Chuck comes to mind. Brilliant show.
But also fitting to mention alongside Dollhouse considering the big names on both shows have significant controversy surrounding them. (Whedon being a sexual abuser, Levi being a zionist and antivaxer, and Baldwin being heavily involved in Gamer Gate.)
thoughts and prayers
And all the value that comes with them
the real challenge is writing privacy rules that survive the next pair of glasses too, not just banning today’s model
This phrasing is one you seem to use quite a lot, and your website has some pretty prominent use of AI art. Are you using AI in your posts & comments?
Anyway, for me the real challenge is coming up with a way to protect privacy vis a vis these glasses without restricting genuine public-interest video recording (e.g. recording police or someone threatening you) and protecting photographers’ right to create their art. I’ll just copy/paste a comment I made a few days ago in a similar thread:
As a photographer I’m a firm believer in the right to take photos and videos in public, for both artistic and documentary purposes. There is no expectation of privacy when in a public place and so objections to all forms of video recording in public places feel like dramatic overreach. The nebulous idea of a general “right to privacy” when in a public space should not override the right of artists to create art, or of anyone to document events/behaviours taking place in public.
But covertly recording using glasses that have no indicator or an inadequate indicator* in private spaces like changing rooms, or publishing the recordings of a conversation that the other party did not know was being recorded, feels like an overreach in the other direction. Banning devices that covertly record video from spaces where it’s deemed inappropriate feels like a pretty good balance.
* From what I’ve heard, these Facebook glasses have an indicator that is quite easy to remove aftermarket, and even if you don’t remove it, in brightly lit areas it’s pretty hard to tell it’s on anyway.
They’re overpriced though. I recommend the hilariously-badly-named Aldi alternatives, Just Divine. They’re like 90% as good as the name brand, at literally half the price.
Don’t go the Woolies home brand ones though. Those are terrible.
This is definitely not the reason I do it, but it’s an added advantage of always getting packages delivered to my AusPost parcel locker. They always arrive in a very consistent format and don’t require clicking any links.
Also, internet access is a privilege, not a right. ZigBee is often superior to WiFi too
I’m setting up a smarthome from scratch the last few days. After having Philips Hues and a Google Home for ages at my previous home, my new place has downlights rather than edison screws so none of my lights work and after a year I’m finally trying things out properly. Got a server with Home Assistant and border routers for Thread and Zigbee, bought a bunch of no-brand Zigbee downlights and Ikea sensors with Matter over Thread. No wifi is a hard requirement for me. For security reasons and for performance. I don’t want a dozen extraneous devices littering my wifi network.
if you have the time and patience to select the correct smart devices and set them up properly, you’re fine
Yup. If your smart devices use Thread or Zigbee (specifically not wifi—though wifi can be ok too if you use an entirely separate network for smart things) to communicate to a Home Assistant server in your home, the security and privacy risks and minimal.
speakers of 17th-century English would have similar problems with modern English
Late Shakespeare is in the early 17th century. It can sometimes take a moment to get attuned to the way of speaking, but their speech is absolutely intelligible to us, and barring some of the more out-there slang I suspect the reverse would also be true. You gotta go way further back to get seriously unintelligible.
Apparently it’s not what’s used here, but in case you’re interested, hose in English usually means a flexible, usually rubber, tube that water runs through, often used for things like watering plants or fighting fires. It’s also used to refer to a kind of historical trousers, or short for pantyhose to refer to a kind of (predominantly women’s) stocking.
Not all gods have been thought of as omniscient historically.
Not necessarily. It puts it where it belongs: on parents. Parents who buy computers and phones for their kids have the responsibility of supervising their use. My own preference is that this would be something that parents are encouraged to use through public education campaigns.
But yes, depending of the level of strictness, it could also be enforced at point of sale. A fairly standard practice. We’re already used to it with alcohol, cigarettes, knives. Heck, it’s already done when buying a SIM for your phone. It has the advantage of preserving the most important part of privacy—the link between the person and their activity. The phone store knows you bought a phone and that you’re an adult, but they have no idea what sites or apps you’re using.
how to solve it the age without leaking data to third party servers?
Really easily. There are multiple possible options, not all equally easy, but the best option for privacy is also the easiest.
You don’t do true age verification. You mandate that operating systems and browsers work out a parental controls API and require apps and websites support that API. Then you ask (if you really want, you could demand, but I’d prefer to ask or suggest) parents to ensure their kids’ devices are configured correctly. When a user tries to access an age-restricted site, it calls an API in their browser, which calls an API in the OS, which returns a simple true/false value based on whether or not the current profile is configured to be old enough to access it.
Adults don’t have to do anything to prove they are adults. Merely the fact that they were able to buy a device that they control and didn’t get configured as a child is the proof.
More complicated solutions if you really insist on having true age verification could involve blinded signatures. I can explain in more detail if people are interested, but the slightly simplified TL;DR is that you have a system where the user goes to a trusted age verifier (my preference is for governments to do this themselves rather than farm it out to private companies, but either works). They do the age verification using ID, face recognition, whatever, and send the user a special token that they can use to prove they were age verified but which the site can’t use to determine any personal details about the user. Meanwhile the age verifier doesn’t know what site the age verification was just done for.
Sure, but apartments, row houses, duplexes, and other medium- or higher-density housing are just so much better for not just the environment but also for people than sprawling single-family homes. It’s easier to get around your city if more things are closer together. Especially good if it means you don’t have to drive everywhere, but can take an easy walk or bike ride or make use of fast efficient public transport. It’s also better for the government because the cost of maintaining roads, sewerage, electricity, and other infrastructure is greatly lessened. Better for people’s health because less driving means cleaner local air and healthier personal lifestyles. And once people aren’t driving as much they’re more likely to spend money in the local economy rather than driving to big (inter)national chain stores that take the money out of the local region. It’s really win-win-win all around.
But as I write this, I’m wondering if perhaps we’re just having a miscommunication? In the interest of clarity, when we talk about single-family homes, what we’re talking about is something like this:
A large, separated property with fairly large front and back yards and strips of usable space down either side, where the whole property is occupied by one family. It’s not including apartments, row houses, or townhouses, even though those are homes that could be occupied by a single family. It also doesn’t count duplexes, fourplexes, etc., which could be special-made as duplexes or converted from single-family homes by dividing down the centre.
Urbanists promote medium- and higher-density mixed-use housing, they don’t necessarily want to push multi-generational households or share houses (though for sure there are, separately, reasonable discussions to be had around that). I don’t know if perhaps that’s what you were thinking of? It certainly seems unlikely that the guy you were speaking to was genuinely an urbanist, from what else I’m reading about him. But as I glibly said at the start of this, it’s certainly possible, because even the worst people sometimes have a good opinion.
I’m not here to argue. I’m just pointing out that, well, yeah. Single-family homes are fucking awful. They, and the suburban sprawl that accompanies them, are terrible for the environment and for society. None of this is particularly controversial, especially in an overwhelmingly leftist and not-car-brained space like the fediverse.
He was talking shit about single family homes.
Well, even terrible people can have good opinions sometimes.
Croquette roughly originally means nugget, but by extension effectively means kibble.
Du coup roughly means “as a result”.
Chiasse is diarrhoea.
So the right reads: you changed my kibble, and so I got diarrhoea.
While I’m fact checking though: cats have never been good rat killers. Mice, yes, but rats are too big. A cat could absolutely kill a rat, but the risk to it would be too great. They’d rather avoid it and go for easier prey.
All these AI companies MASSIVELY pirated the internet for training data
I think it’s worth being a little more careful with our phrasing here. AI companies definitely did illegal piracy to train their models, but that is a separate and distinct process from them trawling the web en mass. Anthropic, for example, recently settled a case with book publishers because it had pirated their books illegally. (Frustratingly, the second article that popped up when I searched to verify this was one that highlighted the fact that the TERF-in-chief is among the beneficiaries of that settlement.) But there is no clear legal answer to the question of whether crawling websites and training from their data constitutes even a civil tort, let alone illegal behaviour.
Other than that detail though, I think we’re in furious agreement. You’re simply restating my point, Cory’s point, and the subject of this article’s point, while doing so in a tone that implies disagreement. The problem isn’t the tech, it’s the humans using and creating the tech and the sociopolitical environment in which it happened.
Nope. That’s neither the law nor the ethical requirement. If it were, the entire genres of photojournalism and street photography would not exist. Things may change if it’s for commercial purposes such as an advertising campaign, or if it forms part of a pattern of stalking or harassment or similar, but the general baseline is exactly as I said: there is no expectation of privacy in public.