Generally because there's not that much to comment on, as this is effectively a somewhat prettier ungoogled chromium, and so there's not much room to make positive comments. Though I agree people get caught up in negativity easily.
It is some mix of priorities along the frontier, with Apple being on the significantly controlling end such that I wouldn't want to bother. Your trust should also be based on prediction, and giving a major company even more control over what your systems are allowed to do has been historically bad and only gets worse. Even if Apple is properly ethical now (I'm skeptical, I think they've found a decently sized niche and that most of their users wouldn't drop them even if they moved to significantly higher levels of telemetry, due to being a status good in part), there's little reason to give them that power in perpetuity. Removing that control when it is absued hasn't gone well in the past.
It certainly could, and I wouldn't be surprised if the authors want to try it out on those. You do have issues of past improvements often not quite enhancing more powerful models nearly as much. I'd expect this to possibly not work as well, something like the bigger models ending up with more polysemantic neurons because they're given more ''incentive'' (training time, neuron count, dataset size which they're encouraged to be able to reconstruct) to extract as much possible. This might make so the method performs worse due to this intermingling.
(See the transformer circuits website for that)
(Though I expect there's ways to recover a good chunk of extra lost throughput/accuracy, maybe by doing extra steps to directly steer the training towards breaking apart polysemantic neurons)
Druid works quite well, and is likely enough for many GUI projects.
I'm not sure what your reasoning is that implementing it in a platform-native language will work better. Are you referring to using their platform native UI to get the keybindings + inbuilt widget integration?
As others have said, people have a lot of photos. It wouldn't be too hard to hide them a bit from obvious view.
As well, I rarely look at my gallery unless I need to. I just add a few photos occasionally. So maybe once every two weeks I look at my gallery, plenty of time to initiate that.
It isn't uncommon for me to find a site that uses it legitimately. Sometimes for telling the user info, sometimes for reporting an error, and sometimes for other goals.
Sure, it'd be better if they did it in a more normal manner (writing their message into an HTML paragraph), but they do use it.
But a lot of these sites are dead (though some aren't) and so it for the most part doesn't matter if you remove it now or after three years. They'll still break or lose functionality.
Just spit out a warning to the dev console when it is used.
Its more referring to the concept of realizing there's a solution to the problem and being willing to take it. When I was younger, there was a notable amount of times where I felt cold but didn't bother getting a jacket. Of course, grabbing a jacket from a store may not be an option for a person, but I think you're generalizing every part of what they are saying too much rather than the point they're making.
I think this is more of a matter of scale, like in your ISP and datacenter example, social media could be counted in on that too due to the sheer size of it and influence it can have on people.
I agree that not having moderation isn't something we can do, for staying on topic or getting rid of certain users. The benefit of Reddit in this is that sub-communities can be made with harsher moderation policies than the outside Reddit, which allows getting rid of users they don't want. Since this is small sub-communities, if the users who disliked that subreddit really wanted they could make their own alternative and still be accessible to the wider Reddit. This would help avoid the problems of Voat becoming full of people on the extremist end of the spectrum. It wouldn't be a perfect solution, but being shared around reddit and accessible through the same account would make it a lot easier to dilute things like that.
> I think this is more of a matter of scale, like in your ISP and datacenter example, social media could be counted in on that too due to the sheer size of it and influence it can have on people.
It's not about scale, it's about alternatives. It's easy to just not go to reddit if you don't want to. If your ISP bans reddit (or hackernews?), and it's the only reasonable price/performance ISP you have access to, that's a much bigger problem.
> I think this is more of a matter of scale, like in your ISP and datacenter example, social media could be counted in on that too due to the sheer size of it and influence it can have on people.
Massively disagree here. Nobody owes anyone a platform. YouTube doesn’t need to host hate speech. Twitter doesn’t need to let people spread false claims about election fraud. They are perfectly within their rights (and I’d argue, their responsibility) to set standards for discourse and acceptable behavior on their platforms.
If you want a site that will host your alternate-reality qanon bullshit, you can always host it yourself.
I think the issue is one of scale. Having non-perfect free-speech is fine on your usual forum site, and somewhat has to be used to ensure quality. While, at the absolutely massive scale that Reddit and other social media giants are at, they (in my view) should essentially have very little to no say in what content appears upon the site. Now, individual moderators for subreddits could be more stringent due to being sub-communities (and thus smaller).
This would allow high quality moderation that lets communities focus on topics without as much worry about free-speech issues. Essentially allowing the classic, 'Go build your own social media' be actually possible since the communities that may not like your content are sufficiently small.
This sounds good until you realize that we're dealing with literal-not-figurative fascists here. The world has figured out how to deal with a Nazi. I've linked this elsewhere in the thread, but it is worth understanding the lessons of this story deeply: https://twitter.com/IamRageSparkle/status/128089153745134387...
Say you're something anodyne, like /r/RomanHistory or something (I don't know if that's real). For obvious reasons, that is a topic that Western fascists really like; they're gonna come by, even if their "fascist hat" isn't on right that second. But that train's never late, that fascist hat goes on eventually. And the first fascist might be polite. So might his friends. And maybe you see a few off-color jokes that maybe you, as a slightly-but-not-heavily-invested mod, slap down--but those jokes are the way that they start to find each other. And meanwhile, as things grow? What often happens is that one of their more buttoned-up types ends up on your moderation team, because hey, they're Respected By The Community (and this happens in person, too, when it comes to groups and political entities; this is a very common foot-in-the-door tactic). And then it just grows from there. Maybe you've got the spine to "ruin everything" by kicking them out at this point, by cutting out the rot, but that's going to hurt and hmm, maybe it's best to just go along and get along, especially because any time you try to act against it, you've got those folks who pipe up about how Nazis should have freedom of speech too, even if you don't like their ideas...
...and now you have a fascist community.
"Strong moderation"--the bartender in that story telling the first fascist to get the hell out--is not something that can be even remotely taken for granted. You must insulate your systems against fascism because it is a hack of the system. The instinctual emotional attack it employs on a liberal order requires so much more work to stop than it does to continue that anywhere it can take root, it can strangle everything else. This is real, and this is what those coded "free speech ideals" are being weaponized to protect while it grows.
This is wrong on so many levels. You are encouraging witch hunts based on fear and paranoia. Moderation is about maintaining order, not slapping down baddies. You could argue that one leads to the other, but it's the difference in mindset that allows for effective moderation without the need for all that negativity.
> Moderation is about maintaining order, not slapping down baddies.
That's the same thing.
I have several friends who are professors of medieval history. For various reasons, fascists are really interested in medieval european history and like to attend conferences as "independent scholars". They pass out propaganda and harass scholars who have the gall to do things like discuss women in medieval europe or any form of cultural transmission between europe and the islamic world. The solution has been to rip this stuff out. You can't have "order" in the conference where people are able to share actual scholarly work while free of harassment without "slapping down the fascists".
I disagree. You can enforce behavioral restrictions without reducing it to us vs them. It is about order and maintaining good relations. In the case of people disrupting your conference, you can have them removed for their behavior without resorting to name calling and framing it like you're "fighting fascists". It's like policing. If you reduce it to "catching bad guys", you won't get good police.
Why is it always an expectation that people handle fascists with kid gloves?
Some racist asking questions at a panel about wild shit they read online is a waste of conference time. 20 racists asking questions at a panel about wild shit they read online ruins entire conferences. You need to nip that in the bud.
I assume you know this and the question was rhetorical, but in this case, you're being told to handle white supremacists with kid gloves because you're talking to a white supremacist. (Check the username, check his commentary history, he's just Another One Of Those.)
Occasionally they have useful idiots carving out their elbow room, but the heartening thing about 2020--maybe the only thing--is that there are ever fewer useful idiots, and instead rhetorical positions like this have to be taken up by folks who just don't hide their "power levels" the way they would need to for adequate opsec.
I moderate one fairly active and one very in-active discussion groups.
The actual work is very similar, only varying in quantity.
On both groups, there are regulars, regulars with known triggers, casuals who might become regulars, and flamers. The regulars with specific triggers can be progressively discouraged.
The flamers must be stopped hard, or else they dominate conversation for days or weeks, making everyone else unhappy. You can give them a second chance, but not a third.
So this is an idea we should apply, then? We have to worry about Stalinists as well as Nazis though, because Stalin killed more people than Hitler. So anyone espousing Soviet ideas like socialized medicine should be excommunicated as well, shouldn't they?
But you can put a lot of harm down to the excesses of capitalism too. We could eject anyone expressing sympathies for that Adam Smith fellow as well.
> So anyone espousing Soviet ideas like socialized medicine should be excommunicated as well
That's a Soviet idea? It seems national health insurance was first conceived in Imperial Germany[0] (which the Weimar Republic, then the Nazis continued), then adopted in Britain, then Imperial Russia (which presumably the Soviets continued). Get your facts straight.
Who is talking about where an idea originated? Many of these ideas predate written language. Nazis didn't invent racism either, are you trying to say that racism isn't a Nazi idea? The context is clearly that it's an idea associated with them.
> The context is clearly that it's an idea associated with them.
Is it? Says who? The Soviets did a great many things. It doesn't mean all of them are "Soviet things". Nationalized healthcare predates the Soviets, still exists in nearly all capitalist countries in one form or another, and is viewed largely positively in each of those countries.
The Soviets had a powerful military and infamous police force. When you say "Soviet Russia" the average person will think "Red Army" and "KGB" before nationalized healthcare. Going by your logic are the military and police "socialist ideas"? They use government money to provide an equal level of service to all inhabitants of the nation - namely protecting and safeguarding them. Police and military obviously predate socialism/communism but the Soviets were renowned for them, so that makes them socialist ideas, right?
Comparing racism in Nazism - a core central tenet, and one that's actively harmful, to nationalized healthcare in communism - an incidental feature, mostly positive, and also found in nearly every capitalist country, is a strawman.
Where? In most of the Western countries that have it, it post-dates WWII, and corresponds to the replacement of capitalism in the relatively pure sense with the modern mixed economy, which is arguably more Marxist than the USSR and other “Communist” regimes based on Leninism and it's descendants.
Nazism isn’t just any philosophy that has harmed people though, it’s a philosophy based on the innate premise of harming people. There is a major difference between arguing for something that the other side believe will cause harm, and arguing for something that’s primary goal is to cause harm.
Or, put another way, saying its rapidly getting out of hand because you make assumptions about what else could be banned is the slippery slope fallacy. Saying what exactly constitutes unacceptable speech on a given platform just needs to be specifically defined.
The original claim was that you have to preemptively eject anyone with even a weakly implied fascist sympathy because otherwise you'll soon be overrun with actual Nazis. No sense of irony in claiming that a counterargument is the slippery slope fallacy?
And the point I'm making isn't that you would eject all communists and capitalists in practice, it's that you would have to do so in a consistent application of that principle. It's a reductio ad absurdum. You can take anything and find a tenuous connection from there to something terrible, so arguing that we have to ban the anything because allowing it would enable an influx of people connected to the something terrible is ridiculous. Applied as a consistent principle it would require you to ban everything.
I am wary of continuing to feed the troll, but you understand that there's a difference of kind between a communist and a Stalinist, yes? Tankies can and should be bopped on sight, too. There is a crucial difference, in that they are not generally actively attempting to subvert the liberal order--they are disorganized and, tbh, generally not really capable of doing so--but they don't belong in decent company either.
