stopping of all news broadcasts is possible, then ham might be useful for the first few days / hours to figure out what’s going on. But, in the longer term, ham isn’t really a replacement for the Internet. For that you’d want asynchronous sharing of various kinds of data, which is more a mesh network, not ham radio.
Government officials are really scared of changing the status quo. They’re really afraid that if they get rid of anti-circumvention laws, that they’ll become a pariah state. In the past that probably would have been true. The US would have thrown its weight around, and Europe would have fallen in line and boycotted whoever it was. Many countries also have a lot of Hollywood productions made there. The major Hollywood studios care about anti-circumvention because they think it guarantees their profits. So, if these countries scaled back anti-circumvention, Hollywood would probably throw a fit and cut them off too. Even if the economic impact of getting rid of anti-circumvention were a huge positive, Hollywood has a big cultural impact worldwide.
I’d like to see it happen, but I think the most likely scenario is that a country that already doesn’t fully respect US copyright laws, like Switzerland or Singapore, might take an additional step and stop respecting anti-circumvention.
This is why lawyers advise clients to use a PIN instead of face ID or fingerprints
That’s because cops don’t need a warrant if you use a face or fingerprints, but they do if you use a PIN. What you’re talking about is for protection against casual, warrantless searches.
What I’m talking about is a subpoena where you’re required to present evidence. The fact that it’s encrypted is irrelevant. If the data is subject to a subpoena it doesn’t matter if you store it encrypted or unencrypted, you’re still required to present it to the court.
If you keep you stuff updated
Keeping stuff updated is a chore, and it can take hours out of your week, often when you don’t expect it or don’t have time. When that’s someone’s full time job and they’re updating it for hundreds, thousands or millions or people, there’s a better chance they do it right, and a much better chance that they do it in a timely fashion.
I am not your lawyer and this is not legal advice for you or anyone who reads this.
I hope you’re not anybody’s lawyer, with your lack of knowledge of the law. Did you graduate from Dunning-Kruger law school?
Communication that can’t be shut down: Matrix, Mastodon, email servers you control
Uh, those can all be shut down. You may control the server but you don’t control the datacenter the email server lives in, unless you’re hosting out of your house, which is a bad idea. You also don’t control the pipes to and from these servers. There have been many plans over the years requiring that ISPs ban users who are accused of copyright infringement. And, even if you don’t infringe copyrights, we all know about how the DMCA can be weaponized against people who have done nothing wrong.
File storage that can’t be subpoenaed: Nextcloud, Syncthing
Sorry, your own file storage can be subpoenaed, you just don’t have a lawyer on call to help you through the process. If you think “haha, I’ll just delete the data”, you can be in much worse trouble. AFAIK in some cases the judge / jury are allowed to assume that evidence that you deleted was incriminating.
I self-host things and think it’s a good idea. But, don’t go overboard with how good it is. It’s still vulnerable to government and corporate actions. in many cases you’re more vulnerable because you’re on your own, you probably don’t have a lawyer on retainer, etc.
My grandmother had an incandescent light bulb in her house that had been there since the early 1900s and still worked. But, compared to modern bulbs it was pretty dim, used very thick glass, and was pretty overbuilt. Modern incandescent bulbs are not built to last. They’re brighter, and they’re cheaper, but not as durable.
Looking at the picture, I wonder if modern panels will last the same way.
Solar panels in the 1980s were big, inefficient, chonky things. If they weren’t hand assembled, they sure looked hand-assembled.
Modern solar cells are much more efficient and clearly machine assembled. They use much finer wires, which might be more fragile:
It wouldn’t surprise me if part of the trade off to get cells that have double the efficiency at half the price you also have to give up on some durability.