So fuck people with disabilities then?

Your still believe computers are machines and not hand tools at this point.

How much copy paste do you think the average user actually uses of their computer?

Then they will never script anything. They will never automate a task themselves. They will only ever operate a computer manually, interactively, rather than programmatically.

Here’s the thing.

Most people don’t care about automation. They just don’t.

The objective of Linux is to put the spoon on the tray of your toddler’s high chair. Linux encourages her to pick it up, poke it at her food, and keep encouraging her to learn, to develop and build on her skills, until she is asking for the fork, the knife.

And your still refusing the point. People don’t want a knife and a fork. You can’t make them want it. They want something they can intuitively understand. Because to most people, tech is a basic tool to get another job done.

Most people only need a basic hammer, screwdriver, etc…

That’s all they need to do what they need day to day to get other things done.

Machinists need more complicated tools with tons of settings, complicated setup and saftey to know. So they spend the time learning. But you don’t need a wood shop to hang a picture frame.

This is before we even talk about accessibility. That means much more than large fonts or screen readers. It’s also about the fact humans exist on distribution curves in every possible way. For some people, it will just never make sense. No matter what you do. Because it’s just not how their brains work. In the same way mine can’t do languages very well. It just doesn’t click for me. And deep dives into computers wont click for some. Should they never learn to use a computer? Or can they learn basic enough functions from good GUIs to get by.

It’s even fine to say linux isn’t meant for that. But if you want everyone to get away from macOS and Windows, you need a viable alternative for everyone

Okay, still a non sequiter then, because that law has nothing to do with what you responded. Which was the point of getting that law, because no where does it call the actions you replied to moderation.

And for all I know your a Russian troll so have fun with that.

This website is filled with people who were banned for just that. Check out /c/Reddit ( pretty sure it’s on lemmy.world)

So yea, it’s happening, and is exactly what you were replying to. Calling that moderation is a pretty far stretch.

https://web.archive.org/web/20250313203719/https://slate.com/technology/2025/03/reddit-elon-musk-luigi-mangione-censorship.html

I’m gonna need an EU law citation there.

Because banning people for upvoting the word Luigi isn’t EU law.

That’s not what they’re asking for. They’re asking for the ability for it to not generate that sentence again.

Sure, but are you suggesting they somehow encoded, falsely, that they were a murder?

Because it’s very unlikely.

It fabricated this from no where. So there’s nothing to delete. Because it’s just a response to a prompt.

Your still placing more intent and facts into those processes than actually exist.

You cant even get it to count how many letter p are in the word apple. At least not last time I tried.

That storage your talking about isn’t facts. It’s how sentences are structured and what they “mean”.

As for the output “meaning” it’s still just guessing what you want to hear. No facts involved.

It’s not unreadable, it doesn’t exist.

The responses are just statistically what sounds vaugly what you want to hear.

They can erase the chat responses, but that won’t stop it from generating it again.

Generative AI doesn’t start with facts and work from there. It’s just statistically what you want to hear.

So the general tailscale actually uses peer to peer wiregaurd connections. Headscale is the middle point to negotiate these wiregaurd connections.

So none of the traffic moves through the VPS.

As for a VPS itself, it’s noore unsafe than your local bare metal. It’s still an application publicly exposed and needs basic precautions like fail2ban or crowdsec

So why is that in the news then?

That’sy entire point. It doesn’t belong in news it belongs in academic settings because that’s what it’s a call for.

Because I’m not going to listen to some random “expert” without peer reviewed literature?

Yeah, no…

Fun fact. In North America you can get your pilots license at 16 in Canada and I believe the US, and yet there’s been nothing reported there? So nope still don’t buy it.

And where do you think ANC tech was developed? Bose literally made their name in aviation headsets.

“Noise-cancelling is dangerous in general” is something you read into the article. It’s not actually there. What it’s saying is “young people should watch their use of noise-cancelling headphones as the auditory system needs exposure to noise to properly develop”. That’s it. It’s a “young people, have an eye on this” thing, not “burn your headphones”.

Your still listening to someone just shouting into a microphone. Why should I take them seriously?

You say this like pilots, young and old, haven’t been using ANC headphones for decades safely at this point.

And no, just because someone says something could be a risk, doesn’t mean we all respond. I mean that’s literally the lesson we learned from the vacines cause autism. What are you even talking about it’s okay to just wildly speculate.

And yet that didn’t stop the ACTUAL harm it caused.

You are right there’s never been any credible evidence.

But I wasn’t claiming that.

I was claiming it was irresponsible to report on such an early finding in the media without proper verification and actual conclusive studies.

Almost like the BBC article here in question.

Because that worked so well for Dr. Wakefield

We also had an expert who started the vacines cause autism trying to peddle a new replacement for the MMR vaccine. (This is my opinion based on the research done Here )Just because “an expert” says something, doesn’t mean it’s true. And blindly listening to them can cause harm as well.

This is a fallacy called Argument of authority

No, it’s completely irresponsible to say something not peer reviewed and actually studied.

Sure, but it’s still pretty irresponsible of the BBC to publish what is effectively educated guesses as something to be concerned about.

This belongs in an academic article. Not a news one.

If it helps make more sense, WordPress owns tumblr.