I can agree it’s a little bit racist and wrong to tell the story using that sort of slur, and honestly I kind of think likely the entire story is very racist due to being fake and made up to get a laugh at the expense of Indian people, but if it’s real it seems worse to be knowingly bringing harassment down on your coworkers by intentionally antagonizing people for a laugh when you’re supposed to be doing your job, I think that probably does more actual harm.

This often happens to me on Windows with the Index so it might not even be a Linux specific issue

It’s possible to absorb more or less from your food, for instance someone who is lactose intolerant is not going to gain as much weight from eating the same amount of cheese as someone who is not

Well my point is that Satan is kind of awful too anyways. He is not exactly in opposition to the terrible things God is doing in the Bible and in fact eggs him on so it doesn’t make much sense to be pro-Satan if you are anti-God.

Story of Job is basically

Satan: bet that guy wouldn’t worship you anymore if you ruined his life

God: Totally would, watch me kill his whole family

They are both on team asshole

Well I haven’t played in years, but I strongly suspect that exceptionally low ratio of female voices I referred to was not just because the game itself does not appeal to women.

This doesn’t really address what I’m talking about. I can personally handle people saying mean things to me (though can’t say anyone in an online game ever threatened to rape me), but what I have a problem with is people I might like to interact with being driven out and the space becoming increasingly concentrated with people I don’t like very much.

I think a lot of people on hearing this sort of thing once or twice will shut off the game and never play again. To me it seems like a similar kind of situation to a website like a Lemmy instance that removes all the csam spam that gets posted, but not fast enough that most people never see it. In that situation you can’t tell users “just report and block”, there is still a big problem and there is no one that can take responsibility for it other than the people operating the service.

I played thousands of games of Dota 2, and in that time I heard a woman speak probably like 5 times total, which honestly is very understandable on their part, but still unfortunate. Would be nice to play online games that are not de-facto filtering out everyone who isn’t willing to tolerate being periodically subjected to verbal abuse, especially when it’s extreme forms of verbal abuse.

It’s pretty obvious that the censorship training makes the AI less capable in general for a lot of use cases, even ones that don’t directly touch on nsfw content. It’s a major reason behind the popularity of local models. OpenAI must be feeling the pressure to compete even more than they’re afraid of people writing articles like this one at this point.

Check out Nostr, ActivityPub alternative that does authentication separately from content, works more like that.

Isn’t this greentext mocking Linux users?

Yes

Am I not understanding and the author’s perspective is actually that they like Linux but feel ostracized?

Probably, how else would they accurately identify specific limitations with it that someone who doesn’t use it would probably gloss over? It’s some combination of self loathing and playing on the insecurities of the reader to bait a response.

The joke is that Anon is a very irresistibly punchable sort of person and so of course they would be a victim of violence. A common theme in greentexts is projected anxiety about peer rejection for not conforming.

I think it is a little different if it is your own pets vs someone else’s. Why should the rest of community trust the judgment and ability of someone to retrain their dog after something like that, and their assurances that it won’t happen again?

and even then you can inly do so much.

If there’s a very high chance keeping a dog is going to result in violence being done to the people around you and their pets, maybe it shouldn’t be an option in the first place. Breeds of dogs with very high prey drives, ownership of them should probably be more restricted than it is.

If an animal has killed other people’s pets and attacked humans, I think that’s past the point of speculating about how you might possibly get it to not do those things in the future. More likely some half measures will be taken, that will fail, and it will happen again. I am biased but dogs that kill other pets should be put down as a matter of law.

Relevant Snowden quote:

Arguing that you don’t care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say

I pay for vpn service anonymously even though I probably don’t need to, as my main use is torrenting. I can see a remote possibility that vpn payment records at some point end up being used against pirates, even just as some kind of risk factor flagging, in the same vein as what you are saying: “If someone is paying for a vpn, surely they’re doing something bad?” In countries that really want to crack down on speech and human rights, vpns get banned outright to varying success, and if you can’t pay anonymously in that situation you’re pretty screwed, this hurts those people.

In general I think everyone should be trying for some level of actual privacy online as a matter of principle, just because of how everyone being fully tracked and observed puts way too much power in the hands of those watching.

The current administration and its agencies have clear contempt for any sort of crypto privacy they have shown in a variety of ways. The Tornado Cash sanction and criminal charges, recent Bitcoin mixer criminal charges, the proposed rule putting a “Primary Money Laundering Concern” black mark on people seeking crypto privacy in virtually any way… if it’s possible to still purchase online services privately after this, I’m sure they will go on to take further measures to try to close the “loophole”. They don’t want anyone doing things without being able to monitor them.

I hate how polarized everything is that this level of emphasis that you are not taking a certain side is required to criticize an argument made against that side. Bad, misleading arguments are bad, should always be ok to point it out.

Would only really be relevant for tournaments, except the organizing bodies of which aren’t affiliated with Hasbro and have their own sets of words and drama over them. People playing casually can just have house rules about whether slurs are or aren’t accepted and what counts as one.

This could be right and maybe I’m under a rock but I am suspicious of articles that reference dumb things people are supposedly saying without any quotes or citations

if somehow the population of pirates increases, that will lead to maybe tighter controls on piracy or a more global crackdown of piracy

Yes, I think most people accept that this is how it would likely work. And it actually is the case that many pirates do not agree with what I am saying, and see this as something to be avoided by keeping piracy niche, and would like to preserve their own access that way, and use this reasoning to argue against greater accessibility. But it’s kind of like voting; any action you can take as an individual affecting the broader society is unlikely to make much difference in determining outcomes that affect you personally. It’s possible to mistakenly imagine that they do, it’s possible to not be thinking about it at all, and it’s possible to have different ideas about what you would like to affect; for instance a person wanting to keep piracy niche might have some idea of a group identity of more technically literate and connected insiders like themselves, and want to act to protect the interests of maintaining media access for that group.

To me, this subjectivity of goals and the relative absence of direct personal consequences make these choices very unlike a game of prisoner’s dilemma, in which you can expect the consequences of your choices to be unambiguous, tangible, and personally experienced. Instead of working out an optimization problem for clearly defined personal interests that are the same for all actors, the task is one of empathy and imagination - what can the world look like, what should it look like, who do we care about and what do we want for them? How do different visions of the world weigh against each other?