The catarrhine who invented a perpetual motion machine, by dreaming at night and devouring its own dreams through the day.
████
█▒▒▒
██▒▒▒
█████
████
█ █
…on a more serious note. Can’t they simply that USA’s healthcare system is so fucked up that people are taking the matters into their own hands?
Your and @tal@lemmy.today’s experiences are basically the same as mine. Except with translation instead of programming.
Larson argued that low-quality reports should be treated as if they’re malicious.
It’s refreshing and uplifting to see this sort of sanity.
The problem is that defending against a copyright troll in the court is an expensive headache, and the copyright troll has a whole army of lawyers to prove for sure that the Moon is made of green cheese. As such, even if the target knows that it’s a bogus claim, they still comply with the troll to avoid the court.
Sending a takedown notice under DMCA that’s knowingly false is perjury, which would presumably come up at the court hearing.
In theory, yes. In practice, good luck proving that the copyright troll knew it and acted maliciously.
[Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nor from any country following Saxon tribal law like USA. Take what I say with a grain of salt.]
As far as I know, in theory the victim of the bogus DMCA could sue the copyright troll for damages, including attorney fees and all that stuff. In practice, it would be the same as nothing, megacorp who hired the copyright troll would make sure that the victim knows its place.
As of now the site is already back.
The core of the problem is that there’s absolutely nothing effectively preventing companies from abusing IP claims to harass whoever they want.
At least you’d expect claims to be automatically dropped when coming from an assumptive/disingenuous party. Something like “you issued 100 wrong claims so we won’t listen to your 101st one, sod off”. But nah.
As such, “your violating muh inrelactual properry, remove you’re conrent now!!!” has zero cost, and a thousand benefits. Of course they’d abuse it.
The role of AI in this situation is simply to provide those companies a tool to issue more and faster claims, at the expense of an already low accuracy.
It’s cool to watch Twitter dying. Specially as its death is so tied to how it works - once the key actors of a blogging platform leave, the others simply follow fashion.
Does anyone want some popcorn?
This is some good stuff.
Reading it I was thinking, “bad people can exploit it”. But then you addressed it near the end in a really great way, highlighting that compassion is not naivete.
It’s interesting that if you apply this in general, not just to what people say online, you end with something really similar to presumption of innocence: “don’t blame people unless proved that they should be blamed”.
For further info, check it here:
Lack of moderation tools link // The choice to defederate from an instance can also be based on our inability to effectively moderate that instance’s users. As of now, only two of our defederations are on this basis (lemmy.world and sh.itjust.works), and we hope to eventually refederate with both of them.
It was less about LW and SJW being “poorly moderated”, and more about being large enough that they were bringing a lot of mod work for Beehaw.
IIRC when that happened lemm.ee was still small. (Note that the page was last updated 8m ago.)
Agreed - it’s more like diversification, or “not putting all egg-users in the same basket-platform”.
I am not sure, but I believe that this political abuse is further reinforced by something not mentioned in the text:
If I’m right this is breeding grounds for witch hunting: people don’t get why someone said something, they’re dishonest so they assume why, they bring on the pitchforks because they found a witch. And that’s bound to affect anyone voicing anything slightly off the echo chamber.
And I think that this has been going on for years; cue to “the Twitter MC of the day”. It would predate Musk, but after Musk took over he actually encouraged the witch hunts for his own political goals.
Thanks for sharing this data - it’s great.
It actually makes sense; if cat urine contained ammonia the smell would be gone once you washed your cat’s impromptu litterbox, since ammonia is both volatile and highly soluble. And yet it keeps stinking - this hints that there’s something else there producing that ammonia by decomposition. (Probably proteins. Cats eat a lot more protein than we do.)
Note: chlorine gas is the one that leaks from an open bleach bottle, and gives it a distinctive smell. The ones created by reacting bleach with ammonia are chloramines, considerably more poisonous.
When it comes to how people feel about AI translation, there is a definite distinction between utility and craft. Few object to using AI in the same way as a dictionary, to discern meaning. But translators, of course, do much more than that. As Dawson puts it: “These writers are artists in their own right.”
That’s basically my experience.
LLMs are useful for translation in three situations:
Past that, LLM-based translations are a sea of slop: they screw up with the tone and style, add stuff not present in the original, repeat sentences, remove critical bits, pick unsuitable synonyms, so goes on. All the bloody time.
And if you’re handling dialogue, they will fuck it up even in shorter excerpts, by making all characters sound the same.
Happy birthday! :D
And sadly, my Twitter/𝕏 thread with the company in private message is going nowhere. 😿
Sometimes “friendly” “reminding” a company about the relevant laws does wonders, making them return such “display” of “attentiveness” in a more timely manner. (Translation: they reply faster if you threaten them with the specific law.)
In this case the Ley Federal de Protección al Consumidor, article 17, second paragraph got you covered:
El consumidor podrá exigir directamente a proveedores específicos y a empresas que utilicen información sobre consumidores con fines mercadotécnicos o publicitarios, no ser molestado en su domicilio, lugar de trabajo, dirección electrónica o por cualquier otro medio, para ofrecerle bienes, productos o servicios, y que no le envíen publicidad. Asimismo, el consumidor podrá exigir en todo momento a proveedores y a empresas que utilicen información sobre consumidores con fines mercadotécnicos o publicitarios, que la información relativa a él mismo no sea cedida o transmitida a terceros, salvo que dicha cesión o transmisión sea determinada por una autoridad judicial
Yup, I got that you don’t mean that everyone is a bot there. I just don’t think that there aren’t so many of them as you’re saying; it’s certainly not as much as half the users, or even the activity (bots tend to be more active than actual users).
They’re still wrecking damage on the place though. Eventually they’ll reach a plateau in proportion, but their numbers will go down, alongside the actual users.
Bots are parasites: they only thrive if the host population is large enough to maintain them. Once the hosts are gone, the parasites are gone too.
In other words: botters only bot a platform when they expect human beings to see and interact with the output of their bots. As such they can never become the majority: once they do, botting there becomes pointless.
That applies even to repost bots - you could have other bots upvoting the repost, but you won’t do it unless you can sell the account to an advertiser, and the advertiser will only buy it if they can “reach” an “audience” (i.e. spam humans).
Shorthand for third language [English] speaker. I mean that I’m prone to switch a few words here and there, due to other languages interfering inside my head.
Additional opinion: piracy is always morally good if the reason for your piracy is inability to buy something. That includes when the item is delisted, as in the OP, but also when you can’t afford it.
[I agree with the OP by the way. Specificities should be ironed out, but in spirit it would be a good law.]