When a company is known for being malicious by default, to the point of knowingly covering up their ongoing and extensive contributions to teen suicides, it is not unreasonable for people to expect they would steal social media accounts to suit their interests.
They are pure unadulterated evil. They are guilty until proven innocent at this point.
I am agreeing it is unlikely it was actually malicious, but it is Meta and they deserve no charity. If it is even a small possibility they did the evil thing, we should all operate on the assumption they did the evil thing anyway until proven innocent.
I hope all the non charitable assumptions they deserve snowball enough to hurt them.
It is a screen. You plug an HDMI cable into your source device and another into the TV. Job done.
Are there really that many people technical enough to know what an HDMI cable is without also knowing all TVs are subsidized by spyware with no security protections?
Why would anyone connect a screen to the internet in the first place?
Like, if suddenly computer monitors started asking for wifi credentials would everyone just compulsively punch them in just to see ads and give the manufacturers lots of data just because?
I must be fundamentally disconnected from how consumers think about technology.
why would i want to have a second box to play my content when i can have it all in one. HDMI cables can only be so long before they get in the way. connecting the TV to a fileserver via wifi is awfully convenient. i also want to play stuff from my phone or my laptop (which is to far away to connect via cable), not to forget that streaming services require internet too.
so yeah, i totally want a wireless TV screen that is able to connect with all the devices in my house. but it's kind of difficult to achieve that without letting the TV access the internet. (not all home routers do not support blocking internet access to specific devices, and most people would not know that's how to do it)
> What else does anyone (average consumer) use their TV for?
Xbox/Playstation and free over-the-air channels. Great for major & regional sporting events - free ABC/NBC/CBS/FOX - tends to have less of a delay as well (for me anyway)
Pretty sure consoles have all the streaming apps too
Isn't that what a streaming stick is for? Who needs those complex TV remotes anyway. I've been running on Roku remotes for years and haven't missed anything. Even TiVo remotes are too complex.
They shouldn't though honestly. TVs should go back to basically being dumb monitors and the smart features should just come with a box. They can even sell the box as a bundle
But surely you know the TV will have ads, and spyware and screenshots you every few seconds to send to manufactures, and in some cases even has microphones involved?
The apps built into the screen literally meet the definition of trojans which any casual search on most brands would tell you.
All avoidable by plugging in an $20 dedicated source device for streaming or whatever.
No? It's hardly written in the advertising copy for the TV, is it.
This is a technical website with technical users. You are failing to put yourself in the shoes of non-technical, ordinary users who just want to watch Netflix.
> All avoidable
If you know that you should avoid it but people don't.
A nutritionist, a dermatologist, a plumber could all say the same about many of the things we do or don't do day to day. There's only so many free "5 minutes" people have in a day.
Why would anyone not take 5 minutes to research a major purchase? They have Internet access!
I mean obviously I expect Grandma not to know, but anyone that knows enough to connect to the internet knows how to use a search engine.
Corpos get away with blatant factory malware and security negligence because consumers are so predictably unwilling to research anything beyond what their social media algorithm of choice shows them as they scroll.
They are actually great at LLMs but you need to invest in keeping up with community tuning efforts. But I am fine with most thinking they are bad at LLMs, because I keep buying more of them!
You can get those numbers with https://codeberg.org/ggz14/radiance-vllm-mxfp4. I also can get it on a single R9700 but the 75 ~ 80 t/s is only peak acceptance of very predictable tokens like coding or json, and averages lower for prose. It's still much faster than regular llama.cpp.
Lemonade is one of the worst performing options. Run any modern Linux distro and ask your current LLM to setup llama.cpp with dflash2 for you as an unprivileged container running from a systemd user unit.
Obviously only on a system you do not trust at all.
I don't have a scientific study at hand, but historically many revolutionaries and resistance fighters were family men and women with children who precisely cared for their children's future.
We must all fight for independent hosting or we will lose the right.
Punish those trying to stop it by coming back stronger. Spin up in a few new countries if you have to.
Friends and I have been giving out free shell accounts, service hosting, and mentorship for anon randos for over 25 years. Apparently this makes us cyber-terrorists. Neat!
We have had our infrastructure taken from us many times, and quickly come back online, often in a new country, every time.
Looking forward to 25 more years of people trying to kill us. Every attempt makes us stronger and smarter.
I have the largest physical media collection of anyone I know. I will buy things I can actually own, but with digital media the studios and labels have ensured purchasing no longer means ownership, and thus digital piracy is not stealing.
I agree with everything you said and abandoned my Twitter account and everything on it years ago for these reasons.
Everything, except for your usage of anarchism to imply chaos or disorder, which is a common misunderstanding. Anarchism, particularly the flavor I subscribe to which is Social Anarchism, is a pursuit of social order, freedom, and prosperity without centralized authorities like Musk.
Thank you for saying this. I totally agree with the OPs comment, but the use of anarchism is off. In fact collectivist anarchism is likely to improve the situation and at least, in theory, produce less predatory entities.
Anarchism is questioning authority for authority sake. If you put yourself in the place of authority to tell other people what's anarchism you are in for a bad time.
The disagreement is the key value of anarchism. The dialectical pendulum, the exchange of ideas. Disagreeing is expressing anarchism, even if you disagree with the other party's understanding of anarchism.
My explanation is in line with the community maintained Wikipedia articles and their sources based on a long history of anarchist history and writings, and none of it seems to be under any significant dispute.
One does not need to be in a position of authority above others to help ensure discussions are grounded in common definitions of what words mean.
The irony of you pulling credentials to illustrate how right you are about anarchism tells how much you don't understand it even if you understand the definition of the word. Anarchy is negative self-referential, you can't really define it universally without creating a paradox. For instance, even in this case that I might be right in explaining this to you, I'm wrong if I say this is anarchism categorically.
What credentials? I just pointed to supporting evidence I used the word in the way it is most commonly and publicly defined.
Meanwhile you shared your own meaning as correct with no supporting evidence it is a definition commonly shared.
You are free to make up your own special definitions of words that few if any share if you like. You can use the word cat to refer to a dog, for instance. It is not going to help you communicate with the majority of people who speak a mostly shared dialect of written english where words have well documented common knowledge meanings though, but you do you.
So in good faith I went to dig a bit what's the holdout in our debate here, and it's because I didn't understand two separate uses of anarchism, the one that's epistemological, anarchism as anti-foundationalism, my point, and your point that's political. In political anarchism we don't have this pressure to question every single thing, so when you said Socialist Anarchism I should have gone and read what that is had I known this distinction beforehand.
TLDR, you are right and I'm not necessarily wrong, we were just talking about two different things.
I just wish I had a less aggressive or snarky style of writing. Maybe then I'd invite people for a discussion and not for exchanging heartbreak, but we are products of our context and certainty is what's currently rewarded, not doubt.
> I just wish I had a less aggressive or snarky style of writing.
You and me both. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard variations of "you are way less of an asshole in person"
Complex asynchronous communication always has a way of forcing the temperature higher than it needs to be because we have more time to wordsmith and the cost of feeling stupid can be multiplied by the size of the perceived audience.
Often the same two people would have had a much better interaction in person where each sees the other as a human being speaking with their own voice and facial expressions.
indeed, the context here is political/organisational rather than epistemological
anarchist organisational practices are real
people have been creating solutions to counter "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" for many decades now
coarsely put, anarchists (and work/housing co-ops, and protest groups) most generally favour consensus-process with proper anti-slow facilitation and role rotation, vs the [usually] majority voting systems and power dichotomies that are the style of communism (see democratic centeralism)
though many places just don't mention this essentially counts as anarchism (or libertarian socialism), cos a) the stigma, b) they just don't need to or know to, c) they do, just behind closed doors
"horizontalism/horizontalidad" has been a good descriptor
Not necessarily I think, because socialism need not be authoritarian, I don't know how, maybe in a thousand years when the society collectively reached higher levels of moral development. But my intuition is that for libertarian socialism to exist, people need to agree and desire to converge to a golden mean ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_mean_(philosophy) ) instead of being incentivised to accumulate as much wealth and power as possible.
True socialism is the opposite of authoritarianism. Simply put, it's taking care of everyone. Just because the label has been misused doesn't change the goal of those of us who identify as socialists. USA propaganda made it a bad word.
> As one of the main ideologies on the political spectrum, socialism is the standard left-wing ideology in most countries. [0]
True! But at some point the rubber needs to meet the road and we haven't seen this materialize in practice, so for all intents and purposes, when we talk about realist socialism we need to account for the various forms of authoritarianism that comes in the package, I think
I don't know, I don't care about capitalism, I prefer to reserve my attention for things that could work long term and let it wither and die.
Having said that, I don't subscribe to capitalist propaganda. When I say realist socialism that should refer to the inherent structures of power that need to exist in order to organize large groups of people and how to manage greed and ambition so it doesn't eat society from within. It's important to idealise true socialism, but just as much as the Ubermensch can't materialize, that is also just a compass, a guiding star.
Neither making up words nor shoving their definitions in people's faces will help neither of us communicate with anyone else. These types of conversations have to happen in good faith where you assume the other party isn't a moron and conduct a productive conversation, like this one.
The fact you address little to none of my points is an indicative that while you are a very good thesaurus, you don't understand much hermeneutics.
Your disagreement here is not the typical understanding. And correcting people is not pushing hierarchy. The parent poster isn't standing over you, they are standing beside you offering to educate you.
You can call anarchism whatever you want, just... if you invent your own notion of the thing don't be surprised when no one understands you.
Edit: I see your post much deeper on, you can ignore me.
Everyone gets to decide what words mean. But anarchism has lots and lots of history of scholarship, debate, and discussion. Kropotkin was writing about this in the 1800s, and we've had well over a century of defining and shaping the definitions.
The parent poster isn't inventing anything or deciding anything. They're just sharing what the common understandings are.
If colloquial usage of "anarchy" has a different definition than, an, I'm sorry, irrelevant niche political movement, then you should assume a given speaker meant the colloquial form.
> The parent poster isn't inventing anything or deciding anything.
Stating something authoritatively is, in fact, "deciding" it for others.
> They're just sharing what the common understandings are.
No, it is not at all the common understanding. When I put "anarchy" into a search engine, the first thing I see is "Absence of any form of political authority.", because that is the common understanding. Forming an "-ism" around that is commonly understood to follow the usual patterns.
Perhaps people who apply the label to themselves wish to see things that way, but they are (thankfully) a small minority of people.
I don't give a damn about the justification, because there's clearly no good reason to care, as it clearly serves a dishonest and dangerous political purpose, viz: attempting to delegitimize the state in order to seize power.
They are pure unadulterated evil. They are guilty until proven innocent at this point.
reply