tal8d

Because the "demonstrations" have devolved into riots where "asking" means firebombing. Combine that with local prosecutors refusing to pursue charges, and you've got a situation where the police a highly motivated to identify everybody in black bloc chic.

That is true of almost everybody, not just police. Petty tyrants are a dime a dozen, they just lack the ability to legally kidnap you. People are bad, so we need a government comprised of people are bad, so we... I already hear the cries of "But who will build the roads?!"

> Whatever does this have to do with codes of conduct?

Whatever does a rental property issue have to do with OpenZFS? What about political contributions? Are you genuinely unaware of all the crazy witchhunts, totally unrelated to the code base, that have occurred as a result of this CoC push? Have you ever heard of ESR? http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=8609

Looks like the CoC mob has failed to run off a capable developer... for all we know that tenant might have one day contributed code - this is a gross violation of "applicable spaces" clause!

I'll be very surprised if things get much better anytime soon, certainly not before the end of the year. Maybe two years from now... but I wouldn't bet on it. I live in a city where some questionable calls were made with regard to rioters, so I'm eager to put some distance between that and myself.

There are going to be a lot of people who share that hope, given the rapidly shifting window of permissible thought and deed - combined with technology's unblinking eye. I always thought that bit rot would act in such a manner, because it is getting harder every year to faithfully preserver internet events... but this might do the job sooner.

Is this being recieved positively by those that actually write code, who aren't gripped by a white savior complex? Because it strikes me as patronizing, among other things.

Do yourself a favor, lookup the origin of the word "slave". Now consider your emotional response in that light, and how these changes could only be motivated by a deeply held predjudice with regard to the alleged beneficiaries of this farce.

Well I'm not seeing any mention of it here, so let me fill you in on a little secret: this symbol is commonly used in cartography to indicate a confirmed hazard. Anyone with any time in the military or emergency management (and maybe hazmat) should immediately recognize the symbol.

Fact check it yourself: search "NATO landmine symbol". You'll find the symbol in use by the UN and NATO, you'll also find standards that dictate orientation, fill style, and scaling factors.

It has absolutely nothing to do with Nazi concentration camps, and the amount of hyperventilating over secret Nazi symbols is really disturbing. I don't know which is worse, that this may largely be performative outrage, or if it is genuine derangement. Ask yourself: why haven't you been told this already? Why is the media winding people up instead of fact checking? Why is facebook outsourcing this disgusting task to the ADL? Also: I predicted this just yesterday :)

It seems pretty reasonable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Download_Valley

There is a really obvious telegraphing of what is to come: outsourcing censorship to protected classes. It doesn't really matter if it is for political reasons or commercial (advertiser friendly padded cells), groups like the SPLC and ADL are eagerly assuming that role - allowing companies to displace blame onto effectively unimpeachable groups (Don't agree with us that milk is a hate symbol? Are you a nazi?!).

I was porting a diagnostic command the other day, which displayed SMT status for the IBM power processor - written by a programmer at IBM. It was essentially a directory walk strncmp loop over /proc. The overwhelming sadness compelled me to spend a day of trying to figure out how far back I could trace direct evidence proving the existence of _SC_NPROCESSORS_CONF. Unfortunately I couldn't find the source code for SVR4.0MP, only references in interface manuals.

lol, either your reading comprehension is poor or your understanding of the '92 riots is... or both, I guess. That was a response to your question about what one could mean when saying "1992 will look like a joke", and I answered that question exactly. Do you not understand how usernames work?

Have you got an actual example? I don't even need to get into the race statistics with regard to police brutality, because the charges aren't even close to settling the matter - and you know it, you've already declared them murderers.

A billion dollars of property damage and the targeted destruction of businesses operated by Korean immigrants, but multiplied by a factor that will ensure laughter at the memory of those killed in the '92 race riots? I don't know how you could more charitably interpret the "wish".

There were 2174 incidents of murder/manslaughter in Germany that year... given that context, "85 bullets _total_" sounds like a massive orgy of violence on the part of German LEOs. There were 6 times that many murders in the US that same year, manslaughter not included.

I absolutely agree that cops should be held to a higher standard, but that is a very different discussion. Imagine trying to steer the conversation similarly for any other class of crime: "You can't blame the school shooters... they naturally strike out at what is within their reach, they should be given space to express their outrage. We need to talk about bullying."

Ah justice.

  It is better that ten innocent persons suffer than that one guilty escape.
  -- Bizzaro William Blackstone

If that was the first time you'd seen mention of that essay, then you'd be forgiven for not knowing that always precedes discussion of hand crafting vs brute force. I've never seen it be answered with a call for exotic computation, so my mistake. I've seen plenty of energy requirement estimates related to defeating various cryptographic algorithms, using spherical cows, etc. You'll need a lot more than an architectural change to make a noticeable dent, you'll need the discovery and industrialization of new physics - not the sort of thing you want to hang your hopes on.

Wow, not even a quarter of the way through and I'm seeing what would most charitably described as "lies by omission". Also, I don't know if the writer would prefer I assume she is stupid, or that she conspired with her editor to structure things in such a way as to drive traffic through outrage - for example:

"...claiming that Jewish people were stealthily supporting illegal immigrants."

Well I'll go ahead and touch the third rail. There were a lot of non-profits involved, some would obviously fit the the conspiracy theorist's description (Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society for example), others had 990s that further strengthened the theory. Was there a shadowy conspiracy? I doubt it, the majority of involved non-profits were classic left-wing open-borders types, some communists, and a bunch of Christian alliances. So why lie instead of presenting the results of a statistical sample?

"...positing that high-ranking Democratic Party officials were involved in a child sex ring..."

Pizzagate was a 4chan inside joke that got taken seriously by people who already had cause to be suspicious, and Epstein didn't kill himself. It reminds me of something Saddam Hussein admitted under FBI interrogation: he wanted the US to think he had WMDs, because that would cause his regional adversaries to think the same. Obviously he miscalculated. After years of weird spirit cooking talk and association with known degenerates, people are going to start thinking you mean it.

Finally: does anybody remember the satanic panic? Surprise, there was a government cover-up of weird cult ritual stuff involving abused children. If you said so, for almost 30 years, you were a wacky conspiracy theorist... until the FBI released the file to zero interest: https://vault.fbi.gov/the-finders

> We need to get back to looking at more creative models in both the software and hardware domains.

That would be pretty foolish, given the fact that every hand crafted model eventually gets surpassed with brute force. A better use of time would be tackling whatever you mean by "complexity of further scaling has reached geopolitical proportions". I'm not a fan of it, as it is terribly inelegant, but denying the years of consistent brute force wins would just be silly.

The best strategy for any nation with an interest in AI (be it economic or something much more skynety) would be securing two things very quickly: fabrication capacity and nuclear power, because this stuff is going to be measure megawatts - not ANN layers. Improving the efficiency of that conversion would certainly be helpful, but history has shown that to be a lower priority, just take a look at how ridiculously deep software stacks are compared to 20 years ago. I really wish the linguists had been proven right in the 1970s...

ppc is still a thing, my project computer is a power9. The only reason it isn't my daily driver is because I can't help but tinker with it. Being able to rewrite the supervisor chip code in order to get that fan curve just so, and having the support of unabridged and NDA free documentation - instead of grinding through reverse engineering... feels good. I highly recommend it, just stick to known working GPUs, the mmu actually does its job.

You want to go back to the network television gatekeeping model? I don't think that will go over too well, which is especially bad since they'd have to pare down the user base to a manageable size for their board of editors. The reverberations generated by that echo chamber will be amazing.

Because you can't selectively act as a publisher when it suits you while enjoying the legal protections afforded to a platform, you have to pick one.

> This was clearly for the benefit of correcting mis-information

To be clear, they provided "additional context" to somebody's opinion - by linking to someone else's opinion. No statistics provided, no attempt at addressing the troubling events going on with NJ mail-in ballots...

> I believe that is a reasonably good thing to protect regardless of where on the political spectrum one sits

How about we stick with the law. This has been a long time coming, not just for twitter - but Google and Mastercard... the debanking has been going on for a while.

> ...small correction link appended (without modifying the original statement)

'A Twitter spokesman said Mr. Trump's tweets about mail-in ballots "contain potentially misleading information about voting processes and have been labeled to provide additional context."'

That is called "editorializing", and it distinguishes a publisher from a platform. Wanna "provide additional context"? Well you better start doing it for every single user contributing to your publication, but maybe do that after you bulk up on corporate lawyers - because your curated content firehose is going to attract the litigious type.

> ..exact intended function of Section 230.

Interesting, the deferral to the intent of the law's author - it kind of makes the whole argument about the second amendment seem silly. That would be a dangerous game to play in this case though, given the fact that 230 is a small part of the much larger product of the mid 90's moral panic - the Communications Decency Act. Courts have ruled pretty narrowly on the issue of editorializing and 230 protections, but in cases of defamation they've made it clear that so long as the edits don't alter the meaning - they're protected. At the same time, courts have made it clear that simply changing the context on another's work can be enough to constitute fair-use and effectively create a new work. Those aren't compatible ideas.

The purpose of these tags is to alter the underlying message, they even admit it - they wouldn't function as intended otherwise. I think the funniest example I've seen of this was a 1970s documentary about our imminent destruction by way of global cooling, narrated by Leonard Nimoy. Youtube's little wrong-thought tag helpfully informed me of our imminent destruction by way of global warming.

This gets funnier everyday, the hamfisted editorializing. If you want to capitalize on user generated content, while also being shielded from the legal consequences of user generated content, you can't insert editor's notes.

The problem is one of the platforms' own making, because they want the legal protection of being a platform in addition to the commercial benefits of being a publisher. This has been allowed to happen despite the fact that such aggressive "content curation" clearly makes the likes of Twitter and Youtube publishers. That should come at the cost of safe harbor protections. A platform's only duty, with regard to the policing of speech, is in cases of copyright violation and court orders; as you can imagine, adherence to the law would make it difficult to control political narratives and sell laundry detergent ad space. The "almost" aspect is more to do with ambiguities in the laws themselves, as well as untested and conflicting international laws.

The solution is very simple: enforce the law, force the choice between platform and publisher. If there truly is a need to curtail free speech on a legally protected platform - pass a law making that speech illegal. I'd be curious to see how many heads explode when people learn that "hate speech" is not illegal - and couldn't be made so in the US without hilarious consequences.

I'd rather not name the individual in Canada that was targeting women, but I will say this: some biologically born men have found an interesting loophole in both the political arguments and legal protections afforded on the basis of class and identity. Some lesbians were unimpressed with the idea that they had a moral obligation to grant equal sexual preference to both biologically born women and biologically born men who declared themselves to be women. This is something that has been going on for a while now, and nobody is really allowed to talk about it - because "hate speech".

> Let's just say the 'fringes of free speech' took the upper hand...

Luckily for you that blurry line between mainstream and "fringe" is rapidly shifting, and the list of permissible opinions continues to shrink. More and more people will be forced to decide how important guilt by association is to them, and will either make use of the stigmatized tech - or simply shutup.

> But some kind of control is unfortunately needed.

To what end? Are we protecting the children? Are we preventing the rise of Turbo-Hitler?

> Otherwise a platform like this will always spiral out of control and kill itself.

How do you imagine that happens? Shaming from people saying exactly what you have just said, leading to reduced uptake, justifying censorship - because only bad people use the dark web.

Here is a clue: look at what has happened to lesbians, they are already going through this. I know this because I frequent a thoroughly demonized site run by a free-speech absolutist (well, almost). One day a whole bunch of these women showed up to complain about some insane pre-op transsexual who had succeeded in getting them censored on every major platform. These ladies absolutely hated the site and everyone on it, but they had no alternative.

> This is why the assumption that “open source code is more likely to be closely audited for vulnerabilities” is not true...

That is a safe assumption, otherwise you'd have to believe that non-open source code is more closely audited - at greater expense, because businesses secretly prioritize security.

And I'm glad that you've illustrated my point perfectly. Having misinterpreted my statement to be homophobic, you've chanted the magic words to summon the specter of censorship.