Seizing “office property” isn’t going to disrupt customers in the same way as seizing a plane, and again, no one is saying don’t seize a plane, or don’t punish Ryanair - just don’t seize a plane with passengers already on it (at least without going through a process that includes a threat and a deadline, so the customers can, theoretically, be spared).
The logic you’re applying here would have all accounts frozen at a bank when a single customer disputes a charge, all parcels held when a carrier misdelivers a single item, grocery stores unable to sell food when one customer should have been refunded.
No one is siding with Ryanair here. But laws can be enforced and justice can be carried out, without disrupting the lives of everyone else. There were likely on the order 200 people on that flight who would have been caught in the crossfire of a dispute they have no part in.
What would the alternative course of action be? Seize the plane immediately, kick off all the passengers, and screw over a whole new set of people? The sticker may seem toothless, but it’s the court going through the (predefined) process. As long as they continue that process, there’s no reason to be upset at the court, yet. (If they don’t follow through, then perhaps it’s pitchfork time.)
Fediverse… Fed… Federated. Unifying it would defeat the purpose. Yes, there could be a single platform, with federated hosting, but multiple platforms working with a single protocol is a good thing.
Consider the web - in the old days, it was an open platform. Then Internet Explorer got a stranglehold, and to use the web practically required using IE on Windows (many sites did not work in other browsers). Eventually we righted the ship, but now Chromium browsers are taking over, and we’re heading in a similar direction.
For the fediverse to remain open and effective, we should embrace extra platforms*. It prevents anyone getting too much control over the protocol, prevents lock-in, prevents centralization, etc.
*We should generally encourage use/development of the same protocol, though.
*An official letter, signed by at least three colleagues.
What bugs me the most is I’ve pointed it out to people in conversations that basically go like this:
Me: You used it for X and caught mistakes - why are you trusting it for Y? Them: That’s a good point.
And then they keep doing it anyway.
I’m not an AI hater at all - it can be a great way to accelerate work you are capable of doing on your own. But using it for things you don’t understand, and/or not double checking its work is insanity.
I hate to bring up AI, but this is exactly what I keep trying to explain to people - when you ask any of these bots questions about things you’re an expert in, you see all the flaws. The trouble is people tend not to ask questions about things they already know…
Short clips is a common technique for spotting AI generated videos. It’s computationally expensive to do more than that. Not impossible, but uncommon.
They updated the ride after the movies, so… It’s kind of circular at this point.
Raster images do not need to be rendered - see Rendering:
Rendering is the process of generating a photorealistic or non-photorealistic image from input data such as 3D models…Today, to “render” commonly means to generate an image or video from a precise description (often created by an artist) using a computer program.
Note that “render” is a fairly generic term, and it is sometimes used like “render to the screen,” to just mean to display something. Rasterisation may be a better term to use here, since it only applies to vector graphics, and is the part of the process I am referring to.
In any case, except for possibly reading fewer bytes from disk, the vector case includes all the same compute and memory cost as the raster image - it just has added overhead to compute the bitmap. On modern hardware, this doesn’t take terribly long, but it does mean we’re using more compute just to launch/load things.
It’s also worth noting apps have to ship higher resolution assets now, due to higher resolution displays. This can include video, audio, images, etc. Videos and images may be included at multiple resolutions, to account for different sized displays.
For images, many might assume vectors are the answer, but vectors have to be rendered at runtime, which increases startup time in the best case scenario, and isn’t even always supported on all platforms, meaning they have to be shipped alongside raster assets of a few different sizes, further increasing package bloat. And of course the code grows to add the logic to properly handle all the different asset types and sizes.
All this (packaging dependencies, plus assets/asset handling) to say it isn’t always malware, ads, electron, etc. Sometimes it’s just trying to make something that looks nice and runs well (enough) on any machine.
Many apps ship both vectors and raster images. It is worth nothing that vectors save space, but increase compute (the image now has to be rendered at runtime), contributing to slower startup times.
Worth noting is that “good” database design evolved over time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Database_normalization). If anything was setup pre-1970s, they wouldn’t have even had the conception of the normal forms used to cut down on data duplication. And even after they were defined, it would have been quite a while before the concepts trickled down from acedmemia to the engineers actually setting up the databases in production.
On top of that, name to SSN is a many-to-many relationship - a single person can legally change their name, and may have to apply for a new SSN (e.g. in the case of identity theft). So even in a well normalized database, when you query the data in a “useful” form (e.g. results include name and SSN), it’s probably going to appear as if there are multiple people using the same SSN, as well as multiple SSNs assigned to the same person.
Mario Kart was played for racing, and balloon battles. Diddy Kong Racing was all about Fire Mountain (the game where you capture the eggs).
The president’s “official act” would be issuing the pardon. The referenced Supreme Court decision just means it would not be a “crime” for the president to issue said pardon, not that the pardon would stand.
The president can’t intervene at the state level. From americanbar.org:
A U.S. president has broad but not unlimited powers to pardon. For example, a president cannot pardon someone for a state crime.
This ignores the first part of my response - if I, as a legitimate user, might get caught up in one of these trees, either by mistakenly approving a bot, or approving a user who approves a bot, and I risk losing my account if this happens, what is my incentive to approve anyone?
Additionally, let’s assume I’m a really dumb bot creator, and I keep all of my bots in the same tree. I don’t bother to maintain a few legitimate accounts, and I don’t bother to have random users approve some of the bots. If my entire tree gets nuked, it’s still only a few weeks until I’m back at full force.
With a very slightly smarter bot creator, you also won’t have a nice tree:
As a new user looking for an approver, how do I know I’m not requesting (or otherwise getting) approved by a bot? To appear legitimate, they would be incentivized to approve legitimate users, in addition to bots.
A reasonably intelligent bot creator would have several accounts they directly control and use legitimately (this keeps their foot in the door), would mix reaching out to random users for approval with having bots approve bots, and would approve legitimate users in addition to bots. The tree ends up as much more of a tangled graph.
This ignores the first part of my response - if I, as a legitimate user, might get caught up in one of these trees, either by mistakenly approving a bot, or approving a user who approves a bot, and I risk losing my account if this happens, what is my incentive to approve anyone?
Additionally, let’s assume I’m a really dumb bot creator, and I keep all of my bots in the same tree. I don’t bother to maintain a few legitimate accounts, and I don’t bother to have random users approve some of the bots. If my entire tree gets nuked, it’s still only a few weeks until I’m back at full force.
With a very slightly smarter bot creator, you also won’t have a nice tree:
As a new user looking for an approver, how do I know I’m not requesting (or otherwise getting) approved by a bot? To appear legitimate, they would be incentivized to approve legitimate users, in addition to bots.
A reasonably intelligent bot creator would have several accounts they directly control and use legitimately (this keeps their foot in the door), would mix reaching out to random users for approval with having bots approve bots, and would approve legitimate users in addition to bots. The tree ends up as much more of a tangled graph.
I think this would be too limiting for humans, and not effective for bots.
As a human, unless you know the person in real life, what’s the incentive to approve them, if there’s a chance you could be banned for their bad behavior?
As a bot creator, you can still achieve exponential growth - every time you create a new bot, you have a new approver, so you go from 1 -> 2 -> 4 -> 8. Even if, on average, you had to wait a week between approvals, in 25 weeks (less that half a year), you could have over 33 million accounts. Even if you play it safe, and don’t generate/approve the maximal accounts every week, you’d still have hundreds of thousands to millions in a matter of weeks.
What would you do if he wasn’t your dad? You mentioned you took full blame, almost as if you felt like you were covering for him, but I think even if it wasn’t your dad, you’re responsible for anyone you bring in, and the work they do, so taking the blame should be universal. And going forward, I’d expect a similar, universal approach. You could choose to not mention it but also not employ that person any more, mention it before the next job and ask them to be extra careful, change procedures to guarantee it doesn’t happen again…
I don’t think him being your dad should necessarily afford him special treatment.