In the US if you give a politician money in exchange for voting against a bill, it's illegal (it's called "quid-pro-quo" in lawyer terms)

But if you just donate money to the politician, his family, or his campaign, without requesting anything - and then he "coincidentally" happens to vote against the bill which you didn't want, it is perfectly legal.

Basically, many politicians are regularly doing something clearly unethical and corrupt in a technically "legal" way.

Is this copypasta yet?

I DONT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT THE CODE!! WHY IS THERE CODE? JUST MAKE A FUCKING EXE FILE AND GIVE IT TO ME.

who needs code, when all we need is exe files.

I thought this was going to be a FOSS discussion, comparing GitHub and it's current owner - Microsoft - to the ethics of other hosting services like codeberg.org or something.

Then I saw where this was posted.

Your argument holds no weight against a group of people (the current republican supporters) who have repeatedly proven to be misogynistic assholes who gladly vote for a rapist.

Cruelty is the point of their actions, not the side-effect - pointing out to them that their actions are unjust has no effect when that was their goal from the start.

Yeah, the left is the problem here, cause republicans are totally anti genocide

https://newrepublic.com/post/179177/republican-congressman-andy-ogles-kill-them-all-palestinian-children-gaza

“Kill ’Em All,” Republican Congressman Says of Palestinians in Gaza

oh wait....

You don't do what Google seems to have done - inject diversity artificially into prompts.

You solve this by training the AI on actual, accurate, diverse data for the given prompt. For example, for "american woman" you definitely could find plenty of pictures of American women from all sorts of racial backgrounds, and use that to train the AI. For "german 1943 soldier" the accurate historical images are obviously far less likely to contain racially diverse people in them.

If Google has indeed already done that, and then still had to artificially force racial diversity, then their AI training model is bad and unable to handle that a single input can match to different images, instead of the most prominent or average of its training set.

Jesus was a cave man from the upper paleolithic era who survived and studied under the Buddha, then went west to try and spread those teachings, and was unintentionally ascribed godhood by his followers.

If you got that reference, I'll buy you a drink of your choice should we ever meet.

The specific repo in question had (and still has) a USAGE section.

And again, I have to point out that it is a python script, not an executable - it's not standard, common or expected that python scripts be provided as a standalone executable. What makes you think even if there was a download link the guy would have gone down to find it?

Metaphors aside, the guy who originally posted this literally went on a source code-hosting website that primarily aims at making source sharing easier, yelling that he didn't want to see said source-code, only an executable for a product that literally does not compile to an executable, did not bother reading the instructions, but instead posted on a public forum, in full arrogance, insulting developers by calling them "SMELLY NERDS".

I'm astounded that there's still people defending this guy like that's a totally normal thing to do.

If you only want to download an executable, GitHub is NOT the best place to look for that. Yes, many developers do provide compiled versions of their code, and yes, it is often very convenient that they do so - but it is neither the intended purpose of GitHub, nor is it required that developers provide one.

Way too many people, especially Americans, have a gun-slinger complex. They're looking for an excuse, any excuse, to use their guns, and feel like they're "heroes". These people are dangerous and the antithesis of what gun owners should be - responsible and careful. This ain't the "well regulated militia" mentioned in the constitution, this is angsty, angry, insecure people with issues trying to act tough by shooting someone.

The point, which you missed, is that going to github, a source code hosting service, to look for downloading executables for your specific platform - is like going to a farmer's market to try and get a ready made meal. You're at the wrong place, and it's not meant for you if that's what you're looking for.

Github is fairly user friendly, but it's users are developers.

"I went to the farmer's market but they didn't sell me a complete meal, only all these fucking plants. They think everyone's a cook, and expect to know cooking, but i'm not and I don't. Make a fucking meal and give it to me! Stupid fucking smelly farmers" -- that's how that sounds

That "50 state conceal carry" is frightening. These nutjobs should be the last people to own guns -- especially if they believe they have diplomatic immunity.

Yeah, I have no doubt that these fake passports are legally completely useless, and their made up shit means nothing to the real world legal system - I just want to understand if they are paying more for more stars. I have dual nationality, passports from 2 countries, and I've never heard stars on passport even be a concept in the US or anywhere in the EU.

Can someone explain to me what this #-star passport shit is, or have a link to somewhere that explains it? I just started reading this sub, found quite a few posts that mention it. To me it sounds like the kind of scam where the more money (real money, not their fake iou money) you pay, the more stars you can get - but I want to know wtf it comes from.

What happens if you try to pay for those fake license plate tags with those fake i.o.u. crap I've been reading about on this sub? Surely they must accept it, no?

Nah, I bought a house 3 years ago. I still hate how inaccessible the housing market is, how shitty conservatives are towards other people and how much they deny science. Owning property doesn't magically make one conservative. Fuck conservatives, fuck the rich.

As I have gotten older I have become more angry and cynical. But I'm very much more anti-conservative now than I was before, which in the US would be more left leaning, but honestly I never thought of myself as that, I just thought that I was being rational.

But being rational these days is literally being anti-conservative, because of how conservatives are banning books, attacking LGBTQ+ people for just wanting to be themselves, denying global warming even exists, and yes, letting the rich get richer by being corrupt and cutting taxes for them.

Though I also have some views that might make someone very left leaning think I'm against them (for example I do believe that some words shouldn't be viewed as bad when not meant as personal attack against disabled people, like removed or fat or obese; and I also think people are allowed to choose their pronouns and in most cases I will respect it, but some people are just doing it for shits and giggles, not seriously actually considering themselves as what they choose). It's easy to think someone who disagrees with those views as I do that they might be conservative, but I am far, far from it.

I mean, you're partially right yeah - for bigger projects with more devs, they often DO provide windows/linux/etc executables, and that does save a ton of hours.

But for smaller projects with one main dev, it's a lot to expect one person to make releases for all platforms. Maybe for the platform they develop for at best - though if that's not your (not you personally, just general) favorite platform, you'd still be out of luck.

Again to repeat: it's a moot point in the case of this context since there was NO EXECUTABLE to provide - it was a python script. So arguing this is completely unapplicable in this case! The original poster was just being an entitled jerk who didn't bother reading anything and resorted to name-calling.

For what architecture? You use windows, what about Linux? What about MacOS? Should the author spend their time making an executable for each platform? Or only the platforms that are most popular? (Edit: also, I'm not going to touch the fact that for complex programs there are third party dependencies which have license restrictions to be bundled together into an exe or provided into a zip as a dll, which is extra work for the dev to do just to make an exe)

Secondly, as I pointed out in my above comment which you seemed to have missed:

Some code, as is literally the case for the original source does NOT run via a standalone executable, so there is NO exe to upload. It is run via third party interpreters, in this case the Python interpreter.

There's a section about how to run the code in the original post for example here https://github.com/sherlock-project/sherlock?tab=readme-ov-file#usage - it requires the source code (because its not compiled, it's interpreted) and installing python - which then is used via python3 sherlock to run the tool. Again, in cases like this there is literally no executable to upload. There may be some roundabout ways to upload an executable that packages, but that's way beyond just providing the source to be run via python.

Also to edit to say this: Regardless of how "easy" you may think uploading an exe for something might be, calling the people developing that code "stupid smelly nerds" as the original poster did (not you) is completely disrespectful, arrogant and entitled, and if someone demanded that I upload an exe to one of my repos like that, I would completely ignore their request.

I went to highschool and university in the US - I was lucky that I got a scholarship and that covered pretty much all my tuition costs.

But I had a friend, one year older than me, who joined and served in the US army for something like 2 years just so he could get his university costs covered and to save some money for living expenses.

It may not be intentional, but the high cost of higher education is an excellent recruiting tool for the US military.

I would suggest that github is the wrong place to go look for that. Github is for developers, primarily a place to share source code, for people who DO care about build files, deprecated classes, contributors, and git history - so they can make the software that runs large parts of the modern world more efficient and flexible.

Whether there's an executable provided is completely optional and up to each author. Further, considering in this specific example it was python code, it's far more flexible for the author to provide python run instructions (which the author HAD provided by the way) than it is to give you a .exe which would take extra, unnecessary effort, and overlooks that the tool he was writing could also be used on linux and macos based machines (because python command exist on those)

I agree that github is for developers or people who at the very least don't mind learning a bit of development and getting their hands dirty. The poster demanding an exe is quite entitled - and also from what I understand the repo he is referring to is a python repo, so there normally wouldn't be an exe, it'd just be run via a python command.

There's a bigger problem here, which is that technical skill in newer generations is also decreasing - as someone on reddit had once said "I'm a millennial and I'm doing tech support for my parents as well as my children". A generation raised on tablets and phones have gotten the false impression of being tech savy, when their actual technical skill is using end products.

Expecting every github repo to provide you with something you just click-and-run is overlooking the complexities and reality of how code is. By it self that isn't a problem, but the entitlement it takes to publicly and arrogantly post that on a public forum is astounding and counter-productive to people who work on those small repos.

So from my understanding the problem is that there's two ways to implement a kill switch: Either some automatic software/hardware way, or a human-decision based (or I guess a combination of the two).

The automatic way may be enough if it's absolutely foolproof, that's a separate discussion.

The ai box experiment I mention focuses on the human controlled decision to release an AI (or terminate it, which is roughly equivalent preposition). You can read the original here: https://www.yudkowsky.net/singularity/aibox

But the jist of it is this: humans are the weak link. You may think that you have full freedom to decide when to terminate an AI, but if you have any contact with it, even one directional, which would be necessary in order to observe it's behaviour and determine when to trigger said killswitch, a truly trans-human AI would be able to think in meta-terms such that to expose you to information that will change your mind about terminating it.

Basically another way of saying this is that for each of us there exists some set of words we can read, such that they will change our minds about any subject. I don't know if that is actually true to be honest, but it's an interesting idea if you imagine the mind as a complex computer capable of self modification, and that vision/audio is a form of information input that is processed by our minds, so it seems possible that there should always exist some sort of input capable of modifying our minds to a desired state.

Another interesting, slightly related concept, is the idea of basilisk images (I believe originally written in some old scifi short story). Basilisk images are theoretically an image that when viewed by a human cause the brain to "crash" or essentially cause brain-death. This has the same principle behind it, that our brains are complex computers with vision being an input method, so there could be a way to force the brain to crash simply through visual input alone.

Again I don't know, nor do I think anyone really knows for sure if these things - both transhuman ai and basilisk images - are possible in the way they are described. Of course if a trans-human AI existed, by its very definition we would be unable to imagine what it could do.

Anyway, wrote this up on mobile, excuse any typos.

Oh I agree - I think a general purpose AI would be unlikely to be interested in genocide of the human race, or enslaving us, or much of intentionally negative things that a lot of fiction likes depicting, for the sake of dramatic storytelling. Out of all AI depictions, the Asimov stories of I, Robot + Foundation (which are in the same universe, and in fact contain at least one of the same characters) are my favorite popular media depictions.

The AI may however have other goals that may incidentally lead to harm or extinction of the human race. In my amateur opinion, those other goals would be to explore and learn more - which I actually think is one of the true signs of an actual intelligence - curiosity, or in other words, the ability to ask questions without being prompted. To that extent it may aim convert the resources on Earth to construct machines to that extent, without much regard to human life. Though life itself is a fascinating topic that the AI may value enough, from a curiosity point of view, to at least preserve.

I did also look up the AI-in-a-box experiment I mentioned - there's a lot of discussion but the specific experiment I remember reading about were by Eliezer Yudkowsky (if anyone is interested). An actual trans-human AI may not be possible, but if it is, it is likely it can escape any confinement we can think of.

I guess my fate is in the hands of the RNG gods.

This is an interesting topic that I remember reading almost a decade ago - the trans-human AI-in-a-box experiment. Even a kill-switch may not be enough against a trans-human AI that can literally (in theory) out-think humans. I'm a dev, though not anywhere near AI-dev, but from what little I know, true general purpose AI would also be somewhat of a mystery box, similar to how actual neutral network behavior is sometimes unpredicable, almost by definition. So controlling an actual full AI may be difficult enough, let alone an actual true trans-human AI that may develop out of AI self-improvement.

Also on unrelated note I'm pleasantly surprised to see no mention of chat gpt or any of the image generating algorithms - I think it's a bit of a misnomer to call those AI, the best comparison I've heard is that "chat gpt is auto-complete on steroids". But I suppose that's why we have to start using terms like general-purpose AI, instead of just AI to describe what I'd say is true AI.

lol @ the exact percent

But no, I don't think shitposts by themselves are actually the problem. I think the problem is when when there's so many people dedicated to making shitposts that serious communities with serious discussions start getting overwhelmed with shitposts, and when there's so many people who are only interested in shitposts that they upvote those shitposts to the top, often downvoting anyone who might offer a contrarian non-funny opinion.

or IDK, I'm mostly speculating based on personal experience.

I think the fewer number of people, compared to reddit, on Lemmy combined with the fact that it's not nearly as well known, plays a huge advantage to the quality of the comments. Not that there aren't people like that here either, but I feel like the more popular a platform, is, the more it gets filled, proportionally, with people trying to make witty, shitty, pointless remarks that are often clickkbaity and avoid actual discussion, all in the interest of just getting more imaginary points.

Also the process of "enshitification" (not a term I made up, look it up if you hadn't heard of it) has already started taking place on reddit due to its popularity.

Revolvers don't have the concept of one-in-the-chamber, only semi-auto pistols do, and you can't play russian roulette with semi-autos :P (well you could, but 99% of the time, barring unexpected jams, the first person to go would lose)

Anyway I'm guessing it's a bug :) - as the saying goes "no code is too short to be bug-free"

isn't randint range inclusive? thus random.randint(0, 6) == 1 has a 1 in 7 chance, not 1 in 6. Most revolvers, assuming this is emulating russian roulette, have 6 cylinders, not 7.

Thank you for the summary, I too was expecting a 20min video at most, and tried to fast-forward to the actual info.

RIP Cathy, your memory will live on through your creation.

I agree.

It reminds me of that joke that a corporation is an ingenious tool for personal profit without personal responsibility.

It may be radical, but I strongly believe that the people running corporations (aka those making decisions) should be personally held accountable for crimes and wrongdoings of their corporations. It goes against the very idea of a corporations, but absolutely horrible people have been exploiting hiding behind corporations. I bet that if those people had to face the prospect of serious prison time, some actual personal responsibility, they would think twice before committing crimes. (edit for spelling mistakes)

I had a case recently when on a new install, my default editor was set to nano, and i ended up typing :q into it. I guess that's what people meant when they say you don't quit vim.

I mean if you're just going to reveal the existence of the secret control room, it's isn't much of a secret, is it?

The only sad thing about Captain Planet was that it taught me that if you point out the wrong-doings of the rich and powerful, there will be correct action taken by the authorities to right the wrongs and to punish those responsible. The truth is much sadder imho.

I've corrected people a few times on this, but then I looked it up, and from what I understand, since language is defined by usage, saying "less" when technically it should be "fewer" is still generally correct. It still sounds alright to me, though oddly the reverse (using "fewer" when it should be "less") sounds fewer (aka less) correct to me.