Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:As much as I despise social media (Score 1) 74

These activities alone should disqualify a site from Section 230 protections.

Removing section 230 protections isn't the fix. Once you start opening that door there's no closing it. It absolutely will be done unfairly. Algorithmically displaying content has legitimate uses. The question is, how do you regulate only the harmful ones? I like seeing what I'm looking for, so I want algorithmic content, I just don't want the algorithms to be designed to make me feel bad.

Comment Re:In which 3rd world country can we store the was (Score 1) 60

DEF systems on heavy vehicles work, but they're fairly, well, heavy.

They aren't. There's a reservoir, a pump, and an injector, besides the SCR. But the SCR is already present, it's just a little different in systems with DEF.

Among other thing, they use electrical heat to get up to operating temperature.

That's for freezing conditions. There's a resistor in the reservoir, big whoop.

Then there's the issue of needing the fluid. For earthmoving equipment and railway locos, they'd rather not deal with that and have gone with complex EGR systems with liquid cooling instead.

Cooled EGR is not an either-or to DEF. You can have both.

Comment Re:Child harm? (Score 2) 74

Indeed, it's extremely laughable to think that Muslims are all Democrats, when they are part of a conservative faith. It's exactly like believing that evangelical Christians are all Democrats.

Unfortunately, most people aren't going to take the step to figure out that their conservatism is just like the conservatism of the people rejecting them.

Comment Re:As much as I despise social media (Score 1) 74

Whether you like it or not, social media is the new public square.

We can and should regulate how the creators of social media networks take advantage of their positions of authority and control. There is absolutely, positively, and in every other way no reason why we can not or should not do that. There is no principle under which a hands-off approach makes sense.

Comment Re:In related news, (Score 1) 74

If it is known that social media harms kids, then doesn't the state share some of the blame? Why is there no law?

The gears of justice grind slowly. This is by design. When you go fast, you break things. And also, no. The state didn't make them do it.

If it is not known (or only recently came to light), can you really blame the social media companies?

Yes, you could. But that's not the case. They know and have known. We've talked about that here a bunch. They willfully conduct psychological experiments on users and monitor the impact.

If the harmful effects were known to the companies and they kept it quiet, then you'd have a case, morally speaking.

That's why there's a case... no, wait, thousands of cases.

Facebook willfully psychologically manipulates people into vulnerable emotional states in order to increase engagement, they take advantage of that by knowingly spreading false information and have actually reduced the number of people they have working on reducing the false information and replaced them with automated systems which produce false positives which punish users who are conforming to their rules and standards, but seemingly do nothing to prevent actual violations.

Comment Re:Oh great! (Score 0) 23

A thing that often gets missed is that a lot of Adobe's users are extremely non-technical. They did not learn how to use graphics software, or DTP software; they learned how to use Photoshop, or InDesign. My mother was not a stupid person, but she was basically allergic to technology, and yet she managed to transition from doing physical pasteup with hand-done separations to working on a Macintosh and using Illustrator and Pagemaker. (This was long ago enough that Aldus was still a thing, and the Macintosh was a IIci with 5MB and a 8*30 non-GC card to run the Mac Two-Page Mono display.) And while InDesign is not quite as easy to use as Aldus Pagemaker was, because it does more stuff now, it's still quite comprehensible. I've used it for some projects, and it was still easy enough.

Comment Re:Justice delayed is justice denied (Score 1) 65

You would think that with a former-lawyer as the prime minister now it would get sorted

You'd think that with a former human rights lawyer as the prime minister, he wouldn't be so keen on shitting on human rights.

No for Starmer, everything was just a stepping stone on his career ladder.

It's weird but he's a vacuum. He doesn't appear to stand for anything in particular. This is why none of the decisions make much sense as a whole, why there's no coherence, why he has no articulated vision, why the policies are a complete mishmash.

But it's weirder. He doesn't even seem to stand for enriching himself beyond career climbing. He's somewhat non corrupt as these things go (I mean the glasses thing was dumb shit but small fry on the scale of these thing).

So sure he knows about the courts and human rights and etc but he doesn't stand for any of them.

Actually scratch that.

Judging him by what he's achieved, about the only thing he has been consistent on is a kind of petty authoritarianism with him in charge. This isn't even to say he hasn't done anything good (he manifestly has), but as part of a weird directionless morass (nationalise the trains, but repeat water company press releases about why that's impossible for water, for example).

Starmer is still better than the alternatives (Farage, Badenoch) but that's not saying much. The alternatives are just that shit.

Labour need to backtrack on the authoritarianism pronto, otherwise we'll be proper fucked the next time a real authoritarian gets in (like Trump bum buddy Farage). Some of the laws they're creating are made to be abused, even though Starmer isn't going to abuse them (he lacks the initiative, drive and imagination for that)

Comment Re:taxing unrealized gains is problematic (Score 1) 245

They have no problem taking out loans on unrealized assets so if they are worth it to the banks, they can pay taxes on them.

Be careful of this kind of rhetoric.

Billionaire trickle-down-fuck-YOU-pay-for-it-pleb economics will ensure retired homeowners on a fixed income end up losing their homes, because tax the shit out of those 'urealized gains' called home equity..

The simple answer to this is "if you want public money, give us parts of your company, otherwise fuck off and die". Also if we capped or outright stopped losses from being used to minimise taxes on profits it would help protect us against reckless billionaires.

Slashdot Top Deals

Failure is more frequently from want of energy than want of capital.

Working...