Also I expect there should be more surveillance around powerful people like Larry Ellison, right?
The more powerful, the more important is to ensure good behavior, and the more public / peer-reviewed the AI model and its logs should be to avoid tampering/laundering.
Is "intent" what makes all the difference? I think doing something bad unintentionally does not make it good, right?
Otherwise, all I need to do something bad is have no bad intentions. I'm sure you can find good intentions for almost any action, but generally, the end does not justify the means.
I'm not saying that those who act unintentionally should be given the same kind of punishment as those who do it with premeditation.. what I'm saying is that if something is bad we should try to prevent it in the same level, as opposed to simply allowing it or sometimes even encourage it. And this can be done in the same way regardless of what tools are used. I think we just need to define more clearly what separates "bad" from "good" specifically based on the action taken (as opposed to the tools the actor used).
I think that's the difference right there.
One is up for debate, the other one is already heavily regulated currently. Libraries are generally required to have consent if they are making straight copies of copyrighted works. Whether we like it or not.
What AI does is not really a straight up copy, which is why it's fuzzy, and much harder to regulate without stepping in our own toes, specially as tech advances and the difference between a human reading something and a machine doing it becomes harder and harder to detect.
Yes, I don't think it's just about the execution of Win32 code, but also the possibility of MS using marketing techniques and dirty manipulation methods to give themselves advantages within the Windows platform to sway the general public to their store in a similar manner as how they push their browser, their MS Teams communication platform, their One Drive Cloud Storage, their search engine, their data-collection tech, their assistant, etc.
Which is why you should only care about the personal opinion of those people when it actually relates to that reliability.
I don't care whether Linus Torvalds likes disrespecting whichever company or people he might want to give the middle finger to, or throw rants in the mailing list or mastodon to attack any particular individual, so long as he continues doing a good job maintaining the kernel and accepting contributions from those same people when they provide quality code, regardless of whatever feelings he might have about whatever opinions they might hold.
You rely on the performance of the software, the clarity of the docs, the efficiency of their bug tracking... but the opinions of the people running those things don't matter so long as they keep being reliable.
I have contributed to other projects without really needing to get involved in their community in any personal/parasocial level, though.
I just make a pull request and when the code was good it was accepted, when not it got rejected. Sometimes I've had to make changes before it getting merged, but I had no need to engage in discussions on discord or anything like that. I've been in some mailing lists to keep track on some projects, but never really engaged deeply, specially if it goes off-topic.
If I find that a good code contribution is rejected for whatever toxic reason, then the consequence of that is the code would stop being as good as it could have (because of the contributions being rejected/slowed down), so it's then that forking might be in order. Of course the code matters.
To his point: if not "discuss", what is the correct approach against fascism? war and murder? dismiss it, try to "cancel it" without giving any arguments so it can continue to fester on its own and keep growing in opposition?
To me, fascism is a stupid position that doesn't make much sense, to the point that it falls on itself the moment you "discuss" it.
I would have expected that it would be the fascists the ones unable/unwilling to discuss their position, since it's the least rational one. So it's certainly very jarring whenever I hear people jumping to defend against fascism while at the same time stopping in their tracks when it comes to discussing it. Even if those unable to reason might not be convinced by our arguments, anyone with reason would. Rejecting discussion does a disservice, because it does put off those willing to listen and strengthens those who didn't really want an argument anyway.
Like flat-earthers, they should be challenged with reason, with discussion. Not dismissed as if it were true that there's a huge conspiracy against them. Whether they listen or not to that reason, dehumanizing them and rejecting civil and rational discourse would play in favor of their movement.
Stating "genocide is bad" should NOT be a statement of faith. Faith is the shakiest of the grounds, if we are unable to articulate the specific reasons that make genocide be bad, then we are condemned to see it repeat itself. So, I'd argue it's for the sake of the victims in Auschwitz that antifascism should not be turned into a religion, but into a solid and rational position that's not distorted nor used willy-nilly.
The average Windows user would easily be put off by the project if they tried it this early. I feel it'd actually be better if they don't release on Windows until they are ready. That way they can get better press when it finally releases on Windows.
Bash. By default it might seem less featureful than zsh.. but bash is a lot more powerful and extensible than some give it credit for. It might be more complex to set it up the way you like it, but once you do it, that configuration can be ported over wherever bash exists (ie. almost everywhere).
In that counter argument they are essentially admitting that 99% of their content was distributed without the copyright holder's consent.
In the CDL lawsuit, they have admitted that of the millions of books we have digitized, they themselves have only made about 33,000 available to libraries; only about 1% of what we have done, and only under restrictive and expensive license agreements. This is, they claim, the essence of their copyright rights: the ability to restrict access to information as they see fit, to further their theoretical economic interests, without regard to libraries traditional functions and the greater public good.
Was it fair use in the past to redistribute reprints/format-conversions of works without the copyright holders consent?
I agree that copyright law sucks.. but that's why it needs to change so it actually serves "the greater public good". The judiciary system is not the right place to advocate for that (they don't make the law, just interpret it), so I don't really think there's much hope in them winning this. Sadly.
If they really think there's no reason to hide anything, why are they prosecuting Snowden for exposing something that was hidden?
Before having surveillance on people, they should have it on themselves.
Imagine how many corruption cases could have been prevented if the government was publicly monitored, with live streams from all offices, like a "big brother" show set up in the white house with live recordings of all calls and communications, so the voters can judge by themselves and monitor if the person they employed as the servant for the country is doing its job.
You share public keys when registering the passkey on a third party service, but for the portability of the keys to other password managers (what the article is about) the private ones do need to be transferred (that's the whole point of making them portable).
I think the phishing concerns are about attackers using this new portability feature to get a user (via phishing / social engineering) to export/move their passkeys to the attacker's store. The point is that portability shouldn't be so user-friendly / transparent that it becomes exploitable.
That said, I don't know if this new protocol makes things THAT easy to port (probably not?).