What gets me about this is that, while it would still be bad, they could have mostly avoided the privacy nightmare here with some kind of Zero Knowledge Proof scheme, but the tracking is obviously part of the point.

The main uses for AI in game development aren’t generating things on the fly for players anyway, it’s helping artists and coders do their work faster.

Explicit types are just laziness, you should be catching exceptions anyways.

The police believe that the motive behind this hacking was to reduce network-related costs, as torrent transfers can be costly for internet service providers. KT, however, claims that it was merely trying to manage traffic on its network to ensure a smooth user experience.

Sounds like they admit it but object to the negative tone lol

It’s good to be skeptical of institutions, just don’t go dismissing or accepting science based on ideological/class association, that’s how you get shit like Lysenkoism

I used to write that kind of stuff for a living when I was really poor and scraping by, it paid by the word and so low that you could realistically only crack minimum wage if you kept typing continuously and didn’t stop to think or do any research.

If there are two or more cell towers within range of the phone and they have access to those towers they can triangulate the location of the phone already.

No, I mean, I’m saying I doubt they even really need the trucks, except maybe as an explanation of how they got the data legally.

I don’t buy that they don’t have direct access to the cell towers themselves

I think framing this as “refusing” to use AI is kind of weird. They believe in doing things the traditional way, great, I think games that use all hand-drawn nondigital art are also cool for going against the grain like that, and making a point of supporting artists is laudable, but it isn’t like anyone is trying to force them not to.

The person who predicted 70% chance of AI doom is Daniel Kokotajlo, who quit OpenAI because of it not taking this seriously enough. The quote you have there is a statement by OpenAI, not by Kokotajlo, this is all explicit in the article. The idea that this guy is motivated by trying to do marketing for OpenAI is just wrong, the article links to some of his extensive commentary where he is advocating for more government oversight specifically of OpenAI and other big companies instead of the favorable regulations that company is pushing for. The idea that his belief in existential risk is disingenuous also doesn’t make sense, it’s clear that he and other people concerned about this take it very seriously.

Maybe it returns to the carcass over a period of time?

Yeah I thought about it and I guess I’m wrong. I thought that maybe the ball still wouldn’t be faster if there was a perfectly flat surface for both objects to land on, but I imagined how it would be if the bowling ball and feather were actually very far apart, and of course they wouldn’t be travelling perpendicular to the platform, and the path of the feather would follow more of a curve. So a slight distance would be the same thing just less.

But they are being dropped at the same time for dramatic effect, so the earth will also be accelerating towards the feather at bowling ball speeds because the feather is next to the bowling ball, therefore they still land at the same time.

A way of getting a cat into a carrier I’ve found is, wrap the cat in a blanket and then have someone else go get the carrier, so they don’t know what’s happening until it is too late

When articles were published about the EU Commission’s horrifyingly undemocratic approach, Ylva Johansson’s office at the European Commission responded by advertising on the platform X (formerly Twitter). They targeted advertisements (pro Chat Control) so that decision-makers in different countries would see them, but also so that they would not be seen by people suspected to be strongly against the proposal. The advertising was also targeted on the basis of religious and political affiliation and thus violated the EU’s own laws regarding micro-targeting. …

There was no technology that could scan communication without looking at it. Parts of the Council of Ministers therefore proposed that scanning should be excluded for politicians, the police and intelligence services, as well as anything classified as ‘professional secrets.’ Obviously, there were politicians who were afraid that their secrets would leak, but who had nothing against mass surveillance of the broader population.

Sounds very slimy all around

Most of the screenshots I see of Twitter posts aren’t from right wing extremists, but are still ignorant opinions and put-downs presented in an obnoxiously snarky way. The core of toxicity in Twitter isn’t about political affiliation, it’s about mean spirited anti-intellectual tribalism and people using ideals as a pretense to verbally abuse others.

Are there actually people in the loop? Are you sure it’s not all bots? It’s not like they will communicate with you at all about your ban aside from template emails.

I feel like reading statutes is unreliable because a lot of how the law works is how courts interpret the law, which can be very different from the commonsense interpretation of the letter of the law. Lacking broader context, I can’t know from just this exactly what the consequences might be. Here’s some parts that are possibly concerning though:

The Commission may, in its discretion, prescribe the forms of any and all accounts, records, and memoranda to be kept by carriers subject to this chapter, including the accounts, records, and memoranda of the movement of traffic

Not sure if this increases the ability of the government to spy on people through their ISPs or if that remains the same.

(a) Requirement to restrict access (1) Prohibited conduct Whoever knowingly and with knowledge of the character of the material, in interstate or foreign commerce by means of the World Wide Web, makes any communication for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors shall be fined not more than $50,000, imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.

Some states have been experimenting with broad bans on online porn sites and requiring those sites and also social media sites to demand id from all users, maybe this provision could give a future FCC the power to apply this sort of thing to the internet nationally? Although this section already explicitly mentions the internet which is confusing if this whole thing is only recently being made relevant to the internet.

There are provisions about the FCC being able to come up with rules for the prevention of robocalls, maybe this could be generalized to prohibit some forms of automated network traffic?

Relevant Snowden quote:

Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say

I pay for vpn service anonymously even though I probably don’t need to, as my main use is torrenting. I can see a remote possibility that vpn payment records at some point end up being used against pirates, even just as some kind of risk factor flagging, in the same vein as what you are saying: “If someone is paying for a vpn, surely they’re doing something bad?” In countries that really want to crack down on speech and human rights, vpns get banned outright to varying success, and if you can’t pay anonymously in that situation you’re pretty screwed, this hurts those people.

In general I think everyone should be trying for some level of actual privacy online as a matter of principle, just because of how everyone being fully tracked and observed puts way too much power in the hands of those watching.