@lxo Do you have a specific problem with any example I brought up, or is your argument "if you're allowed to take a stand for human rights, someone else might use the same mechanism for something evil, thus nobody is allowed to have morals"? Because if its the latter, I think that's a reduction ad absurdum. And if it's the former, I didn't think our values are compatible enough to have a meaningful discussion.
@ArneBab Mass murder is not illegal when you call it war. Saying we can't have rules against, say, religious discrimination because then some religion might have rules that discriminate is not convincing. And likening rules for a software project for which there are always alternatives to those for public physical infrastructure also only goes so far. I don't want to give my busses to those who make others sit in the back of the bus.
This foreigner's mind (who was always told that the freeest of the free had fought a civil war and abolished slavery like the good folk they are) was blown when I learned about that little itsy conditional in y'all's 13th amendment.
"except as a punishment for crime"
The USA absolutely have slavery on the books. Still.
("Open Source" hasn't been cutting it as a "movement" for a long time, and we need to push back to everyone who wants to keep tech "free of politics". That's a dog whistle.)
@jwildeboer I'm a bit torn about what would happen if we *actually* made FLOSS "political".
Remember, we've got a significant percentage of folks who idolize Elon et al (still! the mind! it melts!), and statistically speaking, it's very unlikely there's no ... in the FLOSS communities either.
I absolutely think we should though; FLOSS events *should* be progressive beacons.
@sjvn Yes and no; I think it's conceding even more ground, and undermines those "Four Freedoms" that even the already "pragmatic" Open Source allowed for.
In the light of impact this might have on regulatory compliance and/or keeping strong evidence of, uh, contentious data sources hidden away, ... indeed, far more.
Sooo one posts a link on #Facebook, and on hovering over it, #Firefox shows that it goes to link + their weird "fbclid" appended. (Which is already annoying!)
But when you copy the actual link or click on it, in reality it goes through FB's redirectory service (for tracking, which is very annoying).
What I'm very very annoyed by though - how does FB get Firefox to show the wrong link target?
Or rather, make the link go somewhere else than the HREF?
We can, after all, just hop jobs if we want significant salary increases. We all love intermittent employments and hustle culture. We dislike forming stable attachments, becoming experts on projects, or seeing them to fruition.
9,4% p.a. - or a total of 38% for the next four years - is something every single one of y'all individually successfully negotiates, right?
@sjvn It's also an "official" definition we should insist gets a) actually defined, b) stronger.
I'm honestly a bit disappointed in OSI and have ... suspicions.
You're write-up is much better than mine, but I think "idealists" as a term already implies a judgment of the position. Given that the group includes a lead from *AWS*, I think that's a pretty grounded-in-the-industry take on it too.
TL;DR: none of the tested models meet the requirements of the EU AI Act. (ibd, p.14, table 1 & 2)
Philipp Guldimann et al., “COMPL-AI Framework: A Technical Interpretation and LLM Benchmarking Suite for the EU Artificial Intelligence Act” (arXiv, October 10, 2024), https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2410.07959.
@eniko But people¹ are still TrAuMaTizED by masking, such a visible sign of collective responsibility was the worst that has ever happened to their individualism 😱
¹ those that survived without new disabilities, that is
@ennopark Ein Teil meiner Sorge vor einer Infektion mit Covid (oder einem anderen Pathogen, dass zu ME/CFS führen könnte) ist mit anzusehen, wie sehr man dann im Stich gelassen wird.