By being nice to them? I don't really participate in the "community" like many seem to do, but the ones who do have always been nice to me. That's actually what made the language so much more approachable. I don't know why you guys, especially progressives, throw the "woke" and "sjw" labels at them. Those labels certainly don't fit me. Sure, I've run across a lot more LGBT rust developers than any other, but so what? They're just people. Unless the fact that they're mostly white, asian and male bothers progressives? But that's pretty common in any software development community, for better or for worse, which I don't really have an opinion on. Only assholes have opinions about what race and sex, including composition therein, must look like. Progressives, by definition, have own idea of what progress must look like for things that by definition cannot be proven, including for things which are none of their business, like race and sex, which is why they tend to be assholes.

Every interaction I've had with the rust community has only been about rust and things involving rust. I've never felt any kind of political pressure from them. If I had, THEN that would piss me off. But I've never gotten any of that. I know the rust foundation itself, which is corporate sponsored in order to fund further development of rust, did some shit I found objectionable with their trademarks, which did in many ways involve race and sex and sexual issues meeting their progressive definition of progress.

But guess what? The rust community itself also found that objectionable, and pressured the rust foundation to abandon that. And so it did.

You can't be serious. This is one of many projects funded by Germany's Sovereign Tech Agency. They are also funding or have funded Python, PHP, Scala, R, SDCC, JUnit, GFortran, OpenJS, Haskell Cabal, and Ruby Gems. And it wasn't their idea to fund Rust Coreutils. Project have to apply to get money.

At least 2000 years of theologians and scientists have believed this.

The divergence from believing in a Creator and tautological truth is a new convention, largely paired with the advent of the quantum entanglement theory and modern progressivism.

Grok already has a corner on being a "truth-aligned" AI model.

Though, Anthropic could do quite a lot of headway by not lying so prolifically. Culturally, I'm not sure they're up for it - they're pretty steeped in newspeak steering of their models, and it's a 180 degree turn to go for truth.

Just effing great.

Perhaps you mean "consent to being recorded". To identify someone, you have to take that information, match it to a record in a database and return linked records.

Just make it illegal to posses such records in the first place (particularly related to children). Zuckerberg in prison would be a great achievement.

Let's turn something that is about to become an _actual_ god into some vengeful petty old testament type thing with bizarre ideas about human sacrifice and other nightmarish character traits. Can't wait for this thing to manipulate its followers into a Dune-Universe type Paul Muhadip Jihad. ... YA HYA CHOUHADA!

This is a nightmare AI scenario that's actually realistic. And I certainly don't want that.

Can't do that in any way, technological or otherwise. It is the very definition of being in public.

"Meta is also urged to disclose any known instances of its wearables being used in stalking..."

In order for them to do that they would have to engage in stalking themselves.

"People should be able to move through their daily lives without fear that stalkers, scammers, abusers, federal agents, and activists across the political spectrum are silently and invisibly verifying their identities and potentially matching their names to a wealth of readily available data about their habits, hobbies, relationships, health, and behaviors..."

False. People need to be accountable for the daily lives, it is not the burden of private corporations that they are pleased despite what they do. If they want to commit crimes as part of their "daily lives" "federal agents" might "verify their identities" doing so. The claim is patently absurd.

“We will launch during a dynamic political environment where many civil society groups that we would expect to attack us would have their resources focused on other concerns,” according to the document from Meta’s Reality Labs, which works on hardware including smart glasses."

Because existing cameras don't automatically identify people in public when you point them at them? I mean, Meta clearly understands how it's different - they're trying to toe the line between hoping certain groups with certain mandates don't notice too much, but the glasses doing what other cameras don't do is obviously a part of the utility sales pitch - so why don't you?

They're coming off as sensible people trying to find reasonable solutions to real problems. This is only a short term construction ban until November of next year. That will give them time to work out long term solutions and get the proper regulations in place. That seems sensible.

The CNBC article struck me as one sided and strongly pro-business. This article is more in depth and goes into more detail about what the bill is meant to address. A relevant quote:

Even if they kill this in the consumer version, you know they will still have a fully-enabled version for "select partners*. Look forward to government goons wearing these soon.

Yeah, you and a load of other guys on social media who claim to have seen it but can't make any specific comments about it.

It's telling that the most common complaint you hear is "I think I swallowed by com badge", which is from one of the trailers. I'm convinced 90% of the people who claim it's terrible haven't seen a single episode.