best bet is currently GrapheneOS and that is still Adroid and will likely have to fight an up-hill battle in coming years
there are some (decent & serious) Efforts to make Linux apps/UI tools phone format compatible
but for various reasons (mostly hardware) stuff like e.g. the Libre phone feel more like toys for enthusiast and very committed people then things a "average" person can just use.
The biggest problem in the future seems to be the regulatory capture/lobby induced "well meant but bad done" laws, wrt. to misguided device attestation laws which "happen" to in effect require you to have a Google Android or iPhone in practice even through that not actually being needed for the law to work.
What is the core value proposition of twitter? It seems simple, short form informations delivery (eg “follow me on twitter”) is central. The “likes”, retweets, and follower counts are secondary but perhaps important metrics that drive engagement. A simple link plus QR for paper is needed. Moderation seems a challenge. Are there simpler alternatives to mastodon? is federation possible? Why is RSS not used for this?
I'm not so sure about that. Bluesky by large migrated from twitter aiming to escape the likes of Elon's politics, but they still brought over some of the most toxic cancel/brigade culture that twitter had to offer.
Not suggesting all of bluesky is bad, but it sure ain't the most pleasant crowd in it's own right either.
Bluesky, like Mastodon, is built on an open network on open source code. Run your own data server and moderation services that cater to your needs. Many are already doing it: Northsky, Eurosky, Blacksky, etc. If you want to live in a safe space isolated from the mainnet and its allegedly toxic users, you can do that too: Roundabout is built on ATProto but run on its own network, also Truth Social and Threads are forked versions of Mastodon but federated with nobody (Threads used to have opt-in Mastodon federation before Facebook decided they no longer want users to be able to do that).
Mastodon isn't all that complicated. But, obviously it's not where people went when people fled Xitter, by and large. The funny people and journalists mostly went to Bluesky and the normal people mostly went to Threads because they already had an Instagram account. The Nazis and child pornographers and the people who were comfortable being around Nazis and child pornographers remained on Xitter. But, a few nerds went to the fediverse and we are generally having a nice time there.
RSS is not a read-write medium. You can't realistically carry on a semi-realtime conversation over RSS.
Clearly they approve or they'd at least stop advertising their twitter handles on their websites and handouts. Most brands cannot ignore such a vast network effects and have made the decision to continue despite the changes.
How is product liability relevant here? If an AI company makes a model available, someone uses it, and it does something bad, who is at fault? The user, the data center, or the one who made the model?
If we want open weight models with a warranty disclaimer, then the user would be held liable. If we want to hold AI companies at least partially liable, that
seems a different, centralized model.
I think it’s more complex than that? What did it do? What did the user prompt it to do? What did the company train it to do? What did the harmed party do? There’s possibility for negligence at every level.
If you train a dog, rent it to someone, and the dog bites a third person, who is responsible? I think that’s the best analogue here.
All parties could share fault in that scenario, depending on what actually happened.
The 1:2 match scheme is helpful for a foundation to (a) accept large gift and (b) meet 501c3 1/3rd "public support" requirements.
To keep favorable charity taxation status, a large donation can only be accepted if there are sufficient small donors who also contribute. It's complex and indirect, but the matching is quite real as a $100 contribution from a small donor enables the charity to accept a corresponding amount from large donor pledges.
I was always confused about why charities did this type of matching gifts, it always seemed a bit odd just to trick people to giving right now and not whenever. Interesting that there's a structural reason for it, TIL, thank you
The less useful biometric identification gets, the more we seem to use it.
My bank sent out an a announcement that they will support voice identification, right after a news story went viral of a scammer using a voice cloning model to steal millions of dollars. They pretty quickly followed it up with an announcement that they are aware of cucumbers' concerns and that they will monitor changing technology, but will still support voice identification. What I read from that is that they signed a contract and will keep using the service until after one or more of their customers are exploited.
Some may express societal challenges in ways that inappropriately and wrongly infer intentionality. We can acknowledge their point while strongly disagreeing with their characterization.
There are significant societal impacts of this AI buildout. Some are concerned externalities weigh more heavily on the poor and marginalized. I think state wide data center holds are part of this civil discourse.
I'd prefer we have more conservative pollution standards along with a reasonable tax on AI use that helps mitigate externalities. That's hard. Reasonable people can have fierce disagreements on what market interventions are indicated, and how extensive they should be.
no, you don't have to make up some non-idiotic argument that's kinda vaguely like the dumb one and substitute it in there. it's not necessary! nobody's making you do it and there's no benefit to anybody from doing it!
> 'Help me but don't patronize' is a tall order without some real linguistic gymnastics.
Not at all. Just don't start by guessing what a disabled person's concerns are, or presume that an unsolicited suggestion is helpful. A respectful start is letting them know you will be responsive and let them lead the conversation.
reply