> less fortunate people in corporate hellholes must face daily
I'm sorry but how tone-deaf can someone be? Over 12.000 people have been killed in the protests with some reports going up to 30.000 since then and here you are happy about the fact that Google cannot profile them anymore. Protesters are beeing shot on-masse in the streets and families from outside the country have no ideas if their brothers and sisters are even still alive. Have some decency.
When I tried out Zorin OS I noticed that they advertised a connect-app as well which does exactly what KDE connect does. After a bit of investigating I noticed that the app is quite literally a 1:1-copy with just the name and branding changed, no features added, no bugs fixed. Does anyone know if KDE connect allows this in the first place?
Feel free to try it out! Please let me know if it does, I'll add the cam to the supported list. If not, send me the error in a github issue and I'll have a look.
Libraries are truly something amazing. My local one offers an incredible amount of stuff, all for just 15€/year. They have their own streaming-service, you can lend e-books and magazines easily online, rent consoles/videogames, water, tea and coffee either free or just 1€, events to learn languages, hang out or just get together with the local community, book trades, the list goes on. More people should support their local libraries, they need/deserve it much more than so many other services.
Oh you have much more than we have.. I live in a relatively small city, so there are not many events or offerings, but I'd love to have a bigger community in there. Even hanging out with your people, sharing daily life is such a wholesome connection. I'm happy to see that there are people from all over the world who value libraries in different ways.
The possibility of jail-time only exists in Ireland, no other country in the EU. Even there, prison-time is the maximum, not a guarantee. Courts may opt for fines, suspended sentences, or probation, I don't think at any point will anyone go to jail for this, especially considering this is only a possibility after a conviction and repeated non-compliance in important sectors like healthcare, banking or transport.
I grew up very close to the HNF and spend a great time there during my childhood to the point that the employees all knew me by name. The museum took a great part in shaping me into the nerdy person that I am today and put me into the career-path that I am currently on. The museum is amazing and the exhibitions are always fascinating, I greatly recommend them to anyone who is ever in the area.
This does seem a nice feature and definitely a step in the right direction but why use e2ee for video and audio but not chat? That's afterall where most of Discords activity is happening
Because E2EE causes an absolute ton of friction to the chat experience. Stuff that you expect to just work like chat history and searching no longer works.
Haven't used WhatsApp but presumably it indexes client-side. On Discord people want to search large servers including messages since before they joined, so this approach wouldn't really work.
If the user agent reports 32 bit, when you go to download an installer, the page can present you with the 32 bit version. Likewise with 64 bit (from the early days when 32 bit was more common). Same goes with reporting that it's x86 vs ARM.
So now if you are on an old 32 bit machine and try to install new software from the web, it'll give you a 64 bit installer that you almost certainly won't even be able to run on your machine.
Now with linux that's less of an issue given that installs on linux already depend on a ton of stuff (and linux users tend to understand the difference between 32bit and 64bit)
This would help a bit, but loads of people still see a button and click the button without realizing what they click on. It's best to keep stuff as far away as possible, especially when one of the actions is to become the potential president of Iceland
You also broke the site guidelines badly and repeatedly in this thread—not as badly as the other account, but bad enough to make this flamewar considerably worse. That's not cool.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.htmland stick to the rules from now on, we'd appreciate it. Among other things, that means not getting aggressive with other users, no matter how wrong they are or you feel they are.
I'm sorry, I got carried away. I shouldn't have aggravated the troll after they started stalking my past comments on HN with childish insults.
Edit: Not that this excuses it, but I didn't react the way I did because I thought someone was "wrong", but because this is a clear case of someone deliberately and repeatedly spreading misinformation, followed by stalking and a barrage of childish insults.
Frankly I don't understand how you can tolerate that.
> Frankly I don't understand how you can tolerate that.
Not tolerating it isn't as simple as you might think. You made it harder in this case by breaking the rules yourself. If you hadn't, I could have banned the other account. But if I had banned the other account without also banning you, they (or someone else) would have asked why it was ok for you to break the rules but not ok for them to.
(I didn't want to ban your account because when I looked at its history, I didn't see much egregious abuse, although I did see you casually breaking the site guidelines quite a bit.)
You did the same thing again just an hour ago. That is, you replied to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39891679 by breaking the site guidelines yourself, thus preventing moderation from working the way it normally would.
Edit:
Since you're more or less asking why moderation works the way it does in a case like this, I thought it might be interesting to unpack the following sentence from a moderation point of view: "I didn't react the way I did because I thought someone was "wrong", but because this is a clear case of someone deliberately and repeatedly spreading misinformation, followed by stalking and a barrage of childish insults. Frankly I don't understand how you can tolerate that."
This may sound odd, but when I read that through (let's say) moderator glasses, it reduces to two things: "they [i.e. the other person] were wrong" and "they were breaking the rules". At risk of being tedious, I can show the steps I take from what you wrote to those two things. Maybe this will be of interest, maybe not, but it's certainly a representative example.
> a clear case of someone deliberately and repeatedly spreading misinformation
When I read this, I have to take out the parts that I (as a moderator) can't act on. The first thing that has to go is the word "deliberately". That refers to intent, which is difficult to assess on the internet and impossible to prove. I can't act on that. (Past explanations on this point: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...)
Commenters use words like "deliberately" all the time about other commenters that they're annoyed with. Such words are intensifiers for expressing how they feel about the other person. In processing such language as a moderator, I have to cut "deliberately", and I also have to cut "a clear case" for the same reason. These things are not at all clear; they just feel clear to the people embroiled in an argument. One can safely assume that the other person feels just as "clearly" about oneself.
Once I cut "deliberately" and "a clear case", we have:
> repeatedly spreading misinformation
The word "misinformation" is another that commenters use a lot, mostly as an intensifier for how they feel about the other person or their view. It's not so different from saying "deliberately wrong". If, again, I cut out the assumption about intent, it reduces to "wrong".
In other words, from a moderation perspective your phrase "a clear case of someone deliberately and repeatedly spreading misinformation" really does boil down to "they were wrong". There are additional layers of intensity in what you wrote, and I can listen to them as an expression of how you feel, but it's no basis for moderation. (Nor is someone being wrong; more about that in a minute.)
That leaves:
> followed by stalking and a barrage of childish insults
Yes, this is basically how the other user was breaking the site guidelines and what I scolded them for.
Putting all that together, if I go back to your point as a whole, which can be restated like this:
> Frankly I don't understand how you can tolerate a clear case of someone deliberately and repeatedly spreading misinformation, followed by stalking and a barrage of childish insults
... and if I run that through the processing steps I just outlined, for me qua moderator it reduces to: "I don't understand how you can tolerate someone being wrong and breaking the rules." Let's take those two in turn.
Someone being wrong is not a moderation issue. People sometimes want it to be, but asking the mods to be the arbiters of truth is a disastrous idea—it would satisfy no one and enrage everyone–a sure path to destroying the community. Nor do we have any power to do so—it's not as if we have a truth meter (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). Sorting out what's true from what's false is the community's job, not the mods'. Asking mods to decide the truth is like asking the janitor which books belong on library shelves.
So in the end the sentence reduces to "I don't understand how you can tolerate someone breaking the rules", and the answer to that is that I didn't tolerate it. I scolded the user, warned them, and asked them to follow the rules from now on (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39887733). As I said, I might have done more if you hadn't also been breaking the rules; but when two warring parties are both doing that, the dominant variable becomes the community's concern for even-handedness. That's a complex issue in its own right, and because it's about the community as a whole rather than individual users, it takes precedence.
I appreciate your elaborate response, I'm going to try to elaborate on my thought process.
In this thread they claimed that both Gemini and ChatGPT were banned by EU and used that as basis for expressing general anti-EU sentiments, but just a few days ago they were talking about life in Italy and how they use both Gemini and ChatGPT (one of them being paid, if I recall correctly).
How could someone genuinely believe that these tools were banned if they were a paid user of them, in the EU no less? An an aside, I believe this comment had been edited, could you confirm? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39882180
I used words such as "deliberate", "misinformation", and "troll" because they expressed obviously incompatible claims just days apart, and my opinion was strengthened after after they kept repeating the claim of an EU ban in the face of other people who chimed in to say that both of those services were in fact available in the EU.
Regardless, I shouldn't have responded to them after my initial comment in this thread, but from my perspective, nothing really happened moderation-wise. I find it odd that you would later equate[1] their actions with my continued responses that steered clear of flame-bait insults and focused on the subject of this discussion. My tone was snarky but it largely developed after they had followed me across 3 threads and repeatedly spammed insults in my feed every few minutes (this triggered notifications, which didn't help in this case).
I apologized, but then I received another reply which I just flagged and ignored because it resorted to insults again. Later in the day (>12h later) I was curious and checked to see if any action had been taken and it hadn't, which I took as a sign that it was tolerated.
I then responded with what I think was a very neutral response to someone essentially calling me retarded again. My comment directly addressed most of the claims they had made in this thread because I considered it to be my final response to this topic but instead my comment was flagged in short order.
I try to stick to the guidelines (as you've pointed out, I find myself overstepping in certain situations, but as a rule, I try not to), so I don't understand why I'm being scolded in this instance. (1) Was I not supposed to respond at all, or (2) is there something severely wrong with my response?
In the case of (1) why wasn't their instigation acted on? I tried to do the right thing at first, or (2) why does my comment require swift moderation action when it's a comparatively mild and on-topic response to their insults?
I don't believe that my actions rose to the same order of magnitude of rule-breaking as theirs, but if you believe that my actions have been ban-worthy on their own merit, then so be it, I'll take it.
[1] You said otherwise, but you're equating them in practice by saying that you can't ban them without banning me too. I was also close to shadowbanned after your initial action, so it seems like the consequences were equal nonetheless.
I'm in EU and if I open gemini.google.com, it works! Either all of us EU users are experiencing collective hallucinations, or you don't understand your own linked sources. Feeding the trolls is technically against the site guidelines so I should stop, but I am curious what your motivations are for blatantly lying about easily verifiable facts, on a public forum.
Why you aren't able to understand that AI has been blocked, and that currently it's still blocked since you can't use the API and the app, and there are still restrictions on many EU countries. You're just regarded
So your evidence for "EU blocking AI innovation" consists of 1 singular LLM not being offered as an API in the EU, even though it's readily available as an end-user product, i.e. in the form that most people will consume.
Man, if EU is trying to "block AI" as you say then they're doing a really awful job - all the market leaders are readily available through any interface your heart desires. ;)
Please stop pestering me. Your claim is not based in fact, and it won't become one through spaced repetition. ChatGPT has never been blocked in the EU, and neither were LLaMA, Mistral AI, or Gemini - Google has a well-established history of slow roll-outs with their new product launches.
ChatGPT, the end-user-product, was briefly banned in Italy, following a data leak in OpenAI's systems, and in connection with their illegal data-gathering practices and lack of age verification which they promptly addressed in a matter of weeks. GPT-4 remained available through OpenAI APIs during this time.
And yes, the EU AI act has completely blocked some AIs because of their potential to harm the general public, no argument there. We ban guns for the same reasons.
I'm sorry but how tone-deaf can someone be? Over 12.000 people have been killed in the protests with some reports going up to 30.000 since then and here you are happy about the fact that Google cannot profile them anymore. Protesters are beeing shot on-masse in the streets and families from outside the country have no ideas if their brothers and sisters are even still alive. Have some decency.