It would be a waste of time when no one would use the half ban. They’re banning users because they don’t want to serve whatever they’re posting.
It would be a waste of time when no one would use the half ban. They’re banning users because they don’t want to serve whatever they’re posting.
Run your own instance or join a permissive one if you don’t want your instance to moderate trash away.
What you’re describing is a massive downgrade, and also massively adds to the legal exposure of hosting an instance, because you’re serving everything any user of your instance sees. Being able to block bad actors isn’t really an optional feature. You’re effectively asking for your instance to be forced to serve you abusive content.
lol maybe. But he was genuinely apeshit mad that his player swung at a pitch.
It sure as hell looks like plenty of information on the offender to me.
That’s the entire point of bans.
You don’t want to have to manually block all the spammers and shit posters a decent instance is taking care of for you.
'Member when Tony La Russa said his player deserved to get a baseball thrown at him for having the audacity to swing at a pitch?
I 'member.
I could see the appeal as open source, self hosted software.
Not from data vacuums.
It’s not remotely within the realm of plausibility that Sam Altman genuinely believes any of the horseshit he spews. (And that’s ignoring that they gained their funding by lying about the core intent of their organization by pretending to be serving the public interest and not profiteering.)
Opposing actual fraud isn’t what reactionary means.
Seriously, I’d love to be enthusiastic about it because it’s genuinely cool what you can do with math.
But the lies that are shoved in our faces are just so fucking much and so fucking egregious that it’s pretty much impossible.
And on top of that LLMs are hugely overshadowing actual interesting approaches for funding.
Windows UX sucks. But that has nothing to do with what he’s talking about, which is the programs running on Windows.
100% of the reason Photoshop dominates GIMP for market share is because GIMP is the worst designed pile of shit anyone has ever made. It doesn’t matter that it’s theoretically as capable, because the UX is a crime against humanity and makes the barrier to entry insurmountable. Blender is extremely powerful, and finally with 4.0 made a dent in how bad the UX is. But it’s still far, far worse than the competition.
I want FOSS to be an actual choice people actually use, but it cannot possibly happen if the UX isn’t actually designed for normal people to be able to figure it out. That’s why proprietary software wins. They lower the mental barrier to entry to use their software, and FOSS doesn’t even try to. I can’t tell people “just use GIMP”, or libreoffice, or whatever, because they’ll open it up, realize that there hasn’t even been 5 minutes of UX design cumulatively in its entire lifespan, and tell me to fuck myself for suggesting trash to them.
If FOSS doesn’t actually pay attention to UX, there’s no possible path to mass adoption. People want shit to make sense.
The primary way most proprietary software stays around is because of how they do not follow standards and conventions for layout, nomenclature, and interfaces; trying to prevent users from migrating to free software that follows published standards. If you migrate to free and open source software, aspects like UI/UX are much more user centric.
Except this is nonsense. Full on dumpster fire UX is the biggest liability most OSS has. It is not user friendly, and assumes way more user knowledge to do the basics.
If FOSS actually was competitive on UX, let alone better, it would be far more popular.
He does say that “everyone has one persona they don’t see through”…
Maybe that’s the audience’s.
Again, you have to completely ignore that the core premise is evil intended to give big players even stronger monopoly control. It’s anti-free in every sense, and as an added bonus, would very certainly make possession of specific hardware sufficient to be executed in some countries, because everything it has ever captured would be tracked to it.
But if you do that, there is already a system that does exactly what you’re asking. You don’t need to invent anything. It’s certificate authorities.
I’m not actually trying to be an asshole, though I’m sure I’m coming off as one. But the only thing blockchain actually does is validate transactions. It’s a shared ledger.
I am well aware of what it is. It serves no purpose and provides no benefit.
Ignoring the fact that hardware signing doesn’t validate inputs as “real”, because it’s entirely possible to replicate the actual signals entering the camera, and the fact that the entire premise by definition would be a terrible power grab by big hardware/software tools, the very obvious way to implement such an approach would be the exact same system as certificate authorities. You have to have actual root certificate signers.
Blockchain is horseshit and serves no purpose.
I’m genuinely terrible at not falling for sunk costs and have a bad habit of just letting inertia take me.
But unless you’re offering me 100k a week (in which case I’ll work for maybe a month before burning out), I’m not working a fucking 80 hour week.
Unprompted, they all commented that “yeah, this is a start-up so we’re expected to work 80 hour weeks. That’s just how it is.”
lol I’m walking out the minute they say that.
Because it’s insanely idiotic. Signing videos is one thing.
Hooking it into blockchain bullshit is entirely deranged. It adds a bunch of complexity to provide literally zero benefit in any possible context.
So are 10 second videos.
You don’t have to do anything a human can find.