Quoting: VulpisFoxfireApologies for breaking into this (as I'm a Mint user, not an Arch one), but a friend pointed me at this thread, and I couldn't help but notice a glaring omission on the topic of newbies/people who don't know the nitty-gritty using Arch..
IIRC, SteamOS is Arch-based, isn't it? So right there, you have a load of people using Arch (or at least an Arch derivative) not particularly as an informed choice, or an educational one, but because that's what's installed on their gaming device.

SteamOS is built on customized, immutable snapshots of Arch. Installing software from the AUR is possible but takes some effort. I doubt you'll find a large percentage of Steam Deck users affected by this incident.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Phlebiac

Quoting: LoudTechieIf Redhat sufficiently fucks up systemD we can fork it with a patch.

FWIW, the primary SystemD developer has been an employee of Microsoft for some time now.

Not anymore.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Why are all the Zombies leaning to the right in the shot? Is it particularly windy? Ooh, maybe it's all part of a choreography! 'Cause this is thriller, thriller night... 😁

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Caldathras

Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: Pyrate

Quoting: LoudTechiealso relevant to this discussion.
Valve will never accept monero, because it's anonymous and decentralized.
The scammers for which they sacrificed their own gift cards would exploit exactly this decentralization and anonymity to hide their activity.

Even though I can't imagine how that could happen, (just like how I cant believe peoole sfill fall for gift card scams), you're probably right. I wonder when this stops being about a problem with gift cards and currencies, and more about people not thinking clearly when falling for these scams.

People will always fall for scams. That's not a problem that'll ever go away. Which is why we need governments, laws and regulations to protect the vulnerable. Of course governments do that with varying success and enthusiasm, but that's a political and social problem that doesn't have a technical solution.

In my opinion, the reason scams work so well is because they are exploiting the individual's innate greed and, in some cases, the appeal of getting something for nothing (i.e., minimal effort or work). So, greed exploits greed, in the end, and, ironically, we look to government regulation to protect us from ourselves. I think the old phrase "and if you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you", says it all. Better to operate under the idiom that "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is."

I wouldn't go all in on victim blaming, unless you only count the "investment opportunity" scams and the "Nigerian princes". And sure, I want governments to protect their citizens from exploitation by criminals (or greedy corporations) even if they're too greedy or gullible for their own good.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Pyrate

Quoting: tuubiI view people who get very passionate about crypto the same way I view enthusiastic small-time stock traders. They keep talking my ear off about how they make (or save) money with it and everyone should do it, and I indulge them to a point because I'm nice and patient like that (in real life more than online), but I just don't find any of it interesting. Money is a necessity and I've never been wealthy enough to ignore it. It's just not something I could ever get passionate about.

Im sorry, but point to me where I did this here, where did I talk about making or saving money, market price, hype and all that wall street crap ?

I know, you come from a different angle. My example was mostly about the traders. But both groups (and I'm not talking about you, specifically) want to talk to me about money/currency, or how I'm using it wrong, or maybe how I should use this or that tech to get around the system.

Sorry that I kinda grouped you in with the cryptobros. In my defence, you compared me to Windows and WhatsApp users, which is way worse in my opinion. 😁

Quoting: Pyrate

Monero would protect my financial activity from heavily regulated banks and my government, which I'm a lot less concerned about. Some communities have excellent reasons to hide this activity, but most of us do not.

Only if you choose to. You can disclose your transactions for taxes or any other reason. I could explain how it works but I'm getting fed up with still being talked to like a crypto bro, I'll just share that optional transparency is a built-in function into a Monero wallet for auditing and taxes etc.

Yes, but this is a solution looking for a problem, or rather a solution to someone else's problem, as far as I can tell. And this isn't a disagreement you can fix by explaining. It's not intellectual laziness or lack of understanding on my part, and even less about giving up privacy for convenience. I wouldn't have been using Linux for ~25 years if that was the case, and I'd probably have owned an Android or Apple mobile device at some point. Or caved in and got on WhatsApp or LinkedIn or whatever social media I've been cajoled to join over the years. As I said, I like my privacy, but not everything privacy-related is equal in importance.

I don't mind that Monero exists, but if it's ever accepted as a mainstream currency, its use needs to be regulated and monitored, losing many of its apparent benefits.

Quoting: Pyrate

Quoting: LoudTechiealso relevant to this discussion.
Valve will never accept monero, because it's anonymous and decentralized.
The scammers for which they sacrificed their own gift cards would exploit exactly this decentralization and anonymity to hide their activity.

Even though I can't imagine how that could happen, (just like how I cant believe peoole sfill fall for gift card scams), you're probably right. I wonder when this stops being about a problem with gift cards and currencies, and more about people not thinking clearly when falling for these scams.

People will always fall for scams. That's not a problem that'll ever go away. Which is why we need governments, laws and regulations to protect the vulnerable. Of course governments do that with varying success and enthusiasm, but that's a political and social problem that doesn't have a technical solution.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PyrateJust like Signal, there's no PR dependent nor a search pitch for open source communities (afaik, maybe there is one for Signal since there's a organisation behind it, can't tell). You are simply unaware of a project and are choosing to be on the guard. I get it but it still feels a little insulting that as a relatively old member here in the website, I'm not being taken seriously for mentioning an open source project for the privacy conscious, where you'd think this kind of place (and specifically this post) would call for such a discussion to be taking place. Guess I'm wrong.

There's a difference here. Signal—which I've used for years—protects my private communications from foreign corporations and (other) bad actors. Monero would protect my financial activity from heavily regulated banks and my government, which I'm a lot less concerned about. Some communities have excellent reasons to hide this activity, but most of us do not.

Crypto doesn't actually seem to solve a problem I have. I am very privacy-conscious, but I try to keep my paranoia to a reasonable level. I don't like corporations tracking my private life and communications, but my buying habits aren't something I feel like I need to hide from the tax man or the police. Banks I don't really trust to care about my privacy as long as they can make a profit, but the regulations here in the EU seem to keep them in check, for the most part.

In the end, all I need is a secure way to transfer money from my bank account to that of the recipient, preferably without divulging any of my private information to third parties, and only minimal information to the payee. I don't care if blockchain tech is used under the hood, as long as it all works quickly, efficiently and securely.

I view people who get very passionate about crypto the same way I view enthusiastic small-time stock traders. They keep talking my ear off about how they make (or save) money with it and everyone should do it, and I indulge them to a point because I'm nice and patient like that (in real life more than online), but I just don't find any of it interesting. Money is a necessity and I've never been wealthy enough to ignore it. It's just not something I could ever get passionate about.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PhlebiacAt the risk of offending someone: are they speaking a real language in that trailer, or is it just gibberish?

It's Finnish. 🤣

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: mr-victoryYou guys have options other than Visa & MasterCard? All I have is Visa, MC and American Express here.

Depends on your region. On top of the card payments, I've got a bunch of options like Skrill, Trustly, Klarna and PayPal. I don't like any of them but tend to choose Trustly.

Quoting: mr-victory

Quoting: PyrateThere has been a way to bypass those who control and dictate your money since 2009, and it's been perfected since 2014, but most people aren't ready for that conversation yet.

Can you enlighten me please?

Bitcoin launched in 2009, possibly that? He certainly worded that sentence like a true cryptobro.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: spymastermatt

Quoting: tuubiIgnoring any and all other concerns: As long as they don't then imagine that they've actually written a story, and try to claim copyright to the result, I guess it would be fine? I'm sure it feels rewarding for them to get that story out. They haven't become an author, more like an amateur editor, but still, good for them.

I guess this is where we differ. For me an author is the person that came up with the idea for the story, plot, characters, arcs, scenes, and development. So if the person (A) is doing all of that and describing them in the best detail they can to someone (B) who writes the actual words (be they computer or human) then in my mind A is still the author.

I don't think you can find a dictionary definition of "author"—at least in the literary context—that doesn't explicitly refer to the act of writing. Consider writers of non-fiction: They don't come up with stories, plots, characters, arcs etc. but they are authors. They might employ researchers to collect information to base their work on, and they might not even come up with the original idea, but the author is still the one actually writing the "story".

Ghostwriters exist, but they explicitly give up their rights to their work in exchange for money. Doesn't make the one paying for their work an author, in my opinion, even if legally they are just that. For example, I don't believe the current president of the United States ever authored a single book, but he sure has his name on the covers of several. Still more ethical than producing the books using an LLM, in my opinion. At least the original writer gets paid.

Quoting: spymastermatt

Quoting: tuubiI think the situation would be different if they'd actually written the whole story to the best of their ability, and used these tools to give them suggestions on how to make it better. A lot more effort, but there's a reason even established authors work for months, sometimes years, to write a novel, even with getting help and feedback from professional editors and readers. Most of us haven't got the talent or the patience for that, but that doesn't make it okay to just outsource the bulk of the effort.

That's a fair point and I guess then it comes down to how much of each. My friend (who is not actually considering using AI at this moment I should point out) has written several scenes of the book himself. If he uses an AI to help fill in the gaps between the scenes, is there a moment for you when it becomes not his work, or is it simply if he uses the AI at all? Genuinely interested in your opinion here, I appreciate from your later comment that my tone has not reflected that.

Seems simple enough: The parts he wrote himself are his, while the bits in the gaps are not. (Of course you didn't mean it so literally, but you know what I mean.)

Quoting: spymastermatt

Quoting: spymastermattI guess my analogy in this case would be is the songwriter who writes clever lyrics, less of a songwriter because they can't sing it themselves? Should we scorn them for using a singer instead of just singing it themselves like a real artist

Quoting: tuubiThe analogy doesn't work. Why wouldn't they be called a songwriter after writing a song? They'll get their share of the royalties. They just can't be called a singer. Just like your friend isn't an author after prompting and editing a book.

I guess then the problem for me is that we don't yet have a view or word to separate the ideasmith from the author in the way we do the songwriter and singer.

Sure. If you think the title matters. Although I'm quite sure I've read a ton of books where the author thanks other people for giving them the idea for or helping them develop the story.

All I'm saying is that your friend is literally (pun not intended) not the author of any text he didn't write. Of course, I'm not sure that matters, unless he wants to make money off of the result. I don't think he should be able to sell a story he didn't write and claim to be the author, but maybe that's just me.

Quoting: spymastermatt

Quoting: spymastermattAgain, we've taken the idea that AI can make a book given a one sentence prompt and blanket swept that that must therefore be the only way people use it

Quoting: tuubiNo, what you've done is ascribe a lack of understanding to people with valid criticisms of the technology and how it is being used in the real world. Sure, some people react with their gut, but critics do include a lot of people who are actually in the know, but crucially not invested.

I apologise that this is how I have come across, I was intending to question what feels like gut reactions but I appreciate that has come across as assuming people don't understand.
I was trying to separate PurpleLibraryGuy's suggestion of

Quoting: Purple Library Guyif someone tells a large language model "Write me a book about this" and thinks it's theirs because they had an idea (which apparently does happen) . . . that's incredibly stupid.

from the idea of people using AI to fill in gaps rather than write the whole story. From my perspective there's a big range between Wrote the book entirely myself -> Had the AI spell and grammer check -> Had the AI fix up some scenes to make them read better -> ... all the way through to "Told the AI to write a sci-fi book about an alien who lives on earth" (which I 100% agree removes any creative direction from the human)

And yes, a lot of the reactions to every announcement of AI use in any form feel to me like
"100% AI = bad, therefore 1% AI = bad"

Incidentally, you might find a "creative director" in the credits of a game. They direct the developers and artists to achieve a coherent vision, but do not get to claim credit for their efforts.

I'm not sure if you'd consider this anecdote a good illustration of my point, but I'll tell it anyway: Years ago, I commissioned a skilled carpenter to make a piece of furniture according to my specifications. I designed the thing, I made nice schematics and drawings, with precise measurements and details for how I want the parts cut and joined and everything, but they're still the one who actually made it in the end. I don't mind that I don't get to call myself a carpenter now. Not that I would call myself a furniture designer either, at least with a straight face, but that's beside the point.

All that said, I fully understand and empathise with your viewpoint and that of your friend. The world is full of very creative people with their heads full of great ideas, but most of them are not able—for one reason or another—to make anything of them. I've always been an avid reader and gamer myself, and I've obviously come up with (and sometimes even written down in detail) my share of story and game ideas that'll never see the light of day. I suppose that's a shame. Assuming those ideas were ever any good. 😅

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: spymastermatt

Quoting: Purple Library Guyif someone tells a large language model "Write me a book about this" and thinks it's theirs because they had an idea (which apparently does happen) . . . that's incredibly stupid.

Absolutely agree, 100%!

But if someone develops an entire story, with a good plot and character development and twists and turns and they get the AI to actually put it into words because they just can't, and then they enrich it by reading it back and tweaking and adding and refining to make it the story they had in their head but could never express because of their ADHD, is their story less good because they couldn't write each individual word?

This, as you might have guessed, is a real story about a friend of mine who has fantastic ideas for stories, and describes great scenes from this particular book they would love to write, but can't. AI might give them the chance to do so. And yes you're absolutely right, the story has changed and refined and got better each time they've come to me over the years and said "I've changed this bit and added this bit between those scenes and tweaked this characters backstory a bit". But they're still doing that despite not writing a complete book, just snippets.

Ignoring any and all other concerns: As long as they don't then imagine that they've actually written a story, and try to claim copyright to the result, I guess it would be fine? I'm sure it feels rewarding for them to get that story out. They haven't become an author, more like an amateur editor, but still, good for them.

I think the situation would be different if they'd actually written the whole story to the best of their ability, and used these tools to give them suggestions on how to make it better. A lot more effort, but there's a reason even established authors work for months, sometimes years, to write a novel, even with getting help and feedback from professional editors and readers. Most of us haven't got the talent or the patience for that, but that doesn't make it okay to just outsource the bulk of the effort.

Quoting: spymastermattI guess my analogy in this case would be is the songwriter who writes clever lyrics, less of a songwriter because they can't sing it themselves? Should we scorn them for using a singer instead of just singing it themselves like a real artist

The analogy doesn't work. Why wouldn't they be called a songwriter after writing a song? They'll get their share of the royalties. They just can't be called a singer. Just like your friend isn't an author after prompting and editing a book.

Quoting: spymastermattAgain, we've taken the idea that AI can make a book given a one sentence prompt and blanket swept that that must therefore be the only way people use it

No, what you've done is ascribe a lack of understanding to people with valid criticisms of the technology and how it is being used in the real world. Sure, some people react with their gut, but critics do include a lot of people who are actually in the know, but crucially not invested.

I know this is not the first time we've sacrificed something important, like the environment, for profit and/or convenience. But it sucks every time.

View this comment - View article - View full comments