I would say this is an overall positive: The more people are aware of how easy it is to create fake this with AI the better, I would say. That would make people less likely to fall for it in the future, especially for something with greater consequences than just a parade that didn’t exist.

Really? I didn’t know that! What is it called? How can I use it?

Honestly, I don’t see why CSS theming is important. The customization is nice and all, but that’s not going to make people switch to Firefox. There are many other things that could be improved, like adding tab grouping. I use this extension called Tree Style Tab which I cannot live without. Firefox having something like that by default instead of an extension would be nice.

However, having said that, OperaGX did find quite a lot of success by simply making it easy to theme the browser, so I can see where they are coming from.

This image is AI generated. Look closely at the smaller text, it’s all mangled.

This kinda stuff should be opt-IN, not opt-OUT. Just think of how many people don’t even know this is happening, or that there even is an opt-out.

Capitalism is the economic model where the wealth created by the workers is owned by the people o whom the tools and resources required to created said wealth and not the workers who put in the work to create it.

Here is a comic that might help you understand:

Reminder that neutrality and compromise isn’t always a good thing.

I don’t think you understand exactly how theses machines work. The machine does not “learn”, it does not extract meaning from the tokens it receives. Here is one way to look at it

Suppose you have a sequence of symbols: ¹§ŋ¹§ŋ¹§ŋ¹§ŋ And then were given a fragment of a sequence and asked to guess what you be the most likely symbol to follow it: ¹§ Think you could do it? I’m sure you would have no trouble solving this example. But could you make a machine that could reliably accomplish this task, regardless of the sequence of symbols and regardless of the fragment given? Let’s imagine you did manage to create such a marvellous machine.

If given a large sequence of symbols spanning multiple books of length would you say this pattern recognition machine is able to create anything original? No… Because it is simply trying to copy it’s original sequence as closely as possible.

Another question: Would this machine ever derive meaning from this symbols? No… How could it?

But what if I told you that these symbols weren’t just symbols: Unbeknownst to the machine each one of this symbols actually represents a word. Behold: ChatGPT.

This is basically the general idea behind generative AI as far as I’m aware. Please correct me if I’m wrong. This is obviously oversimplified.

Huh, how does the action of one political party dictate what a global movement want?

Do you even know what the terms “Left” and “Right” mean in this context? (No, they are not a synonim of “Democrat” and “Republican” party of this one country)

Also since when was Biden on the left?

I’m far from an expert, but Vanguard is a kernel-level program. If a kernel-level program crashed, the whole system crashes. So yes, any kernel-level program could do the same thing CrowdStrike did, intentionally or not.

Kernel-level programs can do whatever the hell they want.

Republics aren’t necessarily democratic.

A country is considered a republic when it’s government in comprised of representatives of the citizen body. But how should those representatives be selected? The concept of “republic” does not specify how. You could choose them through democratic means; You could elect a president who in turn selects the representatives; or you could have them be chosen based on who is the richest. That would still be a republic.

Democracy comes from the Greek demos, which means people or district, and kratos, which means power. Democracy is when the power is on the people.

Republic simply says the government should be ruled by representatives of the citizen body, Democracy states how those representatives should be selected.

(Please correct me if I’m wrong)

Democracy bad? OK, then I guess you won’t mind if Great Britain comes back to their former colonies and enslave everyone.

Have we all developed selective amnesia to the dictatorships that happen in Europe around the time of the second world war? Do you really want to live in those places? Or go back to monarchy?

I’m assuming you are an American… America as pretty much always been a democracy since it’s independence. You don’t know how life is like outside a democracy. You’ve never heard of horror stories of those who lived under fascist dictatorships during WWII. My country was one of those… for 41 long, long years… The International and State Defence Police (Policia Internacional de Defesa do Estado, or PIDE for short) had eyes everywhere… Even the most banal things, like owning a lighter, was outlawed - unless you had a license (if you read the article about that lighter license, you will notice that it doesn’t just say “lighter”, it is worded in such a matter that outlaws anything that could possibly be used to start a fire… You can start a fire with two sticks…). No one was safe. Gatherings where outlawed. Saying anything even remotely against the state would lead to to be captured and tortured for months on end, making death look like an unreachable dream. Worst of all… the PIPE’s torture methods were notorious for not leaving any markings on the victims bodies.

This GOP stuff reminds me a LOT of The New State, as it was called. Salazar, the Dictator, was also a conservative determined to bring Portugal back into it’s former glory. He hated democracy and felt like the new more progressive ideas were destroying our country, and, of course, he demonized the immigrants…

“Portugal is not a small country”

He had strong (and fake) Christian values, which where present in State propaganda.

“Salazar’s Lesson”

“God, Homeland, Family: The Trilogy of National Education”

In the picture above, you can see Salazar’s ideal family: The husband comes home from work, the wife an kids all stop what they are doing to greet him back home. The wife was to be an overzealous mother, a devoted wife, a true fairy of the home. A life of endless submission. They were trained to be like that from birth. First submit to their father and brothers, then their husband. The only future she could hope to have was a stable marriage.

I could go on and on on the horrors the the New State. I don’t know what kind of world you what to live in but I can assure you that, if you advocate for an end to democracy, you will not be the one in power.

This is capitalism. A system made to benefit those who have more capital by giving them even more capital.

No… Capitalism is when a handful of individuals own the means of production and have full authority on how they are used.

Communism is more akin to when the workers decide what to do with the means of production they operate.

You got this literally backwards.

So you are trying to argue that slavery is a RIGHT? This looks like and argument of guilt by association. Authoritarian is seen as bad, by giving the abolishment of slavery the label of “authoritarian” gives of the idea that you want to associate it with being bad.

If having a law that restricts one’s ability to do something is “authoritarian” then any law is authoritarian, because laws, by definition, determine what behaviour is and isn’t allowed within a society. On that note, morality determines legality, not the other way around.

Slavery means that, if you’re rich enough, you should be allowed to revoke the rights of others. This is refutable at so many levels. If someone were to “willingly” agree to give up their rights, then just you’re just taking advantage of someone who was born in an unfavourable position and have no other choice other than to accept (and maybe not starve) or starve.

I was about the comment a similar thing.

If having a law that restricts one’s ability to do something is “authoritarian” then any law is authoritarian, because laws, by definition, determine what behaviour is and isn’t allowed within a society.