I would imagine you would also want to avoid getting on their list if you ever wanted to travel to there as a tourist.

This isn’t a trolley problem. Killing CEOs is not going to save any more lives or “fix the system” in any way.

There’s no guarantee that the new CEO will be better or worse, and if they feel threatened enough they’ll just hire security.

Except, if we already had protections to prevent this from happening, then it wouldn’t have happened… Or at least the FDIC would have actually stepped in by now to pay everyone back and track down all the funds themselves.

I’ve never looked into Blockchain Capital much before, some quick search results show that they have invested in BlueSky (not enough to own/run the company from what I could find), but I don’t see anything that associates them with nazis.

How are you defining nazis here? What leads you to believe that Blockchain Capital is a nazi company? What links are there from Steve Banon to Blockchain Capital?

Do you just call the owners of any company a Nazi? How are you defining Nazis here?
Judging by your upvotes I must be out of the loop on something here.

I tried to look into this claim and all I found was a CEO that’s also a software dev Jay Graber: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Graber (Nothing controversial that I could find in her posts at a cursory glance)

A software dev that worked on XMPP (Jeremy Miller): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremie_Miller

And the CEO and founder of TechDirt (Mike Masnick): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Masnick

What do you mean by “allow you to kill a 3rd party”?

Like if rioters are breaking into your window and start trying to pull you out through it, then you floor it and kill someone else in the crowd who wasn’t actively breaking into your car?

This is something that’s going to vary from state to state, but ultimately it will be a case by case decision where a jury will decide if the use of deadly force was reasonable.

You will be judged based on other’s perception of the events, not based solely whether you yourself thought you were in danger or not.

So, someone trying to “drive slowly” through a group of protesters would probably be found at fault, while a car that was stuck trying to wait patiently suddenly having a Molotov cocktail thrown on it would be judged differently. Even then they will need to consider whether you could have just gotten out of your car and run.

https://www.reuters.com/article/world/fact-check-drivers-dont-have-the-right-to-plow-through-protesters-idUSKBN23B39F/

Misleading title, this was a Missouri State case, not a federal one.

That being said, there are way too many innocent people getting killed for crimes they did not commit.

The only purpose of the death penalty is revenge. It has no place in a modern society.

When you fail the Captcha test… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UymlSE7ax1o

Woah, I wish I had known about this sooner. Thanks!

What economic concept are you proposing that’s better than the current systems in place?

At least government regulations can help keep capitalism in check, but taking that too far leads to monopolies and dictatorships.

I suppose if you’re not trying to let people know that their views are not acceptable then you’re part of the problem.

Yes, but how are you approaching this discussion?

I think there are different ways to handle this. On one hand you can be hostile and “give them what they deserve”. On the other hand you can engage in friendly arguments.

This is a story about how someone from the Westboro Baptist Church left because of the way that people engaged with her. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVV2Zk88beY

What’s worth noting from this story, people that were hostile in their interactions with her only served to entrench her further in her ideals.

What caused her to change her mind were the people that had “friendly arguments” and made an effort to learn where she was coming from.

She listed out 4 key points when engaging in difficult conversations. I extracted/paraphrased some of what she said below:

1. Don’t assume bad intent (assume good or neutral intent instead) - Assuming ill motive almost instantly cuts you off from truly understanding why someone does and believes as they do. We forget that they’re a human being with a lifetime of experience that shaped their mind and we get stuck on that first wave of anger and the conversation has a very hard time ever moving beyond it.

2. Ask Questions - Asking questions helps us map the disconnect. We can’t present effective arguments if we don’t understand where the other side is coming from.

3. Stay calm - She though that “[her] rightness justified [her] rudeness”. When things get too hostile during a conversation, tell a joke, recommend a book, change the subject, or excuse yourself from the conversation. The discussion isn’t over, but pause it for a time to let tensions dissapate.

4. Make the argument - One side effect of having strong beliefs is that we sometimes assume that the value of our position is, or should be, obvious and self-evident. That we shouldn’t have to defend our positions because they’re so clearly right and good. If it were that simple, we would all see things the same way.

You can’t expect others to spontaneously change their minds. If we want change, we have to make the case for it.

Not a surprise considering Governor Hochul sabotaged the bill just before signing it:
https://odysee.com/governor-hochul-sabotages-ny-right-to

Most of those videos are also found on YouTube. I would expect that you don’t see those videos suggested to you because the algorithm has learned what you like to watch.

If you open up YouTube with a VPN and in a private tab you’ll likely get search results that include a mix from both the right and the left.

I’d rather not link to them, but from the ones you circled, these are the videos that I found on YouTube while doing a quick search:

• The Babylon Bee video
• The Paris Olympics opening ceremony video
• The Assassins Creed video

Now please excuse me as I purge my history…

One of the major problems with Lemmy is that many posts get deleted and that nukes the comment section (which is where most of the answers will be).

I wish Lemmy deleted posts closer to how Reddit deletes posts - the post content should be deleted, but leave the comments alone.

Thanks! It’s a good read and I like the idea of a private cloud compute (PCC) system, but that doesn’t mention anywhere that ChatGPT will be running in that PCC system (if you were trying to imply that).

And while OpenAI could implement something similar to PCC, I haven’t seen them announce that anywhere either.

I’d say the proof is on Apple to show that it’s being done on-device or that all processing is done on iCloud servers.

You’re saying that OpenAI is just going to hand over their full ChatGPT model for Apple to set up on their own servers for free?

But from the article itself:

the partnership could burn extra money for OpenAI, because it pays Microsoft to host ChatGPT’s capabilities on its Azure cloud

I get it if they created a small version of their LLM to run locally, but I would expect Apple to pay a price even for that.

I think you may be confusing this ChatGPT integration with Apple’s own LLM that they’re working on… Again, from the linked article:

Still, Apple’s choice of ChatGPT as Apple’s first external AI integration has led to widespread misunderstanding, especially since Apple buried the lede about its own in-house LLM technology that powers its new “Apple Intelligence” platform.

What? No. I would rather use my own local LLM where the data never leaves my device. And if I had to submit anything to ChatGPT I would want it anonymized as much as possible.

Is Apple doing the right thing? Hard to say, any answer here will just be an opinion. There are pros and cons to this decision and that’s up to the end user to decide if the benefits of using ChatGPT are worth the cost of their data. I can see some useful use cases for this tech, and I don’t blame Apple for wanting to strike while the iron is hot.

There’s not much you can really do to strip out identifying data from prompts/requests made to ChatGPT. Any anonymization of that part of the data is on OpenAI to handle.
Apple can obfuscate which user is asking for what as well as specific location data, but if I’m using the LLM and I tell it to write up a report while including my full name in my prompt/request… that’s all going directly into OpenAIs servers and logs which they can eventually use to help refine/retrain their model at some point.

I’m sure you understand this, but anonymized data doesn’t mean it can’t be deanonymized. Given the right kind of data, or enough context they can figure out who you are fairly quickly.

Ex: You could “Anonymize” gps traces, but it would still show the house you live at and where you work unless you strip out a lot of the info.

http://androidpolice.com/strava-heatmaps-location-identity-doxxing-problem/

Now with LLMs, sure, you could “anonymize” which user said or asked for what… but if something identifying is sent in the request itself, it won’t be hard to deanonymize that data.

This is the summary of all the notifications received by each of the students. According to the article we don’t know how many students there were for that specific source image.

Imagine a scale, on one end is a market economy where the government does not regulate it in any way, and does not own any part of it in any way. This is pure capitalism/laissez fair capitalism, whatever you want to call it. And you are correct, it does not exist today in any country (and that’s a good thing in my opinion).

On the other end of that scale would be an economy that is completely controlled/owned/regulated by the government (for example, communism).

In economic terms, every country falls on that scale with some balance between a completely free market economy and how much regulation they impose as well as what kind of industries they control/own.

If someone is going to blame capitalism for “ruining everything” they are basically asking for a market system where everything is controlled/owned by the government. Where monopolies are rampant, and the citizens have no choice except for what the government or dictatorship has decided. In my opinion, this is also a bad choice.

If I am wrong about what they are asking for, feel free to point out the economy of a country that they are saying we should follow. In other words, if not capitalism, what are you asking for?