Notices by divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)
-
Embed this notice
divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Saturday, 29-Aug-2026 18:49:39 JST 
divVerent
@icedquinn@blob.cat I have a mechanical treadmill that is sloped to allow me to accelerate.
Is a bit stronger workout, but the only power it uses is 2 AA for the speed display. Which is kinda optional but motivating. -
Embed this notice
divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Saturday, 11-Jul-2026 21:33:51 JST
divVerent
@cwebber@social.coop Think of the collateral damage. No computers anymore for people without an ID. Or with an ID that Microsoft's age verification cannot read because they are not American enough. While at it, have the system also refuse US passports with Hispanic sounding names, and driver's licenses from blue states because "technical difficulties".
That must be the true intent. -
Embed this notice
divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Monday, 29-Jun-2026 14:22:44 JST
divVerent
@icedquinn@blob.cat To be fair, in Go only newlines are syntactically relevant, spaces around operators are not.
I would bet Go inherited that from... let's see how to insult it best...
BASIC. -
Embed this notice
divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Wednesday, 03-Jun-2026 17:37:13 JST
divVerent
@mina@berlin.social @appassionato@mastodon.social @HistoPol@mastodon.social I actually see no issue at all in using AI translation services (voice recognition, translation, text to speech) provided the person making the video:
- Credits and, if possible, links to the original content.
- Does not claim their own copyright.
- Understands both languages.
- Has reasons to not use their own voice for it (e.g. on politically loaded topics like war coverage, but also e.g. when many speakers are involved, as most people cannot speak in multiple different voices).
- The languages are sufficiently different to even warrant this. Like, don't go and "translate" from British to American English please. If you do that you're just grifting.
Even if one were willing to use one's own voice, sadly there are no good non-AI solutions to remove the original voice as a prerequisite to adding one's own.
And yeah, you may say "just hire voice actors then". Maybe an option if one runs a channel that actually makes money. Not for a private person who wants to raise awareness to an issue. Plus, hiring voice actors usually encounters copyright of the result (unless you pay a lot extra), which for videos of that type is actually pretty bad.
Of course, if the five prerequisites above are not done - that sucks then and ought to be taken down. -
Embed this notice
divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Tuesday, 19-May-2026 04:22:17 JST
divVerent
@Jain@blob.cat Vielleicht - ist aber nicht dokumentiert vom Betreiber. Die einzige "offene API" ist per Infrarot, da müsste ich mir erst einen Empfänger dafür kaufen. -
Embed this notice
divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Tuesday, 19-May-2026 03:44:42 JST
divVerent
#Smartmeter sind doof.
Um den aktuellen Verbrauch zu sehen (was beim dummen Stromzähler einfach durch Zeitmessung pro Umdrehung mit einer Stoppuhr geht) musste ich einen PIN draufleuchten. Extrem frustrierend, ständig wird das Leuchten nicht oder als zwei Tastendrücke akzeptiert. Praktisch unmöglich.
Bis ich die LED-Taschenlampe, die PWM macht (alle meine LED-Lampen machen leider PWM, auch Handy- und Fahrradlampen) durch eine Glühlampe aus dem Kasten mit den Autobirnen ersetzt habe. So ein 12V-Scheinwerfer mit Labornetzteil auf 6V betrieben erzeugt genau die richtige Menge an Infrarot, und wird auch nicht allzu heiß.
Und kein PWM (und selbst wenn, kommt das nicht durch den Glühfaden durch). Das Teil reagiert also anständig.
Was machen Leute, die kein Auto haben? Und warum muss das über ein so komisches Protokoll gehen, wo der Zähler nach dem IR-Sensor ja nicht einmal eventuelles PWM wegglättet?
Mir scheint, als könnte man den geschätzt 100 Euro-Zähler mit einem 10 Cent-Teil erheblich benutzerfreundlicher machen... -
Embed this notice
divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Thursday, 07-May-2026 23:35:41 JST
divVerent
@toiletpaper@shitposter.world Nice article. Should maybe add that their analysis does not even cover Christianity in general, but only the interests of MAGAism.
As an example, many, I would even say most, Christians do support some abortions, and typically the role of the executing "surgeon" and the role of the diagnosing doctor are separate, which means that the question of a religious objection to the practice does not raise itself.
Furthermore, some other protections they demand, such as that wedding cake story, are dumb as well. No bakery is forced to make specific cakes. If you do not want to be "forced" to make a custom cake you do not like to make, that is your right as the "artist". Just do not offer it as a public service then. Otherwise this is akin to an artist offering "I will draw anything for $50", and then refusing to draw a black person. You said you would draw anything, so that is the standard you will be held to.
And a about "happy holidays" - no one stopped anyone from saying "merry Christmas". Heck, you can even say "merry Christmas, Hanukkah and Festivus". It is not wrong to just say the one matching your faith, and I as a Christian would not be offended by any of the others. I would think "I celebrate the other one, but fine, thanks".
They do not want to force Christianism on the US. They want to force a variant of it that disregards stuff like "love thy neighbor", and imposes restrictions on everyone else. But indeed, religious freedom does not include imposing on others your rules. As usual, your freedom stops where the others' begins. -
Embed this notice
divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Thursday, 07-May-2026 23:35:40 JST
divVerent
@toiletpaper@shitposter.world I have seen many speak up about it. Just not really in the US. The "land of the free, home of the brave" never was either.
I guess when you get taught in school to worship a piece of cloth in stark contrast to one of the Ten Commandments, this is what you get - an utterly corrupted faith. No Christian can at a clean conscience utter the pledge of allegiance.
I have to say though that most Christians speaking out against it do not even bring up their faith. Because the opposition is universal and although the faith requires it, so does common sense. There have definitely been past movements of Christians against overreach especially due to government intertwining (which specifically attacks religious freedom, and also freedom in general when then a government uses God to justify its atrocious actions). One of the many such movements was the Reformation, which finally brought everyone access to what is actually in those books; a movement that in theory should have prevented any further corruption.
Too bad Americans cannot read... -
Embed this notice
divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Thursday, 07-May-2026 23:35:38 JST
divVerent
@toiletpaper@shitposter.world Sorry, but it is really clear what "commandments" are given in the Bible. Like the part about "love thy neighbor". Or the golden rule. It did not take a Kant to figure this out - it was written ages before.
In the Middle Ages, the problem was that nobody could read it so priests made up random stuff to control the people (often at the behest of a government).
Since the Reformation that should not be possible anymore... at least not to make more modifications... except IT IS! Turns out enough people do not want to read but use a religion merely as an excuse to oppress others. Most do not even read the "source material" it supposedly is based on, even though they literally have a copy at home. It is almost as if the Middle Ages are back.
Another problem is indeed that most Christian denominations are particular much "cheating" to expand their numbers by baptizing babies. Most of those will never visit a church in their life, yet are counted as members regardless. This artificially inflates their numbers - and also leads to many such people decide to justify their bad ideas by their so-called "Christianity" they never did a thing in their life for. -
Embed this notice
divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Thursday, 07-May-2026 23:35:36 JST
divVerent
@toiletpaper@shitposter.world So you say the people who genocided wanted to be genocided? -
Embed this notice
divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Thursday, 07-May-2026 23:35:35 JST
divVerent
@toiletpaper@shitposter.world It was you, not me, who claimed that this formulation made people think genocide is OK. -
Embed this notice
divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Thursday, 07-May-2026 23:35:33 JST
divVerent
@toiletpaper@shitposter.world Logic.
If we take these propositions:
P1: Person X participated in genocide.
P2: Person X believed they were following a rule to "treat others like you want to be treated".
The only logical consequence would be that person X believes they want others to genocide them.
Except not. P2 was false. They never actually believed that. As said, the book _didn't work_. -
Embed this notice
divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Thursday, 07-May-2026 23:35:31 JST
divVerent
@toiletpaper@shitposter.world I was deflecting from the validity of your point by applying logic to it. Noted.
Sorry for understanding mathematics. -
Embed this notice
divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Thursday, 07-May-2026 23:35:29 JST
divVerent
@toiletpaper@shitposter.world And as for "taking no for an answer", that is a failed idea as well, as seen also in recent legal developments.
"Your honor, how is this rape? I used no violence and she never said no."
"Of course she didn't after you had her drink three bottles of vodka till she passed out on the floor!'
The point of the weird formulation is to also catch cases like this. -
Embed this notice
divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Sunday, 12-Apr-2026 22:10:20 JST
divVerent
@Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com @SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo Actually not quite. You can get the software to train your own models, and it can be open source. Open sourcing such a model however would require providing all the training data... -
Embed this notice
divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Mar-2026 17:01:32 JST
divVerent
@icedquinn@blob.cat No.
Apple would totally make a NSDisplayAdapterProperties type. -
Embed this notice
divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Tuesday, 10-Mar-2026 16:49:25 JST
divVerent
@icedquinn@blob.cat Also, the new name insults the real X. It may have its flaws, but it never deserved this. -
Embed this notice
divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Monday, 23-Feb-2026 05:10:22 JST
divVerent
@dalias@hachyderm.io @Yuvalne@433.world @Em0nM4stodon@infosec.exchange @edwiebe@mstdn.ca And yet this requirement is already law in many countries.
E.g. in Germany, see § 832 BGB and § 171 StGB.
Parents are literally not allowed to let children do anything unsupervised. Just what supervision means is up to them, and can definitely also include methods such as "talking after the fact". -
Embed this notice
divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Monday, 23-Feb-2026 04:43:38 JST
divVerent
@Yuvalne@433.world @Em0nM4stodon@infosec.exchange @dalias@hachyderm.io @edwiebe@mstdn.ca Well, Google does provide a "ZKP" solution.
But one that verifies that you are holding an ID document. While revealing its content.
Which isn't ZK in the sense that we would need here.
As said, I want a solution that works twofold:
- Legal requirement for parents to not let their children use certain social media platforms except while supervised. Think of this as comparable to movie ratings. If a platform doesn't like its age rating, it can change its feature set (e.g. remove ML-"curated" feeds).
- Voluntary supervision software for use by parents that can block inappropriate social media sites. Minor mandatory support by sites for such software (like a small file indicating what type of service this is, kinda like the old age-de.xml we once had). If parents want to supervise by other means, they can do that as well instead.
- Mandatory support by social media sites to disable tracking when requested by the clients. Said supervision software then shall set that flag, but users can also do that without such software. Sites must never be allowed to pressure users into removing this disablement request and to opt into tracking, which means, they must keep providing service even to users who opt out.
Of course, this solution allows anyone, regardless of age, to opt out of tracking. So it's already totally against anything Big Tech wants. And it's quite possible this solution will lead to the vast majority turning off tracking, which, you know, they really won't like.
And even with my solution care has to be taken to not accidentally reveal the entire birth date, e.g. by a user moving from one age bracket to another on a given day. I thus propose merely using the birth year and to live with some amount of inaccuracy (interpreting it in favor of allowing access, but also in favor of not tracking). -
Embed this notice
divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Monday, 23-Feb-2026 04:28:04 JST
divVerent
@edwiebe@mstdn.ca @dalias@hachyderm.io @RandomDamage@infosec.exchange @Em0nM4stodon@infosec.exchange There is no right to use the internet at all, and as such there is no right to use it in any specific way either, sure.
However there is a right to participate in political discourse. It is the right to free speech. And this right must be ensured.
The safest way to ensure this right actually can be enjoyed by the people is to permit anonymity.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the