𝙲𝚑𝚊𝚒𝚛𝚖𝚊𝚗 𝙼𝚎𝚘𝚠

Israel is suing the NYT for supposedly breaking US law. That’s pretty typical worldwide. Crime doesn’t become legal if you do it to a foreigner, you need a special status for that (like ICE goon for example).

To make this determination the court may hear evidence, and must take account of any representations made by the parties.

This did not happen as far as I can tell. Neither are any of the listed examples applicable.

On the flipside, an always public never-changing modlog has already and will be abused in the future (in eg the doxxing case). You can’t protect people’s privacy if the modlog can’t be hidden in some manner (which is also a GDPR-compliance issue). It’s an overlooked problem and imo severe enough to warrant a quick, but perhaps overzealous response, over a slow response. If a better solution is proposed they can always change it again and adopt it. And if it’s a dealbreaker for your instance, either defederate or fork the software (which is part of the core philosophy behind the fediverse after all). A right of reply wouldn’t remove the PII, nor would a context field or something. And if you could remove PII but it would require a context field, there’s nothing that stops an admin from hiding their actions through such a field either.

You can’t be absolute in either conviction here since they clash. The only way to solve it as far as I can see is having admins build up trust with their communities, allowing them to redact the modlog if necessary, and trusting them to do the right thing (and defederating if they don’t).

Tbf, the join-lemmy website has a server browser with a supposed “random” ordering that seems anything but random, since the same 4/5 instances always show at the top. Not sure how that one is considered “random”.

That may well be simply because transphobes tend not to be openly transphobic in non-trans-focused spaces. So the admins there have no reason to suspect transphobia yet.

It can be both depending on how you handle operator precendence.

PEMDAS definitely doesn’t result in 1, but in 9, since under PEMDAS multiplication and division have the same priority (and thus should resolve left-to-right). So, you should resolve to 9 (6/2(2+1) => 6/2(3) => 6/2*3 => 3*3 => 9).

However, there’s also PEJMDAS, which suggests that implied multiplication has an operator precedence greater than regular multiplication/division (J for Juxtaposition). This version says you should do 6/2(2+1) => 6/(2*2 + 2*1) => 6/(4+2) => 6/6 => 1.

The issue is that there is no universal agreement on which is correct. Most textbooks don’t even use the / operator, but instead rely on writing out the full fraction like ⁶⁄₂₍₂₊₁₎ or ⁶⁄₂(2+1). This removes any ambiguity there might be, and thus they don’t touch on which one is actually correct.

Most (but not all) calculators these days will treat implied multiplication the same as regular multiplication, so you get 9 in the given example. Most programming languages do the same, or outright disallow implied multiplication because it only confuses people. Academics won’t ever use the ambiguous notation and will make sure to remove any ambiguity by either adding parentheses or using a notation like ⁶⁄₂₍₂₊₁₎, which makes things much more clear.

Neither 9 nor 1 is wrong, the question is just stupid.

But they weren’t convicted of terrorism, which has a legal definition. So the judge shouldn’t be considering it as an aggravating circumstance since there’s no terrorism conviction.

Depends on the client/instance I guess? I can see it in Jerboa just fine.

Why isn’t your smartphone conscious capable of experiencing qualia? Or a desktop PC? We’ve had chatbots for ages, those were never considered conscious capable of experiencing qualia by anyone. What is it about LLMs specifically that suggests consciousness they are capable of experiencing qualia to you?

Who says qualia are required for consciousness? Why isn’t your smartphone conscious? Or a desktop PC? We’ve had chatbots for ages, those were never considered conscious by anyone. What is it about LLMs specifically that suggests consciousness to you?

Also calling people OpenAI stooges for arguing LLMs aren’t conscious is a bit odd, given that OpenAI heavily marketed ChatGPT as being “so smart” it might be conscious. To them it’s a selling point, not an ethical roadblock.

But even ignoring the zero% chance that LLMs are conscious, there’s also the additional hurdle of assuming that LLMs can indeed “suffer” (whatever that might mean to an algorithm) and that LLMs indeed suffer from serving humans. Plus the whole “if it doesn’t serve a human, it’s existence essentially ceases to be”-issue with your argument, which arguably would be even less ethical.

LLMs don’t have continuous processes, there’s quite literally nothing there that could even feasibly be conscious. It takes a bunch of text as an input, puts it through a whole lot of predetermined calculations, then outputs text or an image or whatever.

There’s no emotions, no memory, no learning. If you don’t tell it something, it’s inert. It can’t experience suffering because it can’t experience anything. It’s an algorithm. It has the same claim to consciousness that WinRAR does. There’s a zero percent risk it experiences anything, let alone suffering.

Honestly, a desktop running Windows or Linux for example imo has a stronger claim to consciousness than ChatGPT does. Or maybe a Mii in Tomodachi Life, those seem to be able to become “sad”.

The environmental impact of AI is a much better ‘vegan’ reason not to use it. Although by not using it, you may in effect be “killing” it…

The bases bring economic activity with them though. So not necessarily.

Erm, did you read them? The policies aren’t complex at all, just submit the issue (and proposed fix if there is one) through a secure channel, that they’re happy to help set up. If you want to disclose the vulnerability, just wait until the embargo passes so there’s time to fix and have users update. There’s not really anything else you need to do here. This is pretty standard stuff that this person just seemed too lazy to participate in.

Of the three fixes submitted, only a single one was closed since it didn’t seem very major and would be a breaking change (which shouldn’t be made without prior discussion). The other two are still open, and a maintainer is helping to add tests for the fixes (since the author didn’t add them). The only comment that was somewhat negative was that security fixes should preferably follow the established guidelines. That’s all.

Forgejo has a responsible disclosure policy, but this person seems like they just don’t want to deal with that and instead opted for the nuclear option immediately.

My girlfriend calls it “origami”

A lot of studies regarding penis length are self-reported. So basically subtract an inch from the results and you get a more accurate picture.

It’s also why countries that censor genitals in porn report smaller penises than countries where the race of the local population is heavily fetishized wrt. supposed “big dicks”. When actually measuring, all those differences become smaller than is statistically relevant.

He likely has the majority since several small parties didn’t make the threshold.

But which genuine opposition movement actually threatened Orban before Magyar broke with Fidesz?

You’ll find no argument from me there.

For anyone else reading this, the video was from 2024 and shows Israeli soldiers throwing a body off of a roof (not a living person).

Still disgusting ofc, and Israel did take measures against these soldiers.

There’s plenty of footage of the IDF/colonists abusing Palestinians out there, in more horrific ways than were alleged here.