People capitalizing Random Words for emphasis, as if they’re Proper Nouns.

Also getting ‘a’ vs ‘an’ wrong. It follows pronunciation, not spelling; so it’s “a European” and “an honor”.

If they actually wanted to protect children, the answer is simple: reverse the responsibilities. Require porn sites to include metadata indicating it isn’t safe for minors. Require browsers to recognize that metadata, and filter out that content if parental controls are enabled. If parents are still too lazy to turn it on, make it default (like “safe search”, but more effective). The fact none of them have even suggested this is proof they don’t care about children or even porn, they just want to be seen as if they do.

Big food is kind of a marketing thing in America. Restaurants want to give their customers more " bang for their buck" (or at least appear to), but they don’t want to lower prices. Instead, they increase portions. This has lead to a size arms race where every restaurant wants to claim they have the biggest food in town. This is especially the case for burger joints. It doesn’t matter to the restaurant if customers eat all their food, since they pay for all of it either way. I’m guessing Americans are more culturally susceptible to this marketing tactic, since bigger-is-better is common here, and hence things have been taken further than in other countries.

This seems to be another case of someone throwing reason out the door for the sake of insulting Americans. There is no way you would be getting “shit eating grins” for ordering a kids meal. And if your large burgers are smaller than a kids meal, you either have very little size variation, or the small would be like a single bite.

Think you mean mmHg

Libertarianism isn’t nearly as extreme as anarcho capitalism. It argues for minimal government where possible, but still supports governments providing military and law enforcement, emergency services, etc. The libertarian party, for example, is basically what Republicans were pre-trump on fiscal and economic issues, but without any desire to restrict stuff like gay marriage or marijuana. A libertarian is as much an anarcho capitalist as a socialist is a communist (they’re not).

Absolutely none of this law was ever about privacy or mental health. No one ever claimed it was. The law is banning tiktok because it is based in China. That is the reason given by the law itself. The possibility that meta or Google or some other American company will buy or replace tiktok and operate the same way is not an unintended outcome. It is literally the whole point of the law to get bytedance to sell tiktok to an American company.

You have that backwards. Roko’s basilisk would punish anyone who didn’t help create it.

I’m pretty sure he said " the rules were that you were going to fact check, this isn’t fact checking" or something to that effect. He was accusing the moderators of being argumentative.

Do you have a source for this? This sounds like fine-tuning a model, which doesn’t prevent data from the original training set from influencing the output. The method you described would only work if the AI is trained from scratch on only images of iron man and cowboy hats. And I don’t think that’s how any of these models work.

Other than citing the entire training data set, how would this be possible?

Embed the image using markdown: 

When does that even happen? If you have nano installed, wouldn’t it work too?

I don’t know about the UK, but my experience in the US was exclusively women in elementary school, 80-90% women in middle school, 60-70% women in high school. I was actually surprised when I first had a male teacher in middle school, I guess I had thought that male teachers was like an old timey / TV / college thing.

Why do you need so much info on Mike? Can’t you just evaluate his statements/work on its own merit? The whole point of open source, federated platforms is that you don’t have to trust him. If he decides to enshittify it, you can just go with a fork or another instance. A nomadic identity isn’t a centralized alternative to the fediverse, it’s just a way of bringing some of the features of a centralized identity to a decentralized one (at least, that’s the way I interpreted the article).

Quotas are not the only way to combat discrimination, nor are they a good one. Name-blind hiring would resolve name discrimination without making additional presumptions about the applicant pool. A quota presumes that the applicant pool has a particular racial mix, and that a person’s qualifications and willingness to apply are independent of race. And even if those happen to be true, it can’t take into account the possibility that the random distribution of applicants just happens to sway one way or another in a particular instance.

The bill itself says, more or less, “any foreign adversary controlled app is banned. Also, TikTok is a foreign adversary controlled app”. So it doesn’t apply exclusively to TikTok, but it does explicitly include them.

I dislike TikTok as much as the next guy, but I think there are several issues with this bill:

• It specifically mentions TikTok and ByteDance. While none of the provisions seem to apply exclusively to them, the way they are included would give them no recourse to petition this, the way other companies would be able to (ie, other companies could argue in court that they aren’t controlled by a foreign adversary, but TikTok can’t. The bill literally defines “foreign adversary controlled application” as “TikTok, or …” (g.3.A)). It also gives the appearance that this law is only supposed to apply to them, which isn’t what it says but it might be treated that way anyway.

• It leaves the determination of whether or not a company is “controlled by a foreign adversary” entirely up to the president. He has to explain himself to Congress, but doesn’t need their approval. That seems ripe for exploitation. I think it should require Congress to approve, either in a addition to or instead of the president.

• According to g.2.A.ii (in the definition of “covered company”), the law only applies to social media with more than 1,000,000 monthly active users. Not sure why that’s included.

• There is a specific exemption for any app that’s for posting reviews (g.2.B). I’m guessing one such company paid a whole lot to just not have this apply to them.