Call Me Mañana

🇧🇷 Latino-Americano. Estudante de Física. Marxista.

A propósito, eu uso Arch.


🇻🇦 Latinus-Americanus. Discipulus Physicae. Marxista.

Ipse Arch utor per viam.

  • 1 Post
  • 97 Comments
Joined 10 months ago
cake
Cake day: August 29th, 2023

help-circle



  • Deep level irony that you used a Simpsons meme, which takes place in a city that suffers from a Nuclear Power Plant that doesn’t dispose of nuclear waste properly.

    Every form of energy generation is problematic in the hands of capital. Security measures can and are often considered unnecessary expense. And even assuming that they will respect all safety standards, we still have the problem of fuel: France, for example, was only able to supply its plants at a cheap cost because of colonialism in Africa. Therefore, nuclear energy potentially has the same geopolitical problems as oil, in addition to the particular ones: dual technology that can and is applied in the military, not necessarily but mainly atomic bombs.

    __

    Also, I thought memes were supposed to be funny…




  • investigative journalists in authoritarian countries

    You mean like the US? Who achieved the feat of persecuting a foreign journalist as if he were an American citizen?

    EDIT: I know that Mullvad is also critical of american surveillance, but I find it very funny that when in the West they call a state democratic that does exactly the same (or worse) than a state in the East that they call “authoritarian”. It really reveals how empty of meaning this word is. “Ah, but these Western states have ‘democratic institutions’.” News for you: the states you call “authoritarian” have them too. In both cases, they can be and de facto are dictatorships.


  • I don’t think people’s right to generate whatever image they want to jerk off to is fundamental or more important than avoiding “AI” scams and CSAM generation. There are other ways to jerk off: there’s plenty of real people porn online and also lots, lots, lots of hentai, for literally every taste. “AI” porn only has two particularities that are not satisfied by these two options, one is to generate the scene you want, and for the very remote possibility that what you have imagined has never been produced before, you can pay an artist to To do so, another is Deep Fake porn, which should be a crime, it doesn’t matter if you’re not going to publish the image.


  • No, and that’s why I don’t use Google or anything that isn’t encrypted and sends any data that I consider private to some datacenter. And even when I know the data is encrypted, I am careful, as anyone should be, with data leaving your computer and going to someone else’s.

    “AI” is not the same thing. Why would I want my prompt to be private if I don’t want to use the result in some malicious way, be it generating CSAM or using it to cheat someone to write an article, or to generate a Deep Fake video of someone for an internet scam?


  • I don’t see a problem with that, I think that this information should be public, both prompt and result, because:

    • a. The “AIs” companies already know that, why shouldn’t anyone else?
    • b. They use public information to train their models, thus their results should also be public.
    • c. This would be the ultimate way to know that something was “AI” generated.

    This is a very different subject from giving acess for your DMs. The only ones who benefit from this information not being publicly available are those who use “AI” for malicious purposes, while everyone benefits from privacy of correspondence.






  • In my country, this generational divide doesn’t make much sense. But comparing those born in the 90s and early 2000s with those born from the late 2000s onwards, there is a fundamental difference: there was, even in the public education system, a variety of computer courses available to many people. With the arrival and hegemony of the app model, which is designed with the idea that it is intuitive and does not require anyone to be taught how to use it, computer courses have been disappearing. As a result, millions of young people use computers daily and have no knowledge of simple concepts such as shortcuts Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V, let alone advanced features of Office suites, not to mention that they have no idea what LATEX and Markdown are.




  • Sorry for the late response. Yes, I actually did. I would do a point-by-point analysis of what makes this report an extremely biased piece and why it should not be considered a valid source, but I will save us both the effort (mine of writing and yours of ignoring it, since, honestly, you are not going to change your mind because of something someone on lemmy said). However, for the sake of rhetoric, I will summarize the problematic of the main subject (civilian targets), but I make it clear that by my own metric I find this insufficient.

    Let’s talk first about the damage to electrical installations and water distribution. The electrical installations were clearly the target, and the water distribution suffered collateral damage because they are dependent on the electrical installations. While civilians are obviously affected when you hit these types of installations, it’s not hard to imagine what military interest they might have: they can and do power the enemy army’s electronic equipment. Now, I can’t talk about food distribution points, hospitals and shelters without touching on the source issue. This report uses four main sources: aerial images, photojournalism, Russian statements and Azov statements. While there is no problem with the first two sources, they can only show us the damage, but not the perpetrator or the intent (except in the first case, which is all too obvious). The only thing that supports the idea that the attacks on these three types of facilities were carried out by the Russians and with the intention of causing terror are the claims of Azov. There is one particular case where the Russians admitted to having committed the attack (unlike the others), but there is controversy between the Russian version and the Azov version. This is insufficient. You cannot report as true the version of any side of a war without supporting evidence. These sources are biased by definition. So, the suggestion that the one who really carried out the attacks in an attempt to vilify the Russians and cause terror was Azov, has as much value as Azov’s version. It can even be said that, in the case of Azov, there are precedents for this type of action, a specific one: they did it on a smaller scale during the events of the 2014 coup, and a general one: fascists like them do this all the time, since the proto-fascist Confederates. To be clear, I am not saying that this is what happened, only that it could have happened. A conclusion on this subject requires conclusive evidence.


  • Not deliberately bombing civilians…ok you know they are[1]. It’s a tried and true russian “war” tactic. They are also stealing children[2] and taking them to families in rural Russia in order to russify them[3]. That is a war crime and a very definition of genocide. They’ve stated over and over that Ukraine is not a real country[4] and the language is not real. Erasing a culture like that is also a definition of genocide. 30,000+ children murdered in locations no where near a contested front line[5]. Defending that is disgusting.


    1. citation needed ↩︎

    2. citation needed ↩︎

    3. citation needed ↩︎

    4. citation needed, (saying that Ukraine only became an independent country when the USSR created the Ukrainian SSR is not saying that Ukraine is not real, it is stating a fact) ↩︎

    5. citation needed ↩︎