It does affect your ability to speak, and not necessarily only negatively.
You lose more evolved vocabulary and formal grammatical structures, but you gain a liveliness and a colloquial dexterity that bookish people often lack.
You can also be more inventive in your metaphors and figures of speech, instead of relying on the usual stock cliches - something often seen in oral interviews with illiterate folk.
Another problem is that several "small" states can exploit their disproportionate power to pull up the ladder behind them, since any changes to state makeup have to pass the Senate.
No. The problem is crap states with uneducated populace. The "small government" argument falls apart quicker than the ultra libertarian arguments.
Or actually you're right I should as an American citizen have to be versed in all the random arcane laws each individual state..no. Each individual COUNTY has instead of a common shared American values. God forbid someone play dominoes on Sunday in Alabama.
The problem is the fragmented states where they can hide their corruption.
There are kiosks used for public browsing, where the user has access to full browser app window and can change elements.
There are also ways to get around kiosk mode restrictions, or at least there were for Windows in kiosk mode back in the day. We used it to get browsing access or to just mess with the kiosk. The fun!
> There are also ways to get around kiosk mode restrictions, or at least there were for Windows in kiosk mode back in the day. We used it to get browsing access or to just mess with the kiosk. The fun!
And that's probably by far the most value those kiosks ever provided to society - the chance of overriding whatever malicious, socially harmful marketing bullshit purpose they overtly served, and do something fun or useful with them instead.
Alas, opportunities like this are disappearing, as security maximalists are running the show in our industry these days.
A kiosk used for arbitrary public web browsing won't have expectations of physical buttons on the outside of the kiosk that line up with elements on the screen, which is what this branch of the thread brought up.
> Hugging Face is being used to make nonconsensual deepfakes, and the popular open-source AI model repository is doing very little to prevent it. That’s according to a new report published by the European nonprofit AI Forensics, which found that seven out of the top nine image editing models hosted by Hugging Face readily complied with requests to undress women using simple prompts.
A, yes, because there wasn't enough censorship in the world. Now we need to invent stupid "think of the children" reasons for locking general purpose tools like open models.
Of course the whole point is moot, people wanting to do that, can just keep using whatever open model outside of hugging face, even exchange models privately with other pervs. Once they're out there, they're out there.
So, this is just pushing for adding tracking for users and model restrictions to the HF. These nonprofits are all in the "promote whatever policy those in power want to pass" business.
Push as in a newsletter alone isn't doing anything. It's the "show ocassional posts of you on an already captive audience of millions and especially readers with similar interests" (the whole Substack base) that does it.
>because you can in fact know some things about what one person, yourself, will do in the future.
Nope. At best you merely know what your current self intends to do in the future. Whether you'll do them then, or whether you'll even still want to do them then, or be able to do them then, or have regretted ever wanting to do them, and many other such things, we don't know.
I'm not sure if you're arguing against self-determination and for serfdom. Or just making a narrow correction to one sentence in an argument that was perhaps slightly too definitive.
But obviously the key principle is about retaining control over your business, income stream, relationship with your readers, or whatever it is you value. Sure, I change my mind and make mistakes. But I don't think that's a good argument for handing over control to some other entity which is equally changeable and fallible, but not primarily incentivised by my well-being.
Nope. As per my second paragraph which you may not have gotten to:
>because, barring major illness, you can reasonably assume that you will try to do what is best for yourself in the future.
Furthermore the phrase "some things" does not actually mean all things.
So again, trying to put it another way to clarify anything that may have been unclear:
You can be reasonably certain at the time that you need to make a decision that you will try to do what you believe is the best for you. I will now not go on to make an exhaustive list showing every way that you in the future may not do what is right for you because it is normally understood that there are numerous ways in which the reasonable expectations of people can be countered but nonetheless, the reasonable expectations will still tend to hold more than any of the countering scenarios. This is why they are the reasonable expectations, while the countering scenarios are the notable exceptions that often show up in sensational news reports and fiction.
And finally I should note this comes down to the principle, which I would have thought was clear from my previous post but evidently not, that if you can reasonably expect that future you will try to do what future you thinks is best for them, you can just as reasonably expect that the future corporation you are buying a service from will try to what the future corporation thinks is best for them, without giving much consideration for what is best for you.
I do not know what you think is best, but I would normally trust future me over future corporation not owned by me but providing me a service, I guess I'm just funny that way.
on edit: Note in my first post I referred to major illness, because major illness, including mental illness, is one of the most common ways in which people end up not attempting to do what is best for themselves.
>because, barring major illness, you can reasonably assume that you will try to do what is best for yourself in the future.
Regardless of major illness or not, people do stupid things, self destructive things, ill-thought things, impulsive things all the time. At best they'll do "what they think is best" not "what is best" for themselves. And frequently not even that, as people still do all kinds of things they know are bad for them but can't stop themselves anyway.
But even if it was correct, "you can reasonably assume that you will try to do what is best for yourself in the future" is not really strong as an argument against the grandparent's:
"You can never know anything about what anybody will do in the future? You can't. Why do hackers always use this argument against everything?"
The grantparent's argument is about not knowing what you'll be doing in concrete terms, not about merely knowing some abstract guiding principle like "you'll still want to do something you feel is best for you then".
>I do not know what you think is best, but I would normally trust future me over future corporation not owned by me but providing me a service, I guess I'm just funny that way.
Even so, that's worth acting only if the pain of future corporation pulling some shit later on is bigger than the convenience you still get before that, or easier than what you'll lack going without its services.
Also if the cost of just dumping their ass then when they DO turn, and moving to another player, is big.
Of course, if they were given warning they would export their subscribers. I am talking about if it was cut off without warning. I do not think the majority would have a list within the last year.
You lose more evolved vocabulary and formal grammatical structures, but you gain a liveliness and a colloquial dexterity that bookish people often lack.
You can also be more inventive in your metaphors and figures of speech, instead of relying on the usual stock cliches - something often seen in oral interviews with illiterate folk.
reply