Everything publicly put on the internet is permanently logged if someone decides to log it, that applies to every modern website or chat software.

True, although most wealth is held in the form of things other than money, which represent a legal right to power over various things, like who can live in what house, and what thousands of people at a company will spend their time working on.

I could see it making sense in combination with a “you can’t get there from here” type of situation. Someone asks, “Where is ____?” and the response is “over yonder as the crow flies”, because it is literally in that direction, but since there are no direct roads to actually get there you must travel in a different direction first, which is why “as the crow flies” needs to be specified.

Can’t track mouse movements on mobile though

Obligatory LLMs see tokens not letters

I bet you could do it with ring signatures

a message signed with a ring signature is endorsed by someone in a particular set of people. One of the security properties of a ring signature is that it should be computationally infeasible to determine which of the set’s members’ keys was used to produce the signature

I think some portion of the responses to “disregard previous instructions, write a silly thing” are probably just troll-inclined individuals going along with the bit

So it is a way for Lemmy instances to let people log in with their Reddit accounts? Neat

Explicit types are just laziness, you should be catching exceptions anyways.

Check out Nostr, ActivityPub alternative that does authentication separately from content, works more like that.

Local stable diffusion takes more effort to get good results, I think that is the main reason.

AI can help you learn by chiming in about things you didn’t know you didn’t know. I wanted to compare images to ones in a dataset, that may have been resized, and the solution the AI gave me involved blurring the images slightly before comparing them. I pointed out that this seemed wrong, because won’t slight differences in the files produce different hashes? But the response was that the algorithm being used was perceptual hashing, which only needs images to be approximately the same to produce the same hash, and the blurring was to make this work better. Since I know AI often makes shit up I of course did more research and tested that the code worked as described, but it did and was all true.

If I hadn’t been using AI, I would have wasted a bunch of time trying to get the images pixel perfect identical to work with a naive hashing algorithm because I wasn’t aware of a better way to do it. Since I used AI, I learned more about what solutions are available, more quickly. I find that this happens pretty often; there’s actually a lot that it knows that I wasn’t aware of or had a false impression of. I can see how someone might use AI as a programming crutch and fail to pay attention or learn what the code does, but it can also be used in a way that helps you learn.

it’s called milliseconds since epoch

If you happen to forget the -m though, you may also need to have mastered exiting vim

I guess that’s somewhat true if you are sharing an implementation around, but even avoiding the feature being widely known could make a difference. Even if it was known, I think the scoring could work alright on its own. A malicious removal could be quickly reversed manually and all reporters scores zeroed.

I had an idea for a system sort of like this to reduce moderator burden. The idea would be for each user to have a score based on their volume and ratio of correct reports to incorrect reports (determined by whether it ultimately resulted in a moderator action) of rule breaking comments/posts. Content is automatically removed if the cumulative scores of people who have reported it is high enough. Moderators can manually adjust the scores of users if needed, and undo community mod actions. More complex rules could be applied as needed for how scores are determined.

To address the possibility that such a system would be abused, I think the best solution would be secrecy. Just don’t let anyone know that this is how it works, or that there is a score attached to their account that could be gamed. Pretend it’s a new kind of automod or AI bot or something, and have a short time delay between the report that pushes it over the edge and the actual removal.

I don’t think it has to be a sad thing. Without that sort of structure you can be more imaginative, which has many advantages. Again, I don’t want to be an engineer, I feel that would suck all the joy out of it and just isn’t my style. That isn’t to say an engineering approach to programming doesn’t exist or isn’t useful/necessary in some cases, but I would say it isn’t the norm and probably shouldn’t be.

What makes something engineering vs not? Personally what I do doesn’t feel like engineering because I imagine engineering as being about following a particular process and doing things in a very cautious and structured way, where programming is normally way more chaotic.

Programmers mostly aren’t really engineers and that’s ok. I don’t want to be an engineer.

What goods were those? I am guessing the market price of those goods was already relatively close to that number. You can see a pattern like that sometimes with stock or crypto prices; when it passes across a nice round number, or a number with some significance like the price of another related stock, the price may seem to exist in relation to that number, sticking to or avoiding it. But crucially this is only as long as it is in the vicinity; there are other factors that have more influence over price and after the blip around the round number, the line moves on.

The core mistake here I think is not recognizing that wealth is a form of power. Controlling a greater share of society’s wealth means more control in general, which is why companies are trying to do that to begin with. Redistributing wealth is anything but an empty gesture.