• 4 Posts
  • 1.52K Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 5th, 2023

help-circle
  • Only business that would require an ID/Age Verification check, but yeah. Except they don’t want to hold actual websites liable. They want to hold ISP’s liable.

    There’s literally no way to know if the people using the VPN’s are located in Utah. So this law would be unenforceable against actual websites.

    It might possibly be enforceable against ISP’s but the problem is, once you fire up a VPN your ISP can only see you entry point and maybe that there is a Volume of traffic going to and from your device. They can’t see what websites you visit (provided your VPN is properly configured).

    I also don’t understand how this bill could effectively lay any blame against the websites for knowing you use a VPN because they also can’t see any of that information. They know that you visited and from a specific IP “located” in “place” and they can either assume that the use of a VPN means you’re in Utah (very unlikely), or they can assume you’re not (more likely given the population that lives outside Utah).



  • I think what it does (my take from the outside looking in) is rob people of context. Sometimes that context is extremely important and without it even the best answers can cause flaws and failures.

    The one good thing about going to a website and reading an article is that you get context that helps you understand the concept not just the answer you were looking for.

    The context is how we learn. It’s how we build on basic understanding. It’s also how we vet information for factualness.

    I believe this is why people see a decline in their skillset when they use AI LLM’S in place of their own skills. Every time you use a skill you refine it. Don’t use it and in a lot of cases you will lose it.










  • You’re asking a bunch of people with different backgrounds and social norms (and neurodivergences) to answer your questions. You got an answer that is pretty factually correct, backed by reliable sources and your main arguments against it are:

    1. It was caustic and it made me feel bad.
    2. I think this person might be speaking from a bubble and therefore their view of things can’t be accurate.

    These reactions did make it seem like you were going to disregard this information regardless of what lip service you paid to the people who said don’t disregard it.

    While I can appreciate that the answer didn’t start off diplomatic, the bulk of it is factually correct and actually pretty well represented.

    If you are ever in a room asking questions and you only receive diplomatic answers you can be pretty positive you aren’t getting the full scope of facts or opinions.








  • No offense meant but I don’t have a Bluesky and I don’t go there. I also have no idea if I’m supposed to have seen this video and so on.

    The baseline of the joke is basically “tech oligarchs are aliens or machines” which is a well known and kind of playe out joke that has been made repeatedly at the expense of literally almost every tech oligarch who’s heading a tech company today. Sam Altman, Elon Musk, Sataya Nadela, Sundar Pichai, and Mark Zuckerberg have basically all had this joke made about them especially in regards to how they schill AI.

    Even if it’s not a self insert it follows the same basic premise of saying something we all agree with as the punchline. I don’t consider the HAL or Mr burns reference to be particularly funny but I’m not trying to trash talk this comic or the other one (which I also didn’t find particularly funny).

    I’m just pointing out the difference in reaction and also wondering if this is a holdover from the comics community where people read an opinion they agreed with and then regurgitated it over here.

    Much though I like the anti-ai community, I am willing to admit that something like this comic and the other one normally would do numbers with its users and not receive a lot in the way of backlash or open dislike except by trolls who frequent the community to start arguments.