Th4tGuyII

Microsoft got the grift of a century. Make Win11 so bad that people will literally pay you NOT to force them onto it! /s

Seriously though, fuck Microsoft - $30 per year to roll out the occasional security update is obscene! They can go stuff themselves with their $3 trillion market cap

There’s a really good article on Rentry.co for setting up Win10 LTSC. Though as you say, here’s not the place for that.

It is certainly true that obesity is becoming a bigger and bigger problem every year and that puttting our collective heads in the sand over it isn’t going to help any…

But I can’t say I like the idea of forcing body altering drugs on people who seek unemployment assistance, even if it’s meant to be for the sake of their health. It feels like one hell of a slippery slope.

Of all the things to target, did they really have to go for the IA - the organisation that literally got into trouble with the man for helping children get access to books during the pandemic.

Does this hacker kick puppies and steal sweets from babies too?

Exactly this. It’s a completely arbitrary rug-pull made especially repugnant by the fact you can circumvent it quite easily with basically no loss of functionality.

While modding Win11 is a perfectly legit option for home users, it’s not for businesses - as such many, many business-spec computers will be “obsolete” once security updates for Win10 end.

Best you can hope for is that these computers pour into liquidation markets giving people the chance to buy decent quality PCs for cheap - but more likely they’ll become e-waste

Xitter might as well call it the “Maybes and Conditions” with how much they cherrypick their T&Cs nowadays

What?? But the FBI called dibs on that backdoor! /s

It’s almost like putting backdoors into software as a whole is a bad idea cause anyone who knows of it can use it, not just “tHe GoOd GuYs”

Image manipulation has always been a thing, and there are ways to counter it…

But we already know that a shocking amount of people will simply take what they see at face value, even if it does look suspicious. The volume of AI generated misinformation online is already too damn high, without it getting more new strings in it’s bow.

Governments don’t seem to be anywhere near on top of keeping up with these AI developments either, so by the time the law starts accounting for all of this, the damage will be long done already.

Yeah. If you’re on a public forum accessible to anyone, which the whole fediverse is, then you should never assume privacy.

Honestly transparency in this regard would be better - they’re already visible to much of the community, so they might as well be visible to everyone.

To be fair, there’s a point to be made that someone who’s overly trigger-happy on dislike should be shamed for it. Just like you would be if you kept being snide to everyone in real life.

I agree that transparency would do much more good than harm, plus compared to the info that people already put in their profiles/comments, it’s not likely to make them anymore identifiable.

Votes should absolutely be public. They were on KBin, and it made people more civil for it because you could be shamed if you were dislike trolling or liking all of your own posts/comments to make them look better (which is something you actively have to do on here, unlike Reddit).

Given this place is pseudo-anonymous anyways, and people comment far more personal and identifiable info here anyways (which tbf you should be careful about), I think public votes would do much more good than harm.

When even the most reviled dictatorships in the world are voting in favour of the UN recognising food as a right, it sure does make the US look uniquely scummy.

“If it cannot, it risks losing much of the invaluable investment, tax revenue, and entrepreneurial spirit that they contribute.”

Ah yes, because the rich are truly the most generous class of them all…

• They invest in initiatives designed to make them more money, or to reduce what they pay in taxes.

• They pay the bare minimum possible taxes after playing around with so many loopholes it would make your brain hurt.

• And who could forget that entrepreneurial spirit!

It’s the same trickle-down economics argument as always. If the rich leave because they’re actually being made to pay their way, the economy would disintegrate because we’d lose businesses like “Arton Capital” that…

“empowers high net worth individuals and families to become global citizens by investing in a second residence or citizenship”

What a tragedy it would be to lose businesses like these! /s

Also, is it not slightly biased to have the person the majority of your article about millionaires wanting to leave the UK quotes be the CEO of this company above who makes their money helping millionaires leave the UK?

That’d be like me getting an ice-cream man to discuss people wanting more ice-cream during the summer. Like even if it was true, you couldn’t have picked a less biased source?

To be fair to the developers, they do elaborate a little further in the comments:

Hey everyone, We appreciate the sudden enthusiasm for our game. When we launched it in 2015 into early access and 2016 into full, we were at the vanguard of asymmetrical games. It was exciting, but it was also our first step down the Dunning Kruger curve. QL has bugs that we cannot fix, shaky net code and overall sloppy design. We left the game up for this long so that players who had friends that wanted to play, could still get a copy. However it has been 9 years with minimal to no activity. So we felt it was right to remove it now.

I don’t know enough about this game or it’s community to comment much, but the devs don’t seem to be bad guys - seems like a story of naive developers making a mistake, but doing their best for their community with what they had. For a niche online game with no DLCs, 9 years is hardly a bad run.

To be fair you could call this “search optimisation” and the people on Linkedin would eat this up

The goals of the war being?..

Oh right, the destruction of every non-Israeli living in Gaza.

• Why else would they go after Hospitals treating innocent Palestinian victims?

• Why else would they spend months and months denying any and all foreign aid to Gaza after cutting them off from all food, water, and electricity?

• Why else would they airstrike clearly marked aid convoys for Gaza going along a pre-agreed route?

• Why else would members of the IDF record thselves killing innocent Palestinians?

• Why else would they oppose any and all peace deals, and openly plot to betray any and all ceasefires?

Israel has killed more than 30,000 innocent people. You can’t just call that collateral or even callous disregard, it’s mass murder, a genocide of Palestinians in Gaza.

Hamas are not good guys by any stretch, but if you’re being morally high-grounded by a terrorist organisation, then you ought to know which side of history you’re on.

Edit: Israeli not Israelite

So providing a fine-tuned model shouldn’t either.

I didn’t mean in terms of providing. I meant that if someone provided a base model, someone took that, built upon it, then used it for a harmful purpose - of course the person modified it should be liable, not the base provider.

It’s like if someone took a version of Linux, modified it, then used that modified version for an illegal act - you wouldn’t go after the person who made the unmodified version.

SB 1047 is a California state bill that would make large AI model providers – such as Meta, OpenAI, Anthropic, and Mistral – liable for the potentially catastrophic dangers of their AI systems.

Now this sounds like a complicated debate - but it seems to me like everyone against this bill are people who would benefit monetarily from not having to deal with the safety aspect of AI, and that does sound suspicious to me.

Another technical piece of this bill relates to open-source AI models. […] There’s a caveat that if a developer spends more than 25% of the cost to train Llama 3 on fine-tuning, that developer is now responsible. That said, opponents of the bill still find this unfair and not the right approach.

In regards to the open source models, while it makes sense that if a developer takes the model and does a significant portion of the fine tuning, they should be liable for the result of that…

But should the main developer still be liable if a bad actor does less than 25% fine tuning and uses exploits in the base model?

One could argue that developers should be trying to examine their black-boxes for vunerabilities, rather than shrugging and saying it can’t be done then demanding they not be held liable.

When you’re calling a terrorist organisation your ally, surely you’ve got to realise what side of history you’re on right?

I mean Putin probably does, but he doesn’t care as long as he gets to be king president

Win11 becomes a less and less appealing switch day by day… When I can no longer hold into Win10, I think I’ll just have to jump ship to Linux.

Win10 is already quite privacy poor, but Win11 is straight up intolerable.