“A few stakeholders were concerned that the release of the report would result in new legal action (criminal prosecution, citizen revocation, or otherwise) being brought against the individuals named in the report,”
Also known as "justice" and "law".
Searching some of these Python Community discussions separately and reading how they handled these bumps in the road as a group has actually increased my confidence in that group as a whole:
https://discuss.python.org/t/three-month-suspension-for-a-core-developer/60250
https://discuss.python.org/t/calling-for-a-vote-of-no-confidence/61557
On the other hand, the three month suspension of Tim Peters that started it all and how that was handled sounds problematic (the second half of the essay addresses each point from the original banning rationale in detail):
https://chrismcdonough.substack.com/p/the-shameful-defenestration-of-tim
Finally, Chris McDonough (the author of the above article) drawing attention to valid criticism of his own defense of Tim Peters is a blueberry on top of the cherry on the cake:
https://chattingdarkly.org/@chrism/113020098915125686
I hope the community ends up stronger as a result of this.
Different folks are at different stages of their journey. People are allowed to post about their thoughts and experiences.
The title (click bait as it is) withholds the most important qualifier from the text of which AI we are talking about:
"“Overall, our model shows that the job loss from AI computer vision, even just within the set of vision tasks, will be smaller than the existing job churn seen in the market [...]”
Sure, computer vision is important for some jobs, but it's a much smaller subset of jobs that is really deemed protected as claimed by the study. If the knowledge has already been coded to text on the other hand, it's a different story.
This should be a big story. Very very big.
OMG, I feel so seen rn 😳
Dying to know what happened 👁️👁️
I'm a long time Mastodon user, and I've observed multiple cycles of user influxes (usually caused by some unpopular decision at Twitter) followed by slow but steady decline as these new users got frustrated, disappointed, attacked or something similar. Each wave however did leave a portion that stuck around. I can't tell you whether Mastodon or Lemmy will "succeed", but it's clear by now that both their respective user bases couldn't even agree on the definition of success.
This might sound like a negative, but if you look at corporate social media which has a pretty clear vision of what its own success looks like (is this fair?), it might also be partly positive. Also, while success might be hard to define and agree on in the Fediverse, I think that these networks are more resilient to total failure than traditional social media (though again, this statement hides some implicit assumptions).
Ultimately, I've learned to stop worrying about this. People will talk about what they want to talk about, and this will continue to change and evolve. Lemmy needs better moderation tools (as demonstrated by the recent CSAM attack), but I believe it will get them in time. If you want to talk about something different on Lemmy: do! Just post it, or create a community. It might not explode over night, but it might catch on.
Mastodon and now Lemmy are the only social media I actively use now (permanently deleted my Twitter account on the day the Tate interview was published "exclusively", but was less active there for years) , and I feel the better for it. I've observed tremendous progress in the Fediverse during the past six years and it's very encouraging in the long term.
Wow - “you don’t attack me, I don’t attack you” - that's not how the government - free press relationship is supposed to work.
Thanks for reiterating this and posting a source. Every time I see an article on Snowden year over year, someone brings up the tired old "argument" that because he is now trapped in Russia, that somehow makes everything he did "wrong", and invalidates everything he exposed the government for doing. The media campaign against him was apparently quite effective, and these soundbites are ever ready to jump out of people's mouths without any research or critical thinking.
“TD Bank created an environment that allowed financial crime to flourish,” Garland said. “By making its services convenient for criminals, it became one.”
I hope no one indeed will be "off limits" in the criminal investigation, let's see...