stavrianos

6 ms·

1.
by stavrianos 2y ago
Low trust world, I guess. If I'm poking around to see whether I like something or not, no way am I giving it a real email.
2.
by stavrianos 2y ago
this is a _very_ false dichotomy
3.
by stavrianos 3y ago
The problem with facebook isn't that individual users sometimes do bad things on it's platform.
4.
by stavrianos 3y ago
Compare to trademark genericization, where a brand name becomes the word for a whole product category, and loses trademark protection because our use of the word is more important than their use of the brand. That's not something that
5.
by stavrianos 3y ago
> This will be easily proven by people moving from Reddit to an alternative. Or disproven by not moving to an alternative. This ignores the nature of network effects. The value of the thing is precisely that other people are using it. Th
6.
by stavrianos 3y ago
In regards to the idea of reddit rent-seeking - the primary value of reddit is not something they create, it's something they _host_. It could be anywhere, but by dint of network effects, it happens to be there. Reddit is not valuable
7.
by stavrianos 3y ago
I was absolutely not using the term in a legal sense. Is "commons" even a legal term? I suppose I should have said "should be a commons" - as in, a publicly generated and maintained 'good thing' (susceptible to
8.
by stavrianos 3y ago
We could fight about the actual value of the CPU, HDD, network, etc is. Not literally zero. The manpower to keep it running is a stronger argument, but I still think it's missing the point. The real value is the community generated con
9.
by stavrianos 3y ago
I keep seeing people talking about chatgpt hallucinating when it's wrong, but not when it's right. Maybe I've misunderstood, but isn't it just always hallucinating? It's not like the failure-mode is meaningfully dif
10.
by stavrianos 4y ago
I've seen this conversation before, but I've never been clear on what exactly the consequences of the SSO are. I imagined, it might be that the provider gets an IP address when you connect or something. You're saying they pot
11.
by stavrianos 4y ago
What precisely are the consequences of the third-party auth? Is it, they get an IP ping each time a device connects or does anything? Or, does that only happen once, but they can revoke access at any time? *Surely* they aren't granted
12.
by stavrianos 8y ago
> sperm rates in women remain constant
13.
by stavrianos 8y ago
> Remember, you're part of the government. This is a really important idea, and I don't think I've seen it expressed so clearly before. Thank you.
14.
by stavrianos 8y ago
Easy: anyone who isn't specified gets the higher rate.
15.
by stavrianos 8y ago
Exactly this. Assuming that shadow-profiles are derived on-demand, the only way to "delete" one would be to delete the datapoints it's built from. We know that facebook can use contact info to identify clusters, right? Suppos
16.
by stavrianos 9y ago
> The majority of people need a truck a few times a year at most. There's a big grey area around the word "need". The list of things that can be done with a truck, that can't be done with a strong-ish car/van and
17.
by stavrianos 9y ago
From outside, there's no fundamental difference between a good argument and a persuasive one, even though they're ideally orthogonal. If there's an argument that seems good, and you don't understand why people don't
18.
by stavrianos 9y ago
We don't need it to simulate the universe for a billions of years. We just need it to simulate your belief that it happened for a couple of seconds.
19.
by stavrianos 10y ago
Bet you I can!
20.
by stavrianos 10y ago
Doors it follow that everyone wandering into that radius for the same text?
21.
by stavrianos 10y ago
Ha! Bet they don't. This is exactly how superstitions are made.
22.
by stavrianos 10y ago
Well, I mean, you have to consume enough power to get a jumbo jet up to cruising speed.
23.
by stavrianos 11y ago
Alright, but now you trust that person. Which might be fine, but as an exercise in paranoia is not the greatest answer. As a social proof, somewhat better - create the opportunity for many people to examine, and at least some of them will
24.
by stavrianos 11y ago
But, at some point there must be trust. If you don't trust software, you can try to sandbox it, but now you have to trust the sandbox. This devolves very rapidly. Open source at least provides a facsimile of recourse - just go read
25.
by stavrianos 11y ago
Systems designed to prevent black swan events need to be evaluated against a higher standard than "there haven't been any since we started". That's not success, it's exactly what we would have expected anyways.
26.
by stavrianos 11y ago
Compare to: what large tigers have attacked me since mass surveillance began?
27.
by stavrianos 11y ago
There's an interesting class of actions in there, which are fine in principle, but in practice cannot be reasonably expected to be understood, rendering consent impossible. The moral imperative to not be confusing.
28.
by stavrianos 11y ago
Sure, sure, in most contexts code as communication medium is laudable. Here, the game is to make people accustomed to understanding go "the hell just happened?" when it works. I like it.
29.
by stavrianos 11y ago
In a hypothetical where the government doesn't exist to provide justice, "vigilante justice" would be the only justice. Whether vigilante justice is preferable to a total absence of justice is the question. More generally,
30.
by stavrianos 11y ago
This is how the arms race begins. Soon the manufacturers will know how much the equipment weighs, and if the car's total weight is within tolerance for that plus a test driver, the mechanisms activate. Or whatever - the point isn'

More ›