Why, a hexvex of course!
You know, this thread really needs a list of of the publishers responsible for this travesty.
“Publishers Hachette Book Group Inc, HarperCollins Publishers LLC, John Wiley & Sons Inc and Penguin Random House LLC” - According to Reuters
Alas, I do have a plan involving retirement. It is filed under “things that happen to other people”.
The probability I’ll survive to retirement age is negligible, why worry about it?
Good to know.
Now here’s a thought - what if the real workaround Google are using here is targeting only non manifest V3 users?
That would reduce the cost of doing this, since chrome users are already forced to swallow ads and could just be served as normal.
The end of a beautiful era - hats off for all the folks who made the pi what it is, the folks who will now be forced to make us sorrowful for what it will become.
Ehh, I have a different vision here - AI is useful, it’s just going down the hypermonetisation path at the moment. It’s not great because your data is being scraped and used to fuel paywalled content - that is largely why most folks object.
It’s, also, badly implemented, and is draining a lot of system resource when plugged into an OS for little more than a showy web search.
Eventually, after a suitable lag, we’ll see Linux AI as the AI we always wanted. A local, reasonable resource intense, option.
The real game changer will be a shift towards custom hardware for AIs (they’re just huge probability models with a lot of repetitive similar calculations). At the moment, we use GPUs as they’re the best option for these calculations. As the specialist hardware is developed, and gets cheaper, we’ll see more local models and thus more Linux AI goodness.
And here was me thinking windows 8 was just a beta release of vista that was leaked by Microsoft!
That needed a trigger warning
Ah Windows 11, Vista 2.0.
At this point, I can use Linux for most things except older fangames, reliable printing (seriously, cups is pain), and some mmorpgs.
Once I get a month without the university shitting its pants and changing policy overnight, I’ll eat the learning curve and switch (actually learn to troubleshoot wine rather than relying on searches).
When I move, thinking mint with cinnamon because I love that desktop.
Hello fellow bear, I don’t know why we’re talking about women either. Since we’re both fellow confused bears can you please direct me to the nearest top secret bear club, where we bears meet to eat berries and drink fermented honey while laughing at beaver related memes?
Why would he hate the word “onthesameside-gender”?
This isn’t a meme, it’s an emotional massacre…
I think we’re where China was in 2005–2010: a platform that can (and does) promote values that are against the interests of our nation(s) is popular with our youth. The real dilemma is “can we do better”, and these days it seems not.
History suggests that the real solution to TikTok isn’t banning it; China trying to block western sites did nothing save foment resentment and foster a VPN industry. Take the next step instead - make something that does TikTok better than TikTok, then push it hard. Either that or do what is being done to YouTube/Google - run it into the ground!
That may be a good compromise, though it does provoke the question as to how public a figure one must be before one waives the right to not have malice directed at them.
I think my main qualm is that well meaning laws can often set a precedent for unforseen issues down the road, and the curtailment of any liberty, no matter how vile that liberty is, must be done with care to avoid creating traps for the future. Something UK politicians are famous for failing to do (our digital safety laws are very much responsible for our lack of privacy, and have created some of the most dangerous data troves on the planet!).
So, the basis of this law is a person’s facial/physical parameters were used to make vulgar videos/images. This caused them distress, and so this is illegal. At this point, it is aiming to protect people from something deemed traumatic, and the law specifically requires the intent to be “to distress”. It’s a good law.
Let’s say someone hand draws a vulgar image using my physical parameters that I find distressing. Is that illegal? At the moment, no, however it’s not too great a step to see it pushed through by a similar argument (what if the artist was REALLY good, and they intended to distress me). And from here we go…
What about a cartoon or caricature? Could someone draw an image of the UK PM performing oral sex to billionaires and fall afoul if the subjects find it distressing? Surely such a cartoon cannot help but intend to dismay or distress the subjects?
Does it have to be vulgar or just cause distress? Could they just mock a person using an image? Mockery certainly sums to distress?
Does it have to be an image, or are distressing written pieces also viable?
It shifts towards the idea that “artistic” creations that provoke distress to an individual ought to be illegal. This is a viewpoint I stand strongly against.
However, this law is groundwork. Groundwork can also push towards a lot of good. Then again, how much do you trust UK politicians to make informed internet laws?
This is a tricky one - it’s a law that’s setting out to protect folks, but it’s also laying some dangerous groundwork.
Somewhere out there a CEO thought this was a good idea. All it seems to be doing is pushing people to other platforms (the younger gen moving over to tiktok and the older gens moving 3rd party or just offline).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Im4YAMWK74
Relevant follow-up (videos explore Korean gender politics and hierarchical society).