Keyoxide: aspe:keyoxide.org:KI5WYVI3WGWSIGMOKOOOGF4JAE (think PGP key but modern and easier to use)

  • 0 Posts
  • 23 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 18th, 2023

help-circle

  • to avoid stuffing the beans

    No idea what that means

    “sockpuppet investigations” page instead so you can look into it further by yourself

    I don’t see how that is related. I am by no means a wikipedia expert but reading that article and some of the linked investigations it all seems mundane to me.

    tbh this response seems kinda shitty to me. You originally said “[Wikipedia] has a despicable procedure where they dox details of anyone whom they deem as alleged vandals.”. I interpret this as a systemic issue (procedure, they) which happens regularly or always (procedure, anyone). It makes me imagine a wiki page “Vandalism cases on wikipedia” containing a table of cases with date, article, edit, and IP/account, existing for months or years frequented by wikipedia mods and admins.

    I interpret your response now as ‘there is info but it is private and part of ongoing investigations’.
    If it was a larger issue there should be evidence. After all doxxing is precisely about making something publically available.
    My interpretation now is that this is a small thing which either happened in the past or is unknown?

    Can you please be specific about what you are referring to? And even without giving evidence, at least clarify what you aledge wikipedia or admins or anyone else did here?



  • The inputs of the model are full copies of copyrighted data, so the “amount used” is the entirety of the copyrighted work.

    If you want to apply current copyright law to the inner working of artificial networks, you run into the problem that it doesn’t work on humans either.

    A human remembering copyrighted works, be it memorization or regular memory, similarly is creating a copy of that copyighted work in their brain somewhere.
    There is no law criminalizing the knowledge or inspiration a human obtains from consuming media they did not have the rights to consume. (In many places it isn’t even illegal to aquire and consume media you don’t have rights to, only to provide it to others without those rights)

    Criminalizing knowledge, or brains containing knowledge, can’t possibly be a good idea, and I think neural nets are too close to the function of the brain to apply current regulation to one but not the other. You would at minimum need laws explicitly specifying to only apply to digital neural nets or something similar, and it apears this page is trying to work in existing regulation. (If we do create law only applying to digital neural nets, and we ever create intelligent enough ai it could deservedly be called a person, then I’m sure that ai wouldn’t be greatly happy about weird discriminatory regulation applying to only its brain but not that of all the other people on this planet.)

    A neural net is working too similarly to the human brain to call the neural net a copy but the human brain “learning, memorization, inspiration”. If you wanna avoid criminalizing thoughts, I don’t see a way to make the arguments this website makes.



  • Yes, seems you are right. Not sure where I got the impression.

    Unrelated, when I researched this I saw that acme.sh, zerossl, and a bunch of other acme clients are owned by the same entity, “Stack Holdings”/“apilayer.com”. According to this, zerossl also has some limitations over letsencrypt in account requirements and limits on free certificates.

    By using ZeroSSL’s ACME feature, you will be able to generate an unlimited amount of 90-day SSL certificates at no charge, also supporting multi-domain certificates and wildcards. Each certificate you create will be stored in your ZeroSSL account.

    It is suspicious that they impose so many restrictions then waive most on the acme api, where they presumably could not compete otherwise. On their gui they allow only 3 certificates and don’t allow multi-domain at all. Then even in the acme client they somehow push an account into the process.

    […] for using our ACME service you have to create and use EAB (External Account Binding) credentials within your ZeroSSL dashboard.

    EAB credentials are limited to a maximum per user/per day. [This might be for creating them, not uses per credential, unsure how to interpret this.]

    This all does make me slightly worry this block around apilayer.com will fall before letsencrypt does.

    Other than letsencrypt and zerossl, this page also lists no other full equivalents for what letsencrypt does.




  • Wayland and GPU stuff should be very good in endeavor, better than most systems I have seen, better than openSUSE leap and mint certainly. I don’t know fedora however.

    Endeavor has its own base repo, but also the regular arch stuff like aur. The AUR is probably the best source for all those programs that are usually missing in your repo, and since the base stuff is stable in endeavor there is no problem if some random program needs a special version or a manual install sometimes, it won’t affect anything else.
    The AUR is not the main package source for endeavor.
    I don’t know your hardware, but the combination of up to date system components, endeavors focus on just working, and all the shit in the aur (to my understanding flatpak is currently quite useless for drivers) sound like it should just accept any hardware at least as well as other linux distros.

    On a sidenote for flatpaks. There is this long running conflict between stability, portability, and security. The old-school package systems are designed to allow updating libraries systemwide, switching-in abi compatible replacements containing fixes. On the other hand, you have appimage, flatpak, …, which bring their own everything and will therefore keep running on old unsafe libraries sometimes for years before the developers of all those specific projects update their projects’ versions of all those libraries.







  • which also references an effort to use the media to quietly disseminate Google’s point of view about unionized tech workplaces.

    Bogas’ order references an effort by Google executives, including corporate counsel Christina Latta, to “find a ‘respected voice to publish an op-ed outlining what a unionized tech workplace would look like,” and urging employees of Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon, and Google not to unionize.

    in an internal message Google human resources director Kara Silverstein told Latta that she liked the idea, “but that it should be done so that there ‘would be no fingerprints and not Google specific.’”

    From the article posted by 100_kg_90_de_belin.

    Google seemingly does care about their internal image, so they will only make their actions obvious when they fire you for bogus reasons after wanting to join a union.
    Quite nasty in that they give you no hints about how extreme their efforts on this are. They monitor internal employee tools like they are cosplaying the NSA, but you wouldn’t know before you are fired out of the blue.