tal

AGI is not a new term. It’s been in use since the 90s and the concept has been around for much longer.

It’s not new today, but it post-dates “AI” and hit the same problem then.

Reddit had the ability to have a per-subreddit wiki. I never dug into it on the moderator side, but it was useful for some things like setting up pages with subreddit rules and the like. I think that moderators had some level of control over it, at least to allow non-moderator edits or not, maybe on a per-page basis.

That could be a useful option for communities; I think that in general, there is more utility for per-community than per-instance wiki spaces, though I know that you admin a server with one major community which you also moderate, so in your case, there may not be much difference.

I don’t know how amenable django-wiki is to partitioning things up like that, though.

EDIT: https://www.reddit.com/wiki/wiki/ has a brief summary.

So, first, that text is from the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution, which defines legal rights.

But, secondly, the right to “pursuit of happiness” needs to be understood in the (somewhat euphemistic) language of the time. It is generally understood as referring to a right to property; this right was a core dispute in the American Revolution, and mirrors a nearly-identical “life, liberty” phrase from John Locke where the term used is explicitly “property”. That is, the right is not to never feel unhappy or depressed, but rather to not have one’s property taken away by non-elected parties.

https://www.crf-usa.org/foundations-of-our-constitution/natural-rights.html

The Tea Act, which imposed taxes on American colonists, was a critical dispute in the American Revolution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Act

The Tea Act 1773 (13 Geo. 3. c. 44) was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain. The principal objective was to reduce the massive amount of tea held by the financially troubled British East India Company in its London warehouses and to help the struggling company survive.[1] A related objective was to undercut the price of illegal tea, smuggled into Britain’s North American colonies. This was supposed to convince the colonists to purchase Company tea on which the Townshend duties were paid, thus implicitly agreeing to accept Parliament’s right of taxation. Smuggled tea was a large issue for Britain and the East India Company, since approximately 86% of all the tea in America at the time was smuggled Dutch tea.

At the time, it was generally accepted that in England, only elected officials had the power to tax; this is one of the rights of Englishmen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_of_Englishmen

The “rights of Englishmen” are the traditional rights of English subjects and later English-speaking subjects of the British Crown. In the 18th century, some of the colonists who objected to British rule in the thirteen British North American colonies that would become the first United States argued that their traditional[1] rights as Englishmen were being violated. The colonists wanted and expected the rights that they (or their forebears) had previously enjoyed in England: a local, representative government, with regards to judicial matters (some colonists were being sent back to England for trials) and particularly with regards to taxation.[2] Belief in these rights subsequently became a widely accepted justification for the American Revolution.[3][4]

However, American colonists had no elected MPs in Parliament. Parliament was willing neither to grant them elected MPs, nor to refrain from taxation and have locally-elected legislatures perform taxation. Parliament’s counterargument was that Americans had “virtual representation”, in that MPs elected by people in the UK – though not elected by American colonists – had their best interests at heart.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_representation

Virtual representation was the idea that the members of Parliament, including the Lords and the Crown-in-Parliament, reserved the right to speak for the interests of all British subjects, rather than for the interests of only the district that elected them or for the regions in which they held peerages and spiritual sway.[1] Virtual representation was the British response to the First Continental Congress in the American colonies. The Second Continental Congress asked for representation in Parliament in the Suffolk Resolves, also known as the first Olive Branch Petition. Parliament claimed that their members had the well being of the colonists in mind. The Colonies rejected this premise.

My assumption is that that’s gonna get thrown out because they don’t have standing. Probably some kind of case law along those lines already, since I figure someone’s probably tried that before.

googles

Looks like it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juliana_v._United_States

Juliana, et al. v. United States of America, et al. is a climate-related lawsuit filed in 2015 by 21 youth plaintiffs against the United States and several executive branch officials. Filing their case in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, the plaintiffs, represented by the non-profit organization Our Children’s Trust, include Xiuhtezcatl Martinez, the members of Martinez’s organization Earth Guardians, and climatologist James Hansen as a “guardian for future generations”.

They call for the government to offer “both declaratory and injunctive relief for their claim—specifically, a declaration of the federal government’s fiduciary role in preserving the atmosphere and an injunction of its actions which contravene that role.”

In January 2020, a Ninth Circuit panel dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue for an injunction.

Legal actions to affect climate change by federal and state-level governments have been attempted since the 1990s; one of the first known cases was led by Antonio Oposa, a Philippine lawyer that represented a class-action suit of 43 students against the Philippine government to protect a forest surrounding their village.

Since 2011, Our Children’s Trust has been filing various state and federal lawsuits on behalf of youth, though most of these have been dismissed by courts, as courts generally have not ruled that access to a clean environment is a right that can be litigated against.[8][5][6] Such cases are also generally dismissed as lawsuits cannot be initiated by “generalized grievances”, and require plaintiffs with standing to sue and can demonstrate concrete harm that the government has done, and that the courts can at least partially redress the harm by order of the court.[9] Further, cases cannot be brought to court if they deal with a “political question” which cannot be resolved by actions of Congress and the President.[9]

The “political question” bit should be inapplicable, since this is a company, but the lack of standing to sue for climate change probably does apply.

I assume that this is a crowd-pleaser by the California executive, that they expect it to get tossed out but want the political points.

No, they are not. They can stop working; they just won’t be able to continue their job under more-favorable conditions.

That still is not slavery. The person in question is still not compelled to work.

deleted by creator

Yeah, sorry, but no. That’s not slavery. If you’re present in the country illegally and working illegally and could be returned home at any time, you may not be making as much as you would if you were present legally, but you are not compelled to work. You can always terminate working and return to the country where you are legally supposed to be. If you choose to be in Country A illegally and working there rather than in Country B legally and working (for less) there, that is your choice, and you are not being compelled to work.

Slavery entails someone being compelled to work.

I broadly agree that “cloud” has an awful lot of marketing fluff to it, as with many previous buzzwords in information technology.

However, I also think that there was legitimately a shift from a point in time where one got a physical box assigned to them to the point where VPSes started being a thing to something like AWS. A user really did become increasingly-decoupled from the actual physical hardware.

With a physical server, I care about the actual physical aspects of the machine.

With a VPS, I still have “a VPS”. It’s virtualized, yeah, but I don’t normally deal with them dynamically.

With something like AWS, I’m thinking more in terms of spinning up and spinning down instances when needed.

I think that it’s reasonable to want to describe that increasing abstraction in some way.

Is it a fundamental game-changer? In general, I don’t think so. But was there a shift? Yeah, I think so.

And there might legitimately be some companies for which that is a game-changer, where the cost-efficiencies of being able to scale up dynamically to handle peak load on a service are so important that it permits their service to be viable at all.

The kind where America is expected to go solve everyone’s problems

Well, the current government in Mali is the result of a military coup. The previous, elected government was friendly with France, and the new, military coup crowd is friendly with Russia.

Then when the coup guys decided that they didn’t need to hold elections when they said they would, they got condemned by the US.

https://www.france24.com/en/africa/20220112-un-security-council-falls-short-of-imposing-new-sanctions-on-mali-after-elections-delay

Russia, China block UN Security Council from supporting new sanctions on Mali

Russia and China blocked the U.N. Security Council on Tuesday from supporting new sanctions on Mali for its military leaders’ decision to delay next month’s elections until 2026, a blow to the restoration of democracy in the troubled West African nation.

So I vaguely imagine that said government probably isn’t asking the US to become involved, because the US’s position is that they should have held elections.

I mean, scrolling down that list, those all make sense.

I’m not arguing that Google should have kept them going.

But I think that it might be fair to say that Google did start a number of projects and then cancel them – even if sensibly – and that for people who start to rely on them, that’s frustrating.

In some cases, like with Google Labs stuff, it was very explicit that anything there was experimental and not something that Google was committing to. If one relied on it, well, that’s kind of their fault.

Nah, because there are definitely projects Google started on there. The one OP mentioned is on there, and I remember Google Zeitgeist from back when.

EDIT: Not saying that this is comprehensive, but only five entries reference being acquired from elsewhere in their description.

I bet someone has made a list.

googles

Yup.

The first item on the field is a search field. The “all” category has 288 entries.

https://killedbygoogle.com/

Yeah, I ran into this on /r/europe when there were some EU legislation issues. The EFF does have some activity in the EU, but it does have a mostly-US focus, and there isn’t really a direct analog.

It depends on what your interest is.

EDRi (European Digital Rights) in Europe has come up on a couple of advocacy issues I’ve followed. If you’re in Europe, they might be worth a look. They don’t feel quite the same to me, but maybe that’s what you’re looking for.

My understanding is that there had been an ongoing concern on /r/piracy that they would get shut down at some point, that this had been a concern in the past, and so the other stuff like the API restrictions and the rest of the spez drama was kind of just adding to the big factor pushing people away – that the community could vanish at any time.

The lead mod on /r/piracy also set up a dedicated instance – there was definite commitment – made it clear that he was making the move, and was demodded on /r/piracy, so there were factors creating more inertia.

Those are all factors that did not generally exist for other communities.

What’s been your experience with youtube recommendations?

I’ve never had a YouTube account, so YouTube doesn’t have any persistent data on me as an individual to do recommendations unless it can infer who I am from other data.

They seem to do a decent job of recommending the next video in a series done in a playlist by an author, which is really the only utility I get out of suggestions that YouTube gives me (outside of search results, which I suppose are themselves a form of recommendation). I’d think that YouTube could do better by just providing an easy way to get from the video to such a list, but…

deleted by creator

I don’t think that Zoom specifically advocates for companies to end work in the office.

Like, say you work for Coca-Cola. Their company health plan probably does not encourage people to drink nothing but Coca-Cola, even if they do make it available in the office.

and I wondered if it wouldn’t be a good ides to somehow gather a list of small instances

https://lemmy.fediverse.observer/list

https://kbin.fediverse.observer/list

If you require open signups and then sort by number of users, ascending, that’s an auto-generated list of small instances that (presumably) are looking for users.

[continued from parent]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-propelled_anti-aircraft_weapon

The introduction of jet engines and the subsequent rough doubling of aircraft speeds greatly reduced the effectiveness of the SPAAG against attack aircraft.[dubious – discuss] A typical SPAAG round might have a muzzle velocity on the order of 1,000 metres per second (3,300 ft/s) and might take as long as two to three seconds to reach a target at its maximum range. An aircraft flying at 1,000 kilometres per hour (620 mph) is moving at a rate of about 280 metres per second (920 ft/s). This means the aircraft will have moved hundreds of meters during the flight time of the shells, greatly complicating the aiming problem to the point where close passes were essentially impossible to aim using manual gunsights. This speed also allowed the aircraft to rapidly fly out of range of the guns; even if the aircraft passes directly over the SPAAG, it would be within its firing radius for under 30 seconds.

SPAAG development continued through the early 1950s with ever-larger guns, improving the range and allowing the engagement to take place at longer distances where the crossing angle was smaller and aiming was easier. Examples including the 40 mm U.S. M42 Duster and the 57 mm Soviet ZSU-57-2. However, both were essentially obsolete before they entered service, and found employment solely in the ground-support role. The M42 was introduced to the Vietnam War to counter an expected North Vietnamese air offensive, but when this failed to materialize it was used as an effective direct-fire weapon. The ZSU-57 found similar use in the Yugoslav Wars, where its high-angle fire was useful in the mountainous terrain.

By the late 1950s, the US Army had given up on the SPAAG concept, considering all gun-based weapons to be useless against modern aircraft. This belief was generally held by many forces, and the anti-aircraft role turned almost exclusively to missile systems. The Soviet Union remained an outlier, beginning the development of a new SPAAG in 1957, which emerged as the ZSU-23-4 in 1965. This system included search-and-track radars, fire control, and automatic gun-laying, greatly increasing its effectiveness against modern targets. The ZSU-23 proved very effective when used in concert with SAMs; the presence of SAMs forced aircraft to fly low to avoid their radars, placing them within range of the ZSUs.

The success of the ZSU-23 led to a resurgence of SPAAG development. This was also prompted by the introduction of attack helicopters in the 1970s, which could hide behind terrain and then “pop up” for an attack lasting only a few tens of seconds; missiles were ineffective at low altitudes, while the helicopters would often be within range of the guns for a rapid counterattack. Notable among these later systems is the German Gepard, the first western SPAAG to offer performance equal to or better than the ZSU. This system was widely copied in various NATO forces.

SPAAG development continues, with many modern examples often combining both guns and short-range missiles. Examples include the Soviet/Russian Tunguska-M1, which supplanted the ZSU-23 in service, the newer versions of the Gepard, the Chinese Type 95 SPAAA, and the British Marksman turret, which can be used on a wide variety of platforms. Some forces, like the US Army and USMC have mostly forgone self-propelled guns in favor of systems with short-range infrared-guided surface-to-air missiles in the AN/TWQ-1 Avenger and M6 Linebacker, which do not require radar to be accurate and are generally more reliable and cost-effective to field, though their ability to provide ground support is more limited. The U.S. Army did use the M163 VADS and developed the prototype design of the M247 Sergeant York.