I accept your correction, but in my defence, since the USA is ran by the unaccountable Epstein et al, I’d say that my comment still applies. If not even more so.

Wait until you find out drones are used for patrols too.

Outside this makes total sense. Inside, not at all. And I say this as a quadcopter pilot myself.

I bet it’s gonna be Tolkien Black.

“Its not perfect, therefore no effort should be expended toward any possible harm reduction”

Non sequitur fallacy and then some. Not only didn’t I say “it’s not perfect”, I said it’s completely stupid such as what’s depicted in the illustration above. I also didn’t say “no effort should be expended”, in fact, my first sentence proves the contrary: most efforts should be concentrated on the root causes. And the last sentence quotes the article, symptomatic measures should be prevention, e.g., patrol. Money towards these drones can be spent far more wisely.

1. The point is that the terrifying systemic problem of school shooters should be tackled at its root causes, not merely suppressing symptoms. It’s beyond absurd that schools in the US have become institutions of normalized violence.
2. Going to another room and closing the door renders any drone “not very effective…” School shooters have nothing left to lose. These drones are an extremely expensive yet stupid way of defusing such people. From the article:

The drones can remain airborne for about eight minutes on a single battery charge
I know the US is plagued by obesity, but I’m pretty sure the average shooter can outrun a drone for more than 8 minutes inside a building. What a bad joke. This is simply about signing contract deals for weapons manufacturers because everything about this screams poor taste.
However, not everyone is convinced the drones are the right approach.

That includes Tony Montalto, whose 14-year-old daughter Gina Montalto was among the 17 people killed in the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in Parkland, Florida. He told WPTV: “These drones aren’t patrolling – they just pop up when needed. So that’s part of the problem. We need to focus on the prevention piece rather than the reaction piece.”

Just like fighting gym leader Brock with Charmander.

They keep pushing for chat control but can’t even check usernames. On top of that conclude it with witch hunt madness. Brandon Klayme deserves a significant financial compensation and a profuse public apology.

you won’t be able to watch videos on Zen if you’re on Windows.

Videos work fine.

The Firefox forks that I use:

• LibreWolf ships with uBlockOrigin by default.
• Zen browser for power users who want lots of out of the box features and customization. An especially excellent browser for users who migrate from Vivaldi. Caveat, as with most feature-rich things, the line between bloat and feature can be a bit blurred.

If anyone could provide an AMD email to ask for a statement concerning this issue, that would be nice.

And soon women will wear those kind of glasses too to scan men for facial recognition and see if they’re flagged for secretly recording, convictions, … A huge discussion starts about privacy and data.

That’s actually a very good point. Glasses such as these could indeed be used preventively as shitty behavior dash cams.

There is generally no such consent required in public in most countries

Not when one is a part of a crowd, but when the focus is directly on someone, consent should be asked.

Even if the LED is visible, is this enough to consider it consensual?

No. That would mean everyone in the world would have to be up-to-date with technological “advances”, and that everyone would have the assertiveness to explicitly deny someone’s attempt at filming / uphold their right to privacy. Not everyone is up-to-date, and definitely not everyone has the assertiveness, nor is there an equal balance of power between two parties. E.g., I know for sure that a lot of elder people walking in the forest would like to speak up to younger obnoxiously loud morons, but they don’t because they know many people are too weak/underdeveloped/self-centered to handle criticism well, and therefore they remain silent out of fear for being physically assaulted.

when the man’s team loses a sports game

I’ve never understood why so many people are so goddamn obsessed with sports teams*. Even highly educated otherwise bright people. I enjoy playing soccer, or many other sports, but I don’t care in the slightest which team wins or loses in these big competitions. Though, as a former LoL player I watched tournaments too and had a preference for underdogs, and competed myself in a CS 1.6 clan, but at the end of the day sportsmanship and witnessing satisfying gameplay is what mattered the most, regardless of which team.

*The folly of pride

“Winning necessarily comes down to luck or the defeat of an inferior. Both are nothing to be proud of. Therefore, we should not compete for the sake of being better than others, but only to improve ourselves and help others do the same.” ―https://www.arscyni.cc/file/pride.html

Not dying fast enough. A list of good reasons to quit social media: https://www.arscyni.cc/file/quit_facebook.html.

Wait, the PSP can run a GBA emulator?

“We gather over 100 terabytes of new materials each day, […]”

First I was like “What the hell? How can that much be worth saving?” But then I remembered it doesn’t only save web pages, but video, audio, and software as well. Sheesh, tough job.

“This argument is one degree of separation away from a “nothing to hide” fallacy. And as you accurately pointed out, it’s founded on a very unrealistic assurance of an entirely virtuous power.”

I know, and I am vehemently in opposition to the nothing to hide argument. In fact, the reason I recently distrohopped to Artix was because some Arch package maintainer casually uttered the following on the developer adding the birth date field: “I appreciate the work ahead of time, and the law is the law.” Which is either remarkably naive, ignorant of history, or malicious. Homosexuality is still a crime by some law somewhere. So, yeah, utter nonsense.

That being said, if the majority of the Web just becomes a place for advertising, gambling, and predominantly fruitless discord due to rampant disinformation, misinformation, trolling, bullying, et cetera, then I think removing anonymity in some way, e.g., for some websites or specific services, could be a solution. Because if the Web goes where it’s going now, a cesspool of humanity’s worst impulses, I wouldn’t see a reason to keep using it and therefore wouldn’t care whether there’s badly implemented ID verification anyway. Obviously I’d prefer none of this is necessary, that people behave virtuously. But, they don’t, so… I also think there’s too many laws, and that laws mainly apply to the poor and the working class, and the rich—the perpetuators of most of the world’s problems—mostly get off scot-free.

Ugh, it’s all so complex. I don’t have the answer. Do you? Is what I’m saying as utterly nonsensical as what that Arch maintainer said? If so, I’d be glad to adjust my position provided civilized and proper reasoning—not that you didn’t before, @[email protected], but many do not.

It’s just remarkably disappointing that so many of said cohort is all for freedom or libertarian, but they simultaneously downvote comments into being hidden and offer no counter-arguments. The irony.

But I sigh at discourse online in general, on all sides, for it’s riddled with fallacies. Or even downvotes and upvotes, they mean little to nothing. I know because as an admin I realize there’s tons of people who use multiple accounts, not two or three, but tens of accounts, to skew the votes in their favor.

“Do you want “toxic speech” to become a crime and punished by a court of law?”

Bullying and disinformation, absolutely.

“How exactly would id verification help against that.”

From the paper What Deters Crime? Comparing the Effectiveness of Legal, Social, and Internal Sanctions Across Countries, citing a meta-analysis:

“On the whole, this meta-analysis favored rejecting the null hypothesis that legal sanctions have no deterrent effect on crime.” ―Meta Analysis of Crime and Deterrence: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature, by Thomas Rupp (2008)

The paper concludes as follows:

Our findings suggest that across societies and cultures, internalized moral standards exert the most powerful restraints on dishonest behavior (see also Campbell, 1964). Policy efforts aimed at promoting moral internalization may be more effective than efforts aimed at increasing the frequency or probability of legal sentences. However, the process by which internalization occurs remains poorly understood, and marks an important direction for future research aimed at reducing crime and enhancing social welfare.

As I said, is it the best solution? Science hasn’t a clear answer either. What does seem to be agreed upon is that:

• “The perceived likelihood that one will be caught is far more effective as a deterrent than the severity of the punishment.” ―Wikipedia - Deterrence: Likelihood vs. severity [Also stated in the aforementioned meta-analysis.]
• That having the moral compass to realize something is wrong, will decrease someone succumbing to such wrongdoings.

My hypothesis is that complete anonymity, so a low probability of getting caught, increases toxic behavior because people suffer no bad consequences whatsoever and therefore never learn. Ever hung around a spoiled kid? They’re the worst. The same happens online. Naturally, proper journalists and whistleblowers are a different thing, absolute anonymity is crucial for them. But how to square both these realities remains to be discovered.