Removed by mod

I thought I heard that California had a law requiring cancelling be just as easy as signing up? Is that not the case? (Assuming the name of the gym is an indicator of the city it’s based in, and not the state or country.)

At the risk of sounding like an overly obsequious AI… You know what, you’re completely right. I’m honestly not sure what use case I was imagining when I wrote that last comment.

America

That is a reasonable exception to no-AI policies in research papers and newspaper articles, but not for Wikipedia. As a tertiary source, Wikipedia has a strict “no original research” policy. Using AI to provide examples of AI output would be original research, and should not be done.

Quoting AI output shared in primary and secondary sources should be allowed for that reason, though.

The content is CC licensed, but they are trying to block AI scraping because it overloads their servers. They have a paid API that uses a lot less compute for both Wikipedia and the AI, as well as being a revenue source for Wikipedia.

the user needs to be smart enough to do whatever they’re asking anyway

I’m gonna say that’s ideal but not quite necessary. What’s needed is that the user is capable of properly verifying the output. Which anyone who could do it themselves definitely can, but it can be done more broadly. It’s an easier skill to verify a result than it is to obtain that result. Think: how film critics don’t necessarily need to be filmmakers, or the P=NP question in computer science.

Don’t tell me what to do. You’re not my mum.

Hmm, actually it doesn’t look like it does work. In fact, it may be worse than Lemmy. I can see @[email protected]’s hashtags (as actual hashtags) in Lemmy, but not here on Piefed.

But I can’t see my own hashtags in either platform.

edit: wait, looks like both Lemmy and Piefed may work. I can see saltywizard’s hashtags as tags on the default Piefed UI, but not in Blorp, which is my preferred Piefed client.

Oh neat! #cool

I don’t think Lemmy or Piefed support hashtags. Personally, I often just do it anyway. See a post without transcription, transcribe it.

Better if OPs do it themselves, but volunteers taking on the effort without need to request permission/be told to do it is second best.

I’m not sure what you mean. Nobody’s talking about contracts?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

Nothing about this is in any way a restriction on your rights and freedoms.

It’s not good for large architectural issues but it can point out nuanced issues in single files that often wouldn’t be caught otherwise

Yeah I agree. It’s sometimes good at code smells, though sometimes it can be straight-up wrong in ways that are actually surprising, so it always requires a human in the loop. It’s not good at larger-scale architectural decisions, and I’d also add that it’s usually not capable of understanding the intent behind business logic.

I haven’t had a Mac in like 8 years, but I honestly miss its keyboard. All the option key shortcuts are amazing. Many of them extremely intuitive, like en dash being option-hyphen and em dash being option-shift-hyphen, or “not equal to” being option-=. And how easy it makes accents was so great. option-e + <any vowel> for acute, option-i for circumflex, u for umlaut, and backtick for grave. All so easy to remember that I still know it despite not having used it this whole decade.

Pauline says what most Australians think

This is the real problem IMO. She says what they think. Because they’re racist, and project that onto others, assuming it must be everyone.

I think the best tactic is redirection. They obviously have a lot of anger, and thanks to Hanson and the broader right-wing media climate, that anger gets directed towards immigrants. But if you can seek to redirect the anger where it belongs—to the billionaire class—without actually attempting to call out Hanson in too explicit a way (risking them getting defensive, as you observed, resulting in the backfire effect where they double down and reinforce their previous beliefs), that can help.

I think it’s very notable that One Nation voters tend to preference LNP and Labor at much closer to a 50/50 rate than you might intuitively expect. A lot of them are disillusioned and poorly informed on the issues, rather than being hardcore dedicated True Believers in Hanson’s racist cause. And can be reached, if the anger and fear they quite rightly feel are instead directed somewhere productive.

Not that I’m very good at this, mind you. When I’m exposed to them in real life I’m much more likely to do what you did, or to call them out personally. It’s something I need to get better at.

Ha! I love it! Nothing lost either way.

Yeah, cos the alternative is having to trust Facebook with even more sensitive data. I don’t want to do that. They don’t want that. It is possible for interests to align even between two groups that otherwise rarely agree.

I’ll give another example of that. In Australia, the Greens are the main party for progressives. Unfortunately they rarely hold very much power compared to the centrist Labor and far-right Liberal National Coalition, but they do exist and have a few seats in Parliament.

In my state, there is currently a petition being circulated to ban advertising of gambling in government-owned assets. It is being supported primarily by two groups: the progressive Greens party, and the extremely socially conservative Christian lobby. I can’t think of a single other issue right now where these two would agree, but they’ll work together because they do agree on this issue.

I’m happy to agree with Facebook that age verification belongs locally, not via sketchy third-parties who then have to hold on to sensitive data and hope they don’t get hacked. And not by uploading sensitive data directly to social media or porn sites who have no business holding on to my photo ID.

What points? All I’ve seen is people railing against the very idea that parents should be given tools that help.

identification isn’t a side effect, it’s the raison d’être.

In Australia, the law quite specifically says sites aren’t allowed to require ID as the method of age verification. It can be one option they provide, but it cannot be the only. Even a sort of sentiment analysis is permitted, and from everything I’ve heard that seems to be the method most have defaulted to. Social media sites don’t want to risk losing users by putting up barriers to them making accounts. People talking about politics and taxes are probably adults. People looking at Bluey videos are much more likely to be children. And it’s all based on information they already had used in ways a lot of them probably already did.

So at least here, I think the idea that it’s anything other than what they say it is is just an unfounded conspiracy theory. It may not be well-implemented, but it is genuinely well-intentioned. Or if not well-intentioned, the real intent is bad, but not in the same way you suggest—it’s just about being seen to do something good and win some good PR for the government, without actually having to go to any effort to implement good policy.