wowaname

Agreed, hearing about AI is unavoidable just by the sheer number of non-tech people who are impressed by novelties such as generative AI and ChatGPT. I have to tell them I'm not into that stuff at all.

Apologies if it's hard to follow; I basically had to brain-dump the best I could because I'm still figuring this out from firsthand experience, and it isn't like this is a well-known phenomenon yet. Maybe I'll have a better way to organise my thoughts when I learn more about it myself.

I found myself facing a corner case of the implications of AI and summarised it up here: https://wowana.me/blog/ais-effect-on-human-consciousness.xht

Basically I've been without employment for months because my last job ruined me and treated me as expendable, without facing or understanding the consequences of getting too deep into the tech/engineering field. Lately I have only been able to hope that they receive their judgment sooner rather than later, so that we can slow down the progress of AI and carefully evaluate it as a proper engineering field rather than a cash-grab tech bubble that will burst at this rate.

Hang in there, shit's just hitting the fan.

Loving the downvote and the hyperbole to ignore the fact that even the current state of "artificial intelligence", as the general public understands it, is still extremely dangerous to society. This doesn't have to escalate into warfare to be a credible threat. Stop living under a rock.

Fearmongering?

No, run. This is a warning. People (the ones who support AI) are after devs like they serve CAPTCHAs to bots now. It's psychological warfare.

Well-said? He approached a sensitive topic by prefacing it with horse shit about how all "free[-]speech absolutists" in cyberspace are not victims of hate speech, therefore they go out of their way "to defend hate speech". This is false, and anyone who does this and claims to be such an absolutist, is lying to themselves and to everyone else around them, because they do not understand what free speech even entails.

I'm targeted (either personally or blanketed) by all manners of what most people would call bigotry and hate speech, and I still defend the position that such speech should be considered protected under free-speech doctrine, because for one, it gives me a clear indicator of what those people really think about me, rather than anyone having to beat around the bush and hope that I understand that they're a transphobe or whatever. And for another, it empowers me with the exact same language I can use to defend myself. On top of that, this kind of shit enters dangerous territory when it comes to the rights of parody authors or, say, black comedy. Fuck that.

Calls to action (the "shouting fire" or, more relevant here, calls for genocide or other hate crimes) are not protected under free speech. Devault is kidding himself by misinterpreting or simply not bothering to understand a definition that has been solidified by many a historical philosopher. They all came back with the same conclusion, and somehow that's lost on the masses today.

I admit to not having read the full article because I already have an idea of what the rest of it is about (after hearing what Devault dealt with early this year, from his own talk with me) and I don't feel comfortable endorsing this post at all when the entire first page is blasphemous.

All instances I see federating to everyone else, they all handle CSAM reasonably quickly

My experience has been that Maps works fine without Google Play services, the only issue being a popup/notification that says you "need" services to use the app.

They probably block commonly-abused user-agent strings such as wget and a blank string. A custom string may work, or just spoofing a browser.

I hate useragent strings, but with the current state of the Web, your UA sticks out more if you omit the version header rather than copying a common one.

That's still no excuse for a webserver to deny requests by (lack of) UA string, but I doubt that what you're doing is beneficial for any reason.

People can use things occasionally without having an addiction that impacts their lives.

Your site blocks read-only access via Tor with a CAPTCHA.

I don't know why you're getting downvoted when you're correct here.

>some usernames are green

New user.

>I do not want to know

Too bad :)

I don't use Github, but thanks for confirming you received it, and feel free to take time to get around to it.

I'm sorry but error handling and testing requirements are true for any software or script a person writes. The application should not give a shit, and a simple execve() is the best way to go about it. It's the principle of least surprise, and people have had to keep in mind fork/exec semantics for decades.

There are some issues with nuvious' pam-duress that allow for untrusted string inputs when handling scripts with system() call, and I sent a patch to them via E-mail in an attempt to highlight the issues and provide a basis for a better way to handle it.

Are you seriously writing a script when the cops are at your door? No, you aren't. You always need to verify that your protective mechanisms work before actually relying on them.

I don't understand why partners willingly share passwords.

Depends on your locking program but yes, PAM can be used for that.

I use an authentication PGP subkey for SSH so I have to unlock it with a passphrase before using it. Normal SSH keys can be encrypted similarly, and either gpg-agent or ssh-agent can save your passphrase in memory for an amount of time.

You have the freedom to do whatever you want with the script. It's trivial to `exec >/dev/null 2>/dev/null` first thing in a script if you want it to be silent.

Please keep track of the thread.

Parent post made a claim that this was not an "abuse of power" and I was clarifying how it was indeed an abuse of power.

Apparently the policies are in the process of being redrafted in response to this, so in the future, what Lee did with ##hntop may very well reflect the actual policies of the network.

  - NickServ (NickServ@services.): Information on imode (account imode):
  - NickServ (NickServ@services.): Registered : Oct 05 03:45:24 2016 (4y 32w 6d ago)
  - NickServ (NickServ@services.): Last seen  : (about 0 weeks ago)
  - NickServ (NickServ@services.): Flags      : HideMail, Private
  - NickServ (NickServ@services.): imode has enabled nick protection
  - NickServ (NickServ@services.): *** End of Info ***
  - You are now known as imode

You're still in services DB and I'm able to use your nick. The "temporarily unavailable" error is literally that; your nick was probably recently protected by services, in which case you'd have to `/ns release` for it back.

Lee expresses interest in decentralised/distributed alternatives to DNS so it does make sense. What doesn't make sense is the fact that I'm seeing a more-homogeneous set of ircops on multiple networks these days.

As someone who has participated on 4chan in the past, I personally have learned to take comments at face value and not place much weight in the names. It's true that anyone can claim anything, and I don't think there is much benefit to seeing an identity tied to the user's posts.

I've seen mobbing in general against both sides of this ordeal, and I would be unsurprised to see astroturfing efforts as well. It upsets me that people tend to stoop that low, but I'm attempting to gather all info I can from both sides in order to come to my own conclusion.

There's truth in the fact that freenode (the current network under new management) is in an unfavourable position due to sponsors packing their bags—sponsors who hosted critical infra for spam management and mail service. I think the situation could have been handled better but I don't know who to fault for this situation.

He settled with his responsibilities at OFTC, as far as I can tell.

I am fairly confident that neither side is intent on harvesting user data.

>Unless you're being absurdly pedantic

lol