This is an ad. At least tuta marked it but that doesn’t make it way better.

All YouTube “options” are YouTube frontends. All android “alternatives” are android - which isn’t the guides fault as there are none in my opinion. Still unserious from my point of view.

It’s once more a catch all “guide” that doesn’t guide but simply mentions enough popular alternatives to get popularity.

If you do don’t trust em then don’t update syncthing - it’ll work for quite a while I assume.

And in addition the keepass safe default encryption of AES-256 and is even secure against theoretically existing quantum computer attacks to our current knowledge. It is designed to be not trusted by the storage owner :)

They are employed by themselves. They are not employed AS anything else. You have it right just your conclusion is inconsistent.

It’s for me not about the wording of the last paragraph by the way but about the context and requirements list which makes the impression (to me) of offering an employee/employer relationship which is only broken up in the last line. That’s the part I really don’t like.

This kind of advertisement would be illegal in Germany btw as it would encourage pseudo self employment: someone self employed who is relying on one client only. (And no, not exaggerated: I’ve a legal department at least pull job description from the tech dept similar to this).

Heh I literally at the same time you posted answered to someone else that I think I er where I’m coming from.

Personally my issue is more with the framing (“looking for an employee”) than with the fact that they want/need a contractor.

I still wish them the best and would encourage everyone qualified to put their energy into a project like this rather than … Close to anything else!

I get where you’re coming from. I highly respect this project for its privacy push and it’s sadly a good example of “not all issues have the same priority”.

I honestly can see them just not being able to handle the business risk of a full employee would bring or several other reasons why it’s “okay” from their perspective. I now basically have to choose between two subjects that I find important.

For me I came to the conclusion that I still wish them the best - I can’t hold them to a standard ass high as the corporate world personally, let alone one higher.

“you will be employed as an independent contractor”

Dear (US) companies: this is not “employed”. This is commissioned or mandated, depending on the contract details.

Which is quite a feat for a showerthought community…

I get where you’re coming from but movie audio also fails here. The same darkness discussion arises about dialogue-to-explosion volume regularly :)

That doesn’t take away from what you said they “proper” audio work is done that way …

I wish I could blame auto correct but I’m afraid at least 2/3 of that was (and is) sleep deprivation :(

Hopefully a bit cleaner now and thanks for the pointer.

Thanks! Highly appreciated :) Your “compile” time alone I wasted when I accidently screwed up disk encryption - and couldn’t figure out what’s wrong with my kernel parameters for a long time. So your numbers are not really shocking.

Edit: decrypted message.

Yay AMA! ❤️

How do you feel when you(have to use) a different linux system of that happens? Is it as different that it’s like “using” MacOS or Windows to you?

How lo does it take you to set up a system from scratch?

what’s the biggest downside from your perspective?

Thanks in advance!

While I understand the aggressive anti religious sentiment I also emphasize with your beliefs so perhaps a different way of phrasing it:

The link to religion is not so much on right or wrong but accepting or not. I’d I understand your context than your church teaches accepting and empathy.

This is not a universal, objective “correct” thing! You, and me as well, feel these values as right and choose to defend them. But there’s no nature law enforcing this.

And now the opposite as true as well. By having a peer group which is self reinforcing people can come to the belief that there are people who are worth less. Or evil. Or dumb.

Now the step to fascism is only a small one: my nation is best, my leader is best, etc.

If belief gets strong enough than objective discussion can’t take place anymore - both for things that we connotate positive as well as negative.

There isn’t a global law about age verification they countries could be exempt of. It’s individual countries doing it.

And on top of that the laws are different from what I’ve seen, in the UK for example you have to fullfil certain criteria to fall under that law. But frankly it seems to be a mess in my opinion.

This is what an age verification service says about it:

https://www.yoti.com/blog/understanding-age-verification-online-safety-act/

In the very first post on this thread I pointed out that I’m not talking about this specific case at all.

To your last point I fully agree!

For the first point: that’s how I understood you - what I failed to convey: adultsshould fall victim more in cases like this because parents can be a protective shield of a kind that grown-ups lag.

Children on their own stand easy less of a chance but are very rarely on their own.

And to be honest I think it doesn’t change result of requirements for action both in general but respectfully for language based bots, both from a legal as well as an educational point of view.

I see your point but there is one major difference between adults and children: adults are by default fully responsible for themselves z children are not.

As for your question: I won’t blame the parents here in the slightest because they will likely put more than enough blame on themselves. Instead I’ll try to keep it general:

Independent of technology, what a parent can do is learn behavior and communication patterns that can be signs of mental illness.

That’s independent of the technology.

This is a big task because the border between normal puberty and behavior that warrants action is slim to non-existent.

Overall I wish for way better education for parents both in terms of age appropriate patterns as well as what kind of help is available to them depending on their country and culture.

Sadly there is no answer for you available because many of the processes around this are hidden.

I can only chime in from my own amateur experiments and there are answer is a clear “depends”. Most adjustments are made either via additional training data. This simply means that you take more data and feed it indi an already trained LLM. The result is again an LLM black box with all its stochastic magic.

The other big way are system prompts. Those are simply instructions that already get interpreted as a part of te request and provide limitations.

These can get white fancy by now, in the sense of “when the following query asks you to count something run this python script with whatever you’re supposed to count as input, the result will be a json that you can take then and do XYZ with it.”

Or more simple: you tell the model to use other programs and how to use them.

For both approaches I don’t need to maintain list: For the first one I have no way of knowing what it’s doing in detail and I just need to keep the documents themselves.

For the second one it’s literally a human readable text.

The first part is a technical question and the second part a definition one.

For the how to: the most common approach is to simply blacklist their IPs on a provider basis. This leads to no provider that obeys your blacklists to allow their users traffic to that target. Usually all providers in a nation obey that nations law (I assume, I only know that for my own :D)

For the censorship: I don’t like that word because it’s implications fan be used against any and all laws. A shitload of content is made inaccessible because it breaks laws from active coordination of attacks to human trafficking. All of this can be described as censorship.

Forthe UK law it’s… I’m not British and to me it appears to be a vague tool to silence and control all types of content under the guise of protecting children. Not with the intention to protect or prevent something but with the intent to control. I would fully understand and emphasize with using the word censorship in this context.

Friend, there is only one kind of dumb question: those that are statements with a question marks at the end of are simply a vehicle to place a statement.

And even those are fine by me if the asking being realizes this within the discussion. (“Why are we allowing women to vote if they are that much dumber than men?” is a stupid question in my book - and even that can lead to “oh wow I always just assumed that to be true but (data/argument) made me realize that I was wrong!”. Rare but can happen…)

Understandable, he was right very often and “only” his tone was…unfiltered. but I ignore the “was right” part when using that phrasing :)

I’d like to imagine that this would be close to the phrasing Linus himself would choose, although I could be off of course!