No mixing between known users (friends, followers etc.), recommended users (swipe feed) and advertised content.
No publication of user content. It's social media, not global media.
I posit that these points will be enough to curtail most of social media ills. Don't allow recommendation of slop and there will be a similar reduction in production. There will still be the village idiot that shares slop content, but their reach is limited since they have to actively persuade people to their message, rather than be recommended for being psychologically stimulating.
I hope we're still talking about homosexuality, because you can have support for gay people without being gay. There were more than just black people who protested against what happened to George Floyd. You can absolutely have empathy towards people not exactly like yourself.
Then I'm disappointed that you would think that way. Change is the only constant, in people, in societies, in politics. Change can be spontaneous, but more of then than not, it is slow, gradual, boring, but still change nonetheless. Would you concede to that?
Yes, because the zeitgeist still changes regardless of enforcement. If all gay people were sentenced purely for their sexuality and nothing else, how long do you think it will take for ordinary folk to change their view? I reckon not long, unless the society is completely devoid of empathy and justice.
And they absolutely should not scale. Scaling is the root cause of all social media ills. If all you see are the 100 people nearest to you, the village idiot will not be able to spread his gospel so easily
This is hauntingly reminiscent of the gun law argument in US:
The government shouldn't infringe on my right to bear arms, mass shooting is a mental health issue anyways, oh but we can't really fund mental health support because my tax shouldn't go towards helping those who put themselves in that situation. Que the same argument for privacy on the internet.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you can't trust the government, then work towards healing it, restructuring it, overhauling it. Subverting the government is such antisocial behaviour, very criminal like.
Seems to me that a single database does reduce maintenance burden, just at the cost of higher risk of failure. The trade off should be for the architect to decide.
There is something to be said about the qualia of LLM generated passages. Each individual sentence reads as a statement and every next statement a continuation of the previous one. This happened, then this happened... Ad infinitum.
Before today, I could not explain to you why AI articles were so obvious to me, but I think I do now. There is no insight to be gleamed. Pre-LLM, authors generally had intention behind their words. The final product might not adequately reflect their thoughts, but word selection would expose it somewhat. With LLMs, sentences flow seamlessly from word to word, but the intention is nowhere to be found. Things happened and more things happened, to what end?
> Spend the budget or next time people will ask why you need all that money when you didn't spend it last time.
I've always heard of this nugget of wisdom but never really understood it. By punishing those who underspend (by making the next application harder), wouldn't you incentivise inflated research costs, or worse, fraud. Seems like a quick path to a positive feedback loop towards the degradation of trust in academic spending, leading to "poor government efficiency".
That's the nature of research. You try every idea that may be a good avenue and only a handful work out, if at all. That's why quantifying research credibility via publication and citation counts inherently lead to toxic work cultures. The best ideas must be given time to be discovered, not forced out and contorted to fit the requirements of a journal.
If income stream is the metric, then I don't see why 'real' income stream can't be used to evaluate the value of the building instead of the last transaction. If the building sits at half occupancy, then the income stream is 500k, not a theoretical 1M.
As bad as the whole Iran situation has been, I'm glad that there are still rational actors pushing back within the military. If Trump had his way completely, I wouldn't put off the chance of an offensive nuke being used.
Isn't that better? For one, they're connected to peers they have physically met. Additionally, they won't be exposed to strangers or ads that warp their world view.
I still believe that the government should ban unsolicited algorithmic content (so search engines are exempted), but this is a second best option.
Reading the comments here is an exercise of patience. Why are we so uncreative of solutions to high rent?
Let's just do away with regular renting. Either provide the full service of a serviced apartment, or provide a rent-to-own scheme. In both cases, landlords have incentives to improve the condition of units for better price. In the former case, no equity is built, but you get a much better service, and in the latter case, renters can build equity. And if renters decided to back out halfway, they can sell the paid up equity back to the landlord, some other renter, or to banks who have the capacity to manage the numerous transactions that will happen.
Then table a bill to remove that legislation, that is entirely possible. The point being that all legislation have consequences, but it is better to move forward with the best step we could take than to stand still and do nothing.
Just as there is iteration in software, we should iterate our laws. That is what a functioning government looks like.
The reason is open standard. Obsidian uses markdown, that's it. No proprietary database, no fancy algorithm, no locked in platform, just a convenient way to manage your notes (jesus, that sounded like AI). You can realistically do it yourself, but they've helped you to do it for the low price of an online sync subscription.
That's why I will always hammer on open standards and federation.
Unintended consequences is the price of progress. The alternative is to continue farming by hand, and carry after from the river for your daily needs.
We legislate away unintended consequences, that is the job of government. We put in laws and remove them if they are unsuitable. Analysis paralysis does no one any good.
No algorithmic recommendation.
No mixing between known users (friends, followers etc.), recommended users (swipe feed) and advertised content.
No publication of user content. It's social media, not global media.
I posit that these points will be enough to curtail most of social media ills. Don't allow recommendation of slop and there will be a similar reduction in production. There will still be the village idiot that shares slop content, but their reach is limited since they have to actively persuade people to their message, rather than be recommended for being psychologically stimulating.