Back in 2018 I got a bike trainer to supplement my running, and used Zwift as people in my run group did too. Shortly into this I upgraded from a dumb trainer to a (used) Kickr Snap (a smart trainer). This worked fine with zwift, but eventually I got sick of paying a subscription when I mostly bike to get recovery levels of cardio. But the problem is that the smart trainer manufacturers essentially don't make any simple control methods (like you can't just bike and change the resistance as needed), and the few that do don't have sometime simple and instead course sell their full-blown workout software on the subscription model.
Fortunately I found a free Android app that also has a one-time purchase to make the app more usable (i.e. use it for over an hour at a time). But it's ridiculous the low number of non-subscription options there are to make use out of a multi hundred dollar piece of equipment.
His desire for the video not to be ever shown again is pretty irrelevant. It happened, it was an actual event, and taking it down won't make it unhappen.
It should be available for view for historical and journalistic purposes. So while I feel for his loss, his irrational crusade to delete reality gets no consideration.
last 48 hours?
Where? And I was supposed to know, listen, or care?
Last night I rewatched 3 episodes of stargate and a few YouTube clips of anti-vaxers getting destroyed in public.
I don’t watch or follow cable TV so I have no way of knowing.
You can support a people without necessarily liking their current leader. Like most head of state, he has his good and his bad. And his bad is worse than his good, here.
But I support the people. The country. If I so choose.
That also predates Trump’s political workings.
I really feel for the athletes, especially in the more niche sports. You get to the top of your game in a sport most people don't really care about outside of Olympic coverage, and in the relatively short time of your life where you can prove yourself, it's torpedoed by politics.
You missed the entire point of the problem in the article. DNA from rape victims was going into a database. It's not that they were then looking to see if the victim had committed other crimes... it was that years later, the database entry provided identification evidence in a new crime.
the solution is not to "...issue a mandate immediately forbidding running DNA searches on rape victims." The solution is to stop adding victims' DNA to a general database. And now, to review and delete 10 or 20 years of data entry for any DNA added because it was a victim's.
But then, this goes back to the "should every arrestee provide DNA" debate. If fingerprints were new tech today, should every arrestee have their fingerprints on file, even if not later convicted?
It would be as if photos of assault victims (to document injuries) got added to the mug shot book shown to witnesses and now are there forevermore.
"There seem to be a decent amount of folks who would like to transition away from twitter, if an alternative could reach critical mass for its user base"
Yes, and I'm all for them because they help prove the point that the rest of us have been making - that you should use alternatives instead of trying to destroy the platforms everyone else uses just because you're butthurt over your Klan buddies being told to leave.
But, nothing will reach "critical mass" until it attracts enough people to do so, and that usually has nothing to do with external forces.
"It's difficult to reconcile why folks want to move out, with another platform if it's just doing the same thing."
There's plenty of places such people congregate - Stormfront, Free Republic, the_donald, 4chan, 8kun, etc. They don't reach critical mass because most people don't want to hang out with such a crowd.
"So far, these cases are based on objective rules violations, and not political disagreement"
...and if the rules state that you can be banned due to political disagreement it would still be fine. Very hypocritical, considering how the Trump cult whined about being banned elsewhere, but fine.
But, you still haven't provided examples of people who have actually been banned for such disagreement elsewhere. Weak attempts at spinning other rules violations as being political, but no real examples.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI generated works shouldn't be
I never quite grasped the idea that open office would be hurt if Neo or Star didn’t release the source of their changes.
I don't think it's that they would be hurt, it's that their goal of keeping the software that they've produced (and its derivatives) open would be foiled. They contribute software to the world not so that some company can take it, make it closed source, and make money from selling it, but so that it can be distributed, used, and improved freely. Allowing it to be closed source would be counter to the mission.
Section 230 was created because there was some doubt over this in the Prodigy case, it just clarified that the first amendment applied however successfully the platform chose to moderate.
I have noticed that a lot of the recent furor over NFTs has revealed that a lot of people really don't know what they actually are.
For the uninitiated (and of course correct me if I'm wrong), the "problem" that NFTs are meant to fix is that while physical works have a fixed original state from which copies can be traced back to, there's no such thing in terms of digital work, and since identical copies can be created with zero effort, you can't claim to be the "owner" based on the work itself. For example, if you have a print of the Mona Lisa, people can trace the art back to the original painting and people know that you don't have the original in your house. Whereas if you create a work digitally and publish it online, nobody can tell if you have the "original" or not.
So, NFTs attempt to resolve this "problem" (I keep putting that in quotes because I don't know if it's one that's really important overall) by assigning a unique blockchain identifier to the "original" copy. So, no matter how much that is copied and shared - which will happen with any image online - you can always trace the original owner.
Note what that doesn't do - it doesn't grant the owner of the "original" any ownership or rights over the copies. It doesn't make it so that someone can't copy the JPG that the NFT backs, and it certainly doesn't grant any ability to revoke copies of the "original". It just mean that if you're trying to trade a digital good then you know it's a confirmed original. Which is why I understand the use of NFT in things like gaming (though I don't really like them there either), since it provides a way to inventory digital goods. But, the idea that you can do anything with an NFT created from an infinitely duplicatable image and have additional rights because one of them is on the blockchain just tells me that you don't know what it is.
When the pitch for your platform, the starting point is essentially 'If you're too toxic for any of the other platforms to want around head on over to ours' it's hardly a wonder that the user base ends up reflecting that.
On the post: Peloton Outage Prevents Customers From Using $2,500 Exercise Bikes
Dumb equipment
Back in 2018 I got a bike trainer to supplement my running, and used Zwift as people in my run group did too. Shortly into this I upgraded from a dumb trainer to a (used) Kickr Snap (a smart trainer). This worked fine with zwift, but eventually I got sick of paying a subscription when I mostly bike to get recovery levels of cardio. But the problem is that the smart trainer manufacturers essentially don't make any simple control methods (like you can't just bike and change the resistance as needed), and the few that do don't have sometime simple and instead course sell their full-blown workout software on the subscription model.
Fortunately I found a free Android app that also has a one-time purchase to make the app more usable (i.e. use it for over an hour at a time). But it's ridiculous the low number of non-subscription options there are to make use out of a multi hundred dollar piece of equipment.
On the post: No, Creating An NFT Of The Video Of A Horrific Shooting Will Not Get It Removed From The Internet
to be honest...
His desire for the video not to be ever shown again is pretty irrelevant. It happened, it was an actual event, and taking it down won't make it unhappen.
It should be available for view for historical and journalistic purposes. So while I feel for his loss, his irrational crusade to delete reality gets no consideration.
On the post: Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait…
I don’t watch or follow cable TV so I have no way of knowing.
On the post: As Expected, Trump's Social Network Is Rapidly Banning Users It Doesn't Like, Without Telling Them Why
Sigh...not being in the US and not using an iphone means I won't be able to test to see if "Truckfump" goes through if I signed up.
On the post: Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
Re:
You can support a people without necessarily liking their current leader. Like most head of state, he has his good and his bad. And his bad is worse than his good, here.
But I support the people. The country. If I so choose.
That also predates Trump’s political workings.
On the post: Former Employees Say Mossad Members Dropped By NSO Officers To Run Off-The-Books Phone Hacks
" or what stops a police officer from abusing their power."
So its SOP around the office...
On the post: Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wait…
Border policy yes. It’s one of the reasons I voted for him.
Tax policy not in any way. Not even slightly.
On the post: Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And according to the politics test mr Stone posted I’m left of nearly every single US politician. And many Europeans.
On the post: Comcast Continues To Bleed Olympics Viewers After Years Of Bumbling
Re:
I really feel for the athletes, especially in the more niche sports. You get to the top of your game in a sport most people don't really care about outside of Olympic coverage, and in the relatively short time of your life where you can prove yourself, it's torpedoed by politics.
On the post: San Francisco Cops Are Running Rape Victims' DNA Through Criminal Databases Because What Even The Fuck
Missing the point
You missed the entire point of the problem in the article. DNA from rape victims was going into a database. It's not that they were then looking to see if the victim had committed other crimes... it was that years later, the database entry provided identification evidence in a new crime.
the solution is not to "...issue a mandate immediately forbidding running DNA searches on rape victims." The solution is to stop adding victims' DNA to a general database. And now, to review and delete 10 or 20 years of data entry for any DNA added because it was a victim's.
But then, this goes back to the "should every arrestee provide DNA" debate. If fingerprints were new tech today, should every arrestee have their fingerprints on file, even if not later convicted?
It would be as if photos of assault victims (to document injuries) got added to the mug shot book shown to witnesses and now are there forevermore.
On the post: As Expected, Trump's Social Network Is Rapidly Banning Users It Doesn't Like, Without Telling Them Why
Re: Re: Re: Clearly
"There seem to be a decent amount of folks who would like to transition away from twitter, if an alternative could reach critical mass for its user base"
Yes, and I'm all for them because they help prove the point that the rest of us have been making - that you should use alternatives instead of trying to destroy the platforms everyone else uses just because you're butthurt over your Klan buddies being told to leave.
But, nothing will reach "critical mass" until it attracts enough people to do so, and that usually has nothing to do with external forces.
"It's difficult to reconcile why folks want to move out, with another platform if it's just doing the same thing."
There's plenty of places such people congregate - Stormfront, Free Republic, the_donald, 4chan, 8kun, etc. They don't reach critical mass because most people don't want to hang out with such a crowd.
On the post: As Expected, Trump's Social Network Is Rapidly Banning Users It Doesn't Like, Without Telling Them Why
And the Rightsheep will believe it
They will say, "Fake news, we haven't banned anyone!!"
On the post: As Expected, Trump's Social Network Is Rapidly Banning Users It Doesn't Like, Without Telling Them Why
Re: Clearly
"So far, these cases are based on objective rules violations, and not political disagreement"
...and if the rules state that you can be banned due to political disagreement it would still be fine. Very hypocritical, considering how the Trump cult whined about being banned elsewhere, but fine.
But, you still haven't provided examples of people who have actually been banned for such disagreement elsewhere. Weak attempts at spinning other rules violations as being political, but no real examples.
On the post: US Copyright Office Gets It Right (Again): AI-Generated Works Do Not Get A Copyright Monopoly
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Some AI generated works shouldn't be
I don't think it's that they would be hurt, it's that their goal of keeping the software that they've produced (and its derivatives) open would be foiled. They contribute software to the world not so that some company can take it, make it closed source, and make money from selling it, but so that it can be distributed, used, and improved freely. Allowing it to be closed source would be counter to the mission.
On the post: San Francisco Cops Are Running Rape Victims' DNA Through Criminal Databases Because What Even The Fuck
San Francisco, where cops believe you must be a criminal if you've been raped. Maybe it's time to start running police DNA through those systems...
On the post: As Expected, Trump's Social Network Is Rapidly Banning Users It Doesn't Like, Without Telling Them Why
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Section 230 was created because there was some doubt over this in the Prodigy case, it just clarified that the first amendment applied however successfully the platform chose to moderate.
On the post: No, Creating An NFT Of The Video Of A Horrific Shooting Will Not Get It Removed From The Internet
I have noticed that a lot of the recent furor over NFTs has revealed that a lot of people really don't know what they actually are.
For the uninitiated (and of course correct me if I'm wrong), the "problem" that NFTs are meant to fix is that while physical works have a fixed original state from which copies can be traced back to, there's no such thing in terms of digital work, and since identical copies can be created with zero effort, you can't claim to be the "owner" based on the work itself. For example, if you have a print of the Mona Lisa, people can trace the art back to the original painting and people know that you don't have the original in your house. Whereas if you create a work digitally and publish it online, nobody can tell if you have the "original" or not.
So, NFTs attempt to resolve this "problem" (I keep putting that in quotes because I don't know if it's one that's really important overall) by assigning a unique blockchain identifier to the "original" copy. So, no matter how much that is copied and shared - which will happen with any image online - you can always trace the original owner.
Note what that doesn't do - it doesn't grant the owner of the "original" any ownership or rights over the copies. It doesn't make it so that someone can't copy the JPG that the NFT backs, and it certainly doesn't grant any ability to revoke copies of the "original". It just mean that if you're trying to trade a digital good then you know it's a confirmed original. Which is why I understand the use of NFT in things like gaming (though I don't really like them there either), since it provides a way to inventory digital goods. But, the idea that you can do anything with an NFT created from an infinitely duplicatable image and have additional rights because one of them is on the blockchain just tells me that you don't know what it is.
On the post: No, Creating An NFT Of The Video Of A Horrific Shooting Will Not Get It Removed From The Internet
Re:
I think there are some Wizards of the Coast lawyers with recent experience in the field of "people making NFTs of copyrighted materials".
On the post: No, Creating An NFT Of The Video Of A Horrific Shooting Will Not Get It Removed From The Internet
Re:
Also:
f) The First Amendment
On the post: As Expected, Trump's Social Network Is Rapidly Banning Users It Doesn't Like, Without Telling Them Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Clearly
When the pitch for your platform, the starting point is essentially 'If you're too toxic for any of the other platforms to want around head on over to ours' it's hardly a wonder that the user base ends up reflecting that.
Next >>