MikeGale

8 ms·

1.
by MikeGale 2y ago
The original concept looks good but it, seemingly, didn't last. The business model of, "owned by somebody who can sell it", may be at the root. The possibilities that existed then, exist now, if people want to make the effort
2.
by MikeGale 2y ago
I've found myself trying to avoid email, for the enshittification that I've not been able to avoid. This will make it worse. Solutions? At least some could involve key exchange. How about a bounty of some sort on spammers?
3.
by MikeGale 2y ago
The program is gold. It enables you to speedily and almost effortlessly build up code, in a way that I haven't seen elsewhere.
4.
by MikeGale 2y ago
One formulation is that these are hallucinations. Another is that these systems are "orthogonal to truth". They have nothing to do with truth or falsity. One expression of that idea is in this paper: https://link.spri
5.
by MikeGale 3y ago
If there's an option to using alternatives to those you don't trust, like Google or Apple, that's good. If not you need to find an alternative service. You need the choice.
6.
by MikeGale 3y ago
Facebook does this already. Not only posts and comments but also messages between two people. The system is used to hide content, change content, shadow ban and the like. Even by its own standards it's typically used incorrectly, but
7.
by MikeGale 4y ago
I'm unconvinced that this was dealing with humans. To me it looks like automated systems that synthesise human style interactions. The code isn't ready for release but they did anyway. A person can't be that stupid, can the
8.
by MikeGale 5y ago
On this issue I suggest figuring it out for yourself. Look into the technology a bit and decide. This issue illustrates that public pronouncements and published material can be misinformation and opposite to the obvious truth. Great ways
9.
by MikeGale 5y ago
I'm not using DDG but I have checked how many sites use Google facilities which track. A lot more than 0.3.
10.
by MikeGale 5y ago
1. Many of the creators of web sites and many of the users have changed. The creators often know diddly squat except some framework, they often work for a dullard and produce dull nonsense. The audience is often deeply "consumer&quo
11.
by MikeGale 5y ago
Roger made a major contribution, in a quiet way. Thoughts are with all those who miss him.
12.
by MikeGale 5y ago
How do we even know, from that article, that this is a computer generated being?
13.
by MikeGale 5y ago
A defeatist piece. If you're determined and have initiative you can achieve a lot. If you depend on the legislators in society, like this author, you may indeed be doomed. But you don't need to be. The good thing is that with d
14.
by MikeGale 5y ago
This needs to be opt in. Both from a web site and from a user.
15.
by MikeGale 6y ago
I see something which may be referred to here. I'm acquainted with people on social media who find that what they write on Facebook (say) is banned by the algorithmic being that reads before you post. Sometimes posts disappear. Somet
16.
by MikeGale 6y ago
The decision making points seem to be known: * Google kills projects at an increasing rate, the warning may be days * Google has in the past destroyed quality images in their care * If you don't pay you have only yourself
17.
by MikeGale 6y ago
I haven't signed up with Signal because it's a source of surveillance for me. It gives out a phone number. It also leaks contact lists making it worse. A communication medium has no need to force people under surveillance. Why n
18.
by MikeGale 6y ago
Should you not tell your contacts that you gave their details to Clubhouse?
19.
by MikeGale 6y ago
Just remember, Iranian intelligence is no doubt monitoring this discussion.
20.
by MikeGale 6y ago
Is there any need not to have, online, in person discussions and learn for yourself, mixed to suit you and the institution? I think not. Neither a one size fits all online lecture nor a physical lecture with a lot of students, is tailored
21.
by MikeGale 6y ago
I don't understand the background here. There is one thing we can all do, if we care about Tor, donate now.
22.
by MikeGale 6y ago
I suspect that there are organisations that deliberately design their reporting systems to prevent reporting. This article covers some big name companies, there are others that are critical too: 1. National tax collection organisations. 2.
23.
by MikeGale 7y ago
Why isn't there a successful distributed alternative to YouTube and the like?
24.
by MikeGale 7y ago
Some things to consider (we're doing most of these): 1. Find out what is going on, the Interwebs are your friends. The press and politicians aren't much use. The bureaucracy (China, Japan, Iran for example) are not much use and
25.
by MikeGale 7y ago
A fascinating area. I've seen several people getting into it in one way or another: Blendle The system in the Brave browser Scroll ... What I really want is: 1. A friction free way to pay what I want AFTER I've read an article (
26.
by MikeGale 7y ago
The article comes on so strong that many will be inclined not to believe it. One point. The encrypted systems are many and not inter-operable. That's a problem for me and many others.
27.
by MikeGale 7y ago
I’ve recently withdrawn from email, Internet and TV for a while. I’m currently reconnecting. My main observation is that I’m happy getting back onto the things where I exert some control. Those with little control are harder to stomach: 1.
28.
by MikeGale 7y ago
Remarkable how these debates reveal how many have a "scientific" attitude. Generally very few. There is no such thing as "done science". Science is about hypotheses that are questioned and challenged to come up with a
29.
by MikeGale 7y ago
I find it interesting how this sort of thing is spreading so far. The CCP state, Facebook, Google... now Gaggle. I hope there's some studies of the damage such things do to people. How much do they lose the ability to control their o
30.
by MikeGale 7y ago
Thanks, I haven't noticed any of those comments. I'll mull that over.

More ›