amju_wolf

amju_wolf , 2 months ago

It generates code and then you can use a call to some runtime execution API to run that code, completely separate from the neural network.

amju_wolf , 2 months ago

Life isn't a zero sum game where you have to optimize material wealth. Some people do things for others just because they like doing it, because they have the means to do so, or because they simply want to help others.

Sure, there are costs involved, but that's true for literally everything if you account for opportunity cost. The vast majority of people choose to waste time completely unproductively, with no objective benefits to their lives (often with objective disadvantages), so is it hard to imagine that some people aren't like that and instead choose to help/provide for others whole perhaps having some other non-material benefits like learning something or just becoming liked within a community?

amju_wolf , 3 months ago

A precise android version could for example be used to target you with an exploit for that version.

I agree with OP, it shouldn't behave like this because the expectation with screenshot software is that it doesn't add any metadata and if it would it should be explicit and probably opt-in.

amju_wolf , 3 months ago

Except you aren't questioning anyone's views, you're making an argument that barely touches the subject it responds to. And doing so in a very argumentative and condescending way.

So yeah, it doesn't really belong in a civil discussion.

amju_wolf , 3 months ago

Security is always applied in layers. If you aren't inconvenienced by it, it's a really solid layer to use. Doesn't matter how 'paranoid' you are, it's a good strategy.

amju_wolf , 3 months ago

Their quality is adequate for the price and they are open enough to be used with any NVR.

If you are worried about privacy you should segment the cameras onto their own network (VLAN) or at the very least block them on the firewall from accessing the internet, which you should do anyway.

amju_wolf , 3 months ago

That's not something that'd likely scale enough to bring any meaningful sum of money.

Even then it targets a tiny, tiny minority of their even current userbase, let alone if they want to approach more "average" users.

amju_wolf , 3 months ago

...and there is no way to do that, currently.

amju_wolf , 3 months ago

On the contrary, it's the only comparison you can make, since they are literally the only options.

amju_wolf , 4 months ago

Anything that can compute can do it. The important part is that it has an associated non-insignificant cost.

amju_wolf , 4 months ago

They're two separate(ish) issues.

But it's still a bad idea to use national TLDs for stuff that has nothing to do with that nation.

Granted, is ICANN wasn't just a money-grabbing machine with no forward thinking they wouldn't give nations clearly "generally desirable" gTLDs, but since they did already that doesn't mean they should be misused.

amju_wolf , 4 months ago

Because a lot of the content on national TLDs is relevant only for people of that nation. It helps with name clashes and pushes off stuff that doesn't make sense in any of the more "global" TLDs.

And for governments, banks and other institutions there should really be some official standard where they pick a single second-level domain and use it for stuff that needs to be secure so anyone anywhere can be sure it's controlled by the correct entity and not a scammer.

amju_wolf , 4 months ago

Unfortunately not; the UK is more or less an exception because they were there very early and copied the US model.

Time has shown though that everyone wants second level domains anyway so even .uk is now open to anyone and they have the weird hold-over .co.uk and similar domains.

amju_wolf , 4 months ago

I had a similar issue and in my case it ended up being some AMD crap (I think an updater or something) that probably didn't install properly or something.

IIRC I just ended up disabling the scheduled task that was running it and that was the end of it.

amju_wolf , 4 months ago

That would give random strangers (at least partial) control over what is indexed and how and you'd have to trust them all. I'm not sure that's a great idea.

amju_wolf , 5 months ago

perfect example is when a nazi says “based” in response to an article about someone being racist and it gets like 20 upvotes. I don’t think anyone reasonable would be against a banwave on something like that.

I would absolutely be against that. Voting should not be bannable outside of vote manipulation itself. If the content is offending, remove that (and possibly ban the user), but not people who vote on it. That's just stupid "guilty by association" nonsense. And besides, voicing stupid opinions (in moderation) is still better than suppressing free speech.

Lemmy just chooses to hide them to prevent the “chilling effect” where people feel afraid to vote honesty for fear of repercussions.

I find that kinda stupid as well. It leads people to think that their votes are private when literally anyone can view them with a bit of work. Sure the chilling effect sucks but it's better than misleading people. At the very least they should be warned when they sign up.

amju_wolf , 5 months ago

I think that if you allow that question in the first place, voting on it should not have any consequences either.

Besides, despite what most people instinctively think it's better to see what you disagree with so that you can keep your eyes on it rather than forcing it into hiding and knowing nothing (again, in moderation - you probably don't want to run an actual Nazi instance, so if it does bother you you should moderate that post/comment).

And mistakes still happen; it's easy to accidentally upvote/downvote something by mistake, to misunderstand someone, etc. So yes, I do think banning people based on what they up/downvote is a bad idea.

amju_wolf , 4 months ago

Man, please, learn to read. My whole point is that you should not care about what people upvote.

So once again: if you are okay with the original comment/post - which means you are fine with keeping Nazis on and what they have to say on your platform - then you should be okay with people who "react" on that content.

Or maybe you aren't fine with it, so you should delete the offending post or comment, and then you won't be bothered by the reactions either.

amju_wolf , 5 months ago

Good to know which company should be avoided for buying home appliances. I really hope the notice will be the first thing to show ope when you search their name + HA Integration.

amju_wolf , 8 months ago

Ehh there is only so much a single person can care about. If you have a life and aren't effectively an activist/lobbyis by profession you can't care about politics both local and global, preserving nature and ecolody, world hunger & disease, and a million other things like which software company is less evil all at once and follow through 100%, supporting all of the causes meaningfully.

Not to mention we have to make compromises, too.

There’s one and literally only one browser that actually stands for all the things the most vocal people around here claim to care about.

Hard disagree. Firefox had its fair share of controversies, it's still technically funded by Google (while not accepting donations), and Mozilla Foundation as a nonprofit is pretty questionable too.

The leadership of Mozilla Corporation is shit too like any other corp; they lay off engineers and give themselves huge bonuses.

It takes them years to even acknowledge simple bugs, let alone actually getting to fix them.

A huge part of why Firefox lost the "browser wars" is also that they failed to make it easy to build into other apps so it could work more like Electron, while also pissing off users with surface changes that break their workflow.

Overall it's better than Chrome especially if you care about privacy, but it's not a huge win.