Pick an idea and roll with it, most of them won’t work, but the only way to find out what will is experience since nobody is going to tell you the truth about money making methods.

I remember spending a very long time trying to download a demo of that game over dialup, was absolutely worth it

Is it really about explaining why they’re not more successful? Personally being “burnt out” was more of a realization that I don’t even want that kind of success, I just want to get as far away from the way my life was in highschool as possible.

I’d worry about getting a very biased jury

But we’re talking about a federal agency here, not local law enforcement. It’s been confirmed that systems they tried to keep secret exist for them to have direct access to traffic going through ISPs, so why wouldn’t they have set up something similar for wireless networks, that would eliminate the need to go through any corporate bureaucracy? To me it seems reasonable to assume that such programs exist without being divulged because it would be basically similar to what else has been confirmed to exist, and there’s a really obvious incentive.

Is there really any chance they don’t have direct access to data from the cell towers and actually need to do tracking by other means? I figured this was just a parallel construction type of thing.

I didn’t really, I have 13 Reddit tabs and like 25 Lemmy tabs open in this browser window atm

Should have a fire trap that works on a timer, but also activates from a pressure plate. You think you’ve got it figured out, then fwoosh, incinerated.

Based on my experience with spaces for discussing and arguing about AI, there is a huge amount of middle ground in peoples opinions between unconditional rejection of the technology and complete denial of every problem or threat that could be associated with it. There’s also many different perspectives about what solutions to those problems are a good idea or not.

There is not anything like ideological unity. Someone who is supportive of AI for anti copyright reasons is usually going to have a lot of differences of opinion with someone who thinks AI powered surveillance will solve society’s problems by eliminating crime. Someone who wants strong government crackdowns on AI because they think Eliezer is right that a superintelligence will form and kill us all will disagree in many ways with someone who thinks the technology is largely a scam. This is a new thing that’s causing rapid changes, so people are going to have different ideas about it.

That’s fucked up, they should not do that. Even if they do it in a way that users are actually secure (maybe generating the password in the browser, nothing serverside?), it isn’t good to train people to trust a website for this.

I don’t think the additional levels quite fit. From the original blog post:

The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.

The bottom two aren’t really themselves arguments. They aren’t things you read and then make a decision whether to take seriously, but rather means of controlling what you read to begin with. So while there is reason to criticize these practices, their inclusion muddles the scope of the message. The scope of the message is important, because the ideal of free expression has become more controversial since it was written in 2008, and it’s not itself a defense of free expression, more of a proposed heuristic for getting more out of a debate with the assumption that you are approaching that debate with the intention of improving your rational understanding of something or leading others to a rational understanding.

IMO arguments about censorship and violence need to be made separately, because the value of that approach (as opposed to words being valued mainly as persuasive weapons) is in question and has to be addressed.

Until you physically can’t communicate anymore, it’s always an option to keep trying.

This is a good point, there are definitely plenty of times I’ve gotten a response and ended up embarrassed and rethinking a bit how I approach things, and I’m certainly not advocating to avoid that. And maybe “disable inbox replies” is more something with niche uses and not a general solution here. I guess the main reason I mention it is, most of the time I have felt a similar kind of anxiety about responses has been over some specific comment I believed really should be said but knew was likely to get a hostile reaction, and being able to rule out worries over those specific comments helped a lot on Reddit.

The larger point I want to make though is that the anxiety you are describing in the OP post should be overcome, and shouldn’t be a struggle people face alone without help. I want to hear from more perspectives, and it’s not great to think it’s likely many are deterred entirely by this sort of fear of social disapproval. IMO learning from mistakes is harder if it’s considered as and feels like a punishment or enforcement of some external will.

I am streaming my music but not like that, allow me to flex my custom setup:

Of course if someone never wants to read comments they can just do that, but I think that’s a bit of a different thing because it seems that would indicate disinterest in back and forth engagement here overall instead of just a specific kind.

I wonder though why you feel that you should “face consequences” for expressing an opinion you expect will be unpopular, while at the same time expressing anxiety about the possibility of it happening (when you have conviction you’re right even), because that’s honestly confusing to me. Why would it necessarily mean you ‘screwed up’ just because what you have to say triggered hostility? Wouldn’t it be better just to be able to worry about it less, and express yourself more freely without chilling effects? People might say this could be abused, but I guess the way I see it is that letting others have the last word is what it amounts to externally, and what you choose to read or feel yourself is private and something you have broad license to make your own choices about.

For me the most common situation on Reddit where I use this feature is if I have something to say in disagreement with someone who is already talking aggressively about something. Where I have good reason to think they’re likely to leave a nasty response, and that there likely won’t be anything productive left to say, I’ll probably have to hold myself back from responding further anyway, so there’s no point feeling anxious in the meantime worrying about getting the inbox notification.

I also disable vote scores, though fortunately that’s something Lemmy does have now afaik.

I don’t see how it’s fine because it’s basically just a loophole that makes the law useless isn’t it? If they have ultimate authority over what is and isn’t allowed on your phone, and the owner of the phone has no say in that, what do the details of how it happens matter?

That’s difficult when there are lots of people who will say that and be serious about it. No way to know if it’s hyperbole.

Lemmy needs the “disable inbox replies” feature for comments imo. Although lately I see mostly polite disagreement.

But the meme is making the more extreme claim that no uses exist, so any counterexamples mean it’s untrue. Not the best way of criticizing companies that don’t know or care what a technology is good for imo.