With how the law is written, if you think anyone might ever make a mistake (likely), think the government might ever bother going through the hassle of enforcing it (probably less likely if you’re not running a big website), and don’t have loads of spare money to pay huge fines with or to pay an age verification service with (likely), then blocking the UK is the only way to be compliant. It doesn’t require a technicality. The law just doesn’t have any leeway for honest minor mistakes or small hobbyist websites.

Some instances use the image proxy and others don’t. It seems that mine doesn’t.

Fun fact: I can’t see the screenshot as I’m in the UK and your instance has taken the maximally paranoid literal meaning of the OSA and blocked access just in case anything’s accidentally not flagged as NSFW.

Godwin’s law isn’t claiming that it’s fallacious to compare things to Hitler or that the person who first mentions Hitler is wrong, it’s just observing that comparisons to Hitler eventually happen if an argument goes on long enough. It’s kind of obvious, too. Reductio ad absurdum is a valid form of argument, and as long as whoever you’re discussing something is isn’t ludicrously off the deep end, they’ll agree that Hitler is obviously bad, so if someone says something, and that thing when taken to its logical conclusion would imply (in the logically guarantees sense rather than subtly suggests sense) that Hitler wasn’t bad, it’s quick and easy to point that out as a demonstration that the thing must be wrong.

In this specific case, though, it’s even simpler. Hitler and Thatcher are both obviously bad, and they were putting words in my mouth about Thatcher when objecting to a comment where I’d explicitly called her evil to suggest that I was claiming she wasn’t evil.

But her favourite story book said that if she destroyed all the industry then the invisible hand of the free market would liberate all the workers from drudgery and they’d all become doctors and live lives of luxury and never have to do any work.

Thatcher was a die-hard believer in Ayn Rand’s economics, and a core part of that is that people are poor because you give them the opportunity to be, and then through several unexplained leaps of logic, that if you take away the option to be a bit poor, instead of making everyone even poorer like obviously happens in real life, somehow they’ll instantly gain qualifications in unrelated fields and become rich. It’s insane, and yet somehow a wildly popular worldview among the ‘intellectual’ right, despite being dismissed as moronic by anyone with two braincells to rub together and every serious academic.

It’s roughly equivalent to claiming we should enslave short people and call them house elves and then as a result we’ll all get wands and certificates from Hogwarts that let us do magic (except the house elves, who wouldn’t need wands), but then instead of being placed into a secure hospital to protect the public, you get put in charge of one of the most influential countries in the world, and by an unrelated coincidence, the North Sea Oil Boom happens and makes that country more wealthy, so then decades later, magic being accepted as fact despite being purely from a fantasy novel full of plotholes.

Stating that Hitler thought he was helping Europe by slaughtering millions of Jews and other minorities doesn’t imply any degree of approval for anything he did or acceptance that if he’d been right, the end state he was aiming for was worth the atrocities committed trying to get there. Evil in the real world isn’t like a cartoon where the bad guy just enjoys being bad for its own sake. Pretending otherwise just makes it harder to recognise when people are doing evil things again just by being simultaneously incorrect and in charge.

It seems like you’re under the impression that thinking you’re doing something good is virtuous, but I fundamentally disagree. I don’t think morality should be solely judged by outcomes, either, but rather whether you take reasonable measures to ensure that even if you’re wrong, you don’t make things worse. Everyone hears the phrase the road to hell is paved with good intentions as children, so should know that having good intentions has little to no bearing on whether they’re a good person unless they’re also making sure they’re not doing evil by recklessness or negligence.

It being obviously fucking stupid to anyone with the slightest grasp of reality doesn’t mean that Thatcher didn’t think it was true and wasn’t one of the people unwilling to think. She should have been sectioned for being deluded into thinking Atlas Shrugged was real life, but instead managed to get elected, and decades later, we’re still dealing with the consequences of putting the country in the hands of someone guided predominantly by their favourite storybook.

There’s really clear evidence that there was an attempt to make normal people buy stocks in water companies in the fact that there was heavy television advertising in the run-up to privatisation encouraging people to buy stocks in water companies while they were still a fixed price. Post-Thatcher privatisation of UK infrastructure and public services, on the other hand, has always been done behind closed doors straight into the hands of hedge funds, venture capital, and individuals capable of buying the whole thing. The end result is always the service going to shit once there’s a profit motive conflicting with the service motive, but if you compare the percentage of these companies that are owned by pension funds and individuals who hold less than a few hundred pounds worth, it’s clear that the water companies have much more of their ultimate ownership in the hands of normal people than, for example Royal Mail. Obviously (to sane people), it’s way less than if the state owned the water companies, but it’s not nothing.

Accusing a post of whitewashing Thatcher when its opening line explicitly states she was evil is a pretty big leap. Calling someone evil should be the opposite of whitewashing, and isn’t inconsistent with saying they thought they were helping. Plenty of evil people are deluded into thinking they’re doing something moral and that, because of that, the ends will justify their amoral means, or they don’t even notice their means are amoral.

It was a Thatcher-era thing, and despite being evil and wrong about nearly everything, she at least thought what she was doing would help normal people. In the case of privatisation, it was accompanied by a big push to get normal people to buy shares in the newly formed companies. As a result, the water companies are mostly owned by pension funds and there’s a large chunk that’s normal people owning a tiny bit each. That’s then meant that any attempt to claw back illegally paid dividends (the companies have a legal duty to invest in keeping the water working and haven’t been doing so) would tank loads of people’s pensions, as would dissolving the companies or putting stronger restrictions on paying out dividends.

The whole system’s all knotted together in a way that makes all the obvious solutions cause other big problems, and the government can’t afford to cause big problems when the polls have Reform so far ahead on account of them just claiming the obvious solutions will work flawlessly and not giving a shit about whether that’s true. Everything’s so on fire that it can’t be extinguished within a single electoral term, let alone rebuilt, so it’s become the priority to avoid upsetting anyone before the next election, lest the flamethrowers get voted in again only with napalm as fuel this time instead of petrol because the Tories have been eclipsed.

That’s not entirely true anymore. Sound engineers did lots of experiments with microphones placed in the ears of plastic heads, and as a result, we know the modifications that need to be made to a sound to make it seem like it’s coming from so specific point when played through headphones. It works with both over-ear and in-ear ones and works well (despite what the other poster said) as pinna squiggles are accounted for and it turns out that humans don’t need their own personal pinna shape for it to work.

You can find impressive demos by searching for binaural sound, both from microphones in a plastic head or with simulated HRTF.

It’s probably way less depressing than the equivalent list from eighteen months ago.

A quick search says steel, tungsten and bismuth or composites including those metals are the typical replacements. Steel is cheap, and the other two are dense but more expensive.

The thread’s about the law being akin to the law of a police state. A state is a police state if it enforces unjust laws that criminalise reasonable acts.

The tories cut funding from the department that decides whether asylum seekers have their claims granted or denied, so there’s a big backlog of people who can’t legally get a job to support themselves and can’t legally be deported, and feeding and housing them is expensive. The right wing press blames this not on the fact that they’re all in legal limbo until the backlog is dealt with, and not on the fact that decades of foreign policy mean that there are lots of people in danger unless they flee who have English as their only extra language, so would only be able to get a job after asylum was granted if they were in the UK, but instead on the myth that the government is required by things like the Human Rights Act to provide people a life of luxury if they come here and people are coming from safe places for a free multi-year holiday. Because humans are not rational, people believe the myth, and if the myth were true, it would obviously be a good idea to stop providing luxury hotel accommodation at great expense to the taxpayer.

You can’t make an LLM only reference the data it’s summarising. Everything an LLM outputs is a collage of text and patterns from its original training data, and it’s choosing whatever piece of that data seems most likely given the existing text in its context window. If there’s not a huge corpus of training data, it won’t have a model of English and won’t know how to summarise text, and even restricting the training data to medical notes will stop mean it’s potentially going to hallucinate something from someone else’s medical notes that’s commonly associated with things in the current patient’s notes, or it’s going to potentially leave out something from the current patient’s notes that’s very rare or totally absent from its training data.

• Ukraine’s song wasn’t particularly good this year*, which will have made it harder for people to support if they cared about the integrity of Eurovision as a song competition.
• Some people will just vote for whichever country most recently had a major tragedy and the initial attack on Ukraine was less recent than the initial attack on Israel. They won’t necessarily think about anything that’s happened other than that.
• The Israel’s contestant survived the October the 7th attack narrative has been pushed pretty hard, so that might have encouraged Israel supporters to watch Eurovision when they’d normally not have bothered. There wasn’t anything equivalent to draw in Ukraine supporters who don’t normally engage with Eurovision.
• People voting for a particular country are going to have a much easier time than people voting for songs they like - there’s only one Israel, but there are plenty of pop songs to split the pop fan vote.
• If you watch/listen to a vox pop on the news, there are an astounding number of people who believe either that Israel have only killed armed Hamas combatants, have done a minimal proportionate response solely to rescue hostages, or have the right to ethnically cleanse Palestine because they think Hamas attacked first with no provocation and don’t think ethnic cleansing is bad.

*the few times I’ve watched Eurovision, I’ve not agreed with the public or jury, so my definition of not particularly good might not be relevant.

The kind of spoiler tag you used is the kind that doesn’t work on every Lemmy app. Fortunately, that’s not a problem, as I’ve already seen Time Trap, and despite forgetting its name, do sometimes think about it.

Something else worth noting is that instance admins do a lot more moderation than Reddit admins did, so the burden on the moderators for individual communities can be smaller. lemmy.ml in particular has a reputation for having admins who actively intervene a lot.

It’s controlled by whether the stream’s opened in text mode or binary mode. On Unix, they’re the same, but on Windows, text mode has line ending conversion.

It’s not guaranteed that it’s interpreted as a platitude by the person it’s directed at, and when the mismatch between the task and the work done is big enough to make it obviously a platitude, it’s just patronising, and risks being more insulting than not saying it at all.

The feedback in the article was obviously far from perfect, but from the sound of it, “good attempt” could be an actively harmful thing to say. Lots of effort had gone into making the wrong thing and making it fragile, which isn’t good at all, it’s bad. If you’d asked an employee to make a waterproof diving watch, and they came back with a mechanical clock made from sugar, even though it’s impressive that they managed to make a clock from sugar, it’s completely inappropriate as it’d stop working the instant it got wet. You wouldn’t want to encourage that kind of thing happening again by calling it good, and it’s incompatible enough with the brief that acknowledging it as an attempt to fit the brief is giving too much credit - someone who can do that kind of sugar work must know it’s sensitive to moisture.

The manager can apologise for not checking in sooner before so much time had been spent on something unsuitable and for failing to communicate the priorities properly, and acknowledge the effort and potential merit in another situation without implying it was good to sink time into something unfit for purpose without double checking something complicated was genuinely necessary.