I like ArchiveBox, but in my experience, it kept on running into issues saving pages, and stopped functioning after it worked the first few times. I really wish there was a more streamlined application that did a similar thing somewhere out there.
I’ve been looking at Linkwarden’s page archiving solution, but it crashes whenever I try importing any large number of links, so that’s a bust too.
Reminds me of this great street art I saw posted at some point. Can’t find the source though.
And anyone who hurts his feelings, and queer people, and college students, of course.
That’s definitely true, I probably should have been a little more clear in my response, specifying that it can run at startup, but doesn’t always do so.
I’ll edit my comment so nobody gets the wrong idea. Thanks for pointing that out!
To put it very simply, the ‘kernel’ has significant control over your OS as it essentially runs above everything else in terms of system privileges.
It can (but not always) run at startup, so this means if you install a game with kernel-level anticheat, the moment your system turns on, the game’s publisher can have software running on your system that can restrict the installation of a particular driver, stop certain software from running, or, even insidiously spy on your system’s activity if they wished to. (and reverse-engineering the code to figure out if they are spying on you is a felony because of DRM-related laws)
It basically means trusting every single game publisher with kernel-level anticheat in their games to have a full view into your system, and the ability to effectively control it, without any legal recourse or transparency, all to try (and usually fail) to stop cheating in games.
That ruling does not affect the ability of the president to put someone else in jail, unilaterally, of their own decision.
SBF’s case was completely different, since the legality of his actions was much more easily provable as a crime. Not only was every transaction on the actual blockchain, which is immutable and couldn’t have possibly been faked, but his actions didn’t exactly have any nuance that could be argued in court. There were funds, they weren’t his, but he used them. Case closed.
Trump’s case involves not only a lot more possible statutes he could have violated, but also a lot of arbitrary actions that don’t perfectly fall into a rigid box of “this is legal” or “this is illegal.”
Plus, if you have more money to draw out legal fights, you can keep them going for longer, regardless of your case. SBF had most of his assets confiscated since they were almost entirely from the fraud, so he didn’t have the same luxuries.
Biden spent four years not putting his ass in jail.
The president cannot escape the systems of checks & balances we have to unilaterally imprison someone.
Computers are a fundamental part of that process in modern times.
If you were taking a test to assess how much weight you could lift, and you got a robot to lift 2,000 lbs for you, saying you should pass for lifting 2000 lbs would be stupid. The argument wouldn’t make sense. Why? Because the same exact logic applies. The test is to assess you, not the machine.
Just because computers exist, can do things, and are available to you, doesn’t mean that anything to assess your capabilities can now just assess the best available technology instead of you.
Like spell check? Or grammar check?
Spell/Grammar check doesn’t generate large parts of a paper, it refines what you already wrote, by simply rephrasing or fixing typos. If I write a paragraph of text and run it through spell & grammar check, the most you’d get is a paper without spelling errors, and maybe a couple different phrases used to link some words together.
If I asked an LLM to write a paragraph of text about a particular topic, even if I gave it some references of what I knew, I’d likely get a paper written entirely differently from my original mental picture of it, that might include more or less information than I’d intended, with different turns of phrase than I’d use, and no cohesion with whatever I might generate later in a different session with the LLM.
These are not even remotely comparable.
Assuming the point is how well someone conveys information, then wouldn’t many people better be better at conveying info by using machines as much as reasonable? Why should they be punished for this? Or forced to pretend that they’re not using machines their whole lives?
This is an interesting question, but I think it mistakes a replacement for a tool on a fundamental level.
I use LLMs from time to time to better explain a concept to myself, or to get ideas for how to rephrase some text I’m writing. But if I used the LLM all the time, for all my work, then me being there is sort of pointless.
Because, the thing is, most LLMs aren’t used in a way that conveys info you already know. They primarily operate by simply regurgitating existing information (rather, associations between words) within their model weights. You don’t easily draw out any new insights, perspectives, or content, from something that doesn’t have the capability to do so.
On top of that, let’s use a simple analogy. Let’s say I’m in charge of calculating the math required for a rocket launch. I designate all the work to an automated calculator, which does all the work for me. I don’t know math, since I’ve used a calculator for all math all my life, but the calculator should know.
I am incapable of ever checking, proofreading, or even conceptualizing the output.
If asked about the calculations, I can provide no answer. If they don’t work out, I have no clue why. And if I ever want to compute something more complicated than the calculator can, I can’t, because I don’t even know what the calculator does. I have to then learn everything it knows, before I can exceed its capabilities.
We’ve always used technology to augment human capabilities, but replacing them often just means we can’t progress as easily in the long-term.
Short-term, sure, these papers could be written and replaced by an LLM. Long-term, nobody knows how to write papers. If nobody knows how to properly convey information, where does an LLM get its training data on modern information? How do you properly explain to it what you want? How do you proofread the output?
If you entirely replace human work with that of a machine, you also lose the ability to truly understand, check, and build upon the very thing that replaced you.
Schools are not about education but about privilege, filtering, indoctrination, control, etc.
Many people attending school, primarily higher education like college, are privileged because education costs money, and those with more money are often more privileged. That does not mean school itself is about privilege, it means people with privilege can afford to attend it more easily. Of course, grants, scholarships, and savings still exist, and help many people afford education.
“Filtering” doesn’t exactly provide enough context to make sense in this argument.
Indoctrination, if we go by the definition that defines it as teaching someone to accept a doctrine uncritically, is the opposite of what most educational institutions teach. If you understood how much effort goes into teaching critical thought as a skill to be used within and outside of education, you’d likely see how this doesn’t make much sense. Furthermore, the heavily diverse range of beliefs, people, and viewpoints on campuses often provides a more well-rounded, diverse understanding of the world, and of the people’s views within it, than a non-educational background can.
“Control” is just another fearmongering word. What control, exactly? How is it being applied?
Maybe if a “teacher” has to trick their students in order to enforce pointless manual labor, then it’s not worth doing.
They’re not tricking students, they’re tricking LLMs that students are using to get out of doing the work required of them to get a degree. The entire point of a degree is to signify that you understand the skills and topics required for a particular field. If you don’t want to actually get the knowledge signified by the degree, then you can put “I use ChatGPT and it does just as good” on your resume, and see if employers value that the same.
Maybe if homework can be done by statistics, then it’s not worth doing.
All math homework can be done by a calculator. All the writing courses I did throughout elementary and middle school would have likely graded me higher if I’d used a modern LLM. All the history assignment’s questions could have been answered with access to Wikipedia.
But if I’d done that, I wouldn’t know math, I would know no history, and I wouldn’t be able to properly write any long-form content.
Even when technology exists that can replace functions the human brain can do, we don’t just sacrifice all attempts to use the knowledge ourselves because this machine can do it better, because without that, we would be limiting our future potential.
This sounds fake. It seems like only the most careless students wouldn’t notice this “hidden” prompt or the quote from the dog.
The prompt is likely colored the same as the page to make it visually invisible to the human eye upon first inspection.
And I’m sorry to say, but often times, the students who are the most careless, unwilling to even check work, and simply incapable of doing work themselves, are usually the same ones who use ChatGPT, and don’t even proofread the output.
If you ever find yourself advocating against voting deciding elections in favor of your own personal opinion trumping all others, you might just be a fascist. Of course, he’d probably take that as a complement.
If you can’t understand that both parties will continue the genocide regardless of anyone’s vote, then I think you should reconsider how “rational” you see yourself to be.
Have a good day.
Just like how the moment their videotape rental history was exposed, that was when privacy became an absolute must in the case of video rental services.
You’re a fucking nazi because you materially support genocide.
Whether I vote in this election or not, the genocide will continue. Whether only one person votes for either party and every other American abstains, or whether every American votes, the genocide will continue. I am not materially supporting the genocide, I am only trying to reduce the maximum amount of people who will inevitably be slaughtered.
because unlike them you’re voting DURING the holocaust, not in ignorance of its future.
Your entire argument is based around ignorance of the fact that this genocide will inevitably happen no matter who I vote for, but that there will likely be a substantially worse outcome if Trump is elected.
Fucking piece of shit narcissist nazi. Amazing coincidence that you feel so comfortable flaunting your pathological self importance in this conversation and have zero value of human life for people outside of yourself in politics. A fucking piece of shit nazi to the bone.
I can see you have no actual point to make, and just enjoy calling other people nazis. Again, good job not answering the actual question. In case you missed it: “You’re arguing that me voting for Kamala is wrong. Cool, what else should I have done? This entire argument is you trying to convince me, so what are you trying to convince me of?”
If you can’t provide an answer to this extremely basic question that directly calls into question your very motive for this conversation, then I have nothing else to say to you.
Good job not answering the question. You can’t just use “nazi” as a buzzword to make your ideological opponents sound worse.
Being forced to vote for the lesser of two evils to reduce overall harm is not the same as actively choosing to vote for the demonstrably more fascist party. If anyone would be closer to Hitler in this election, it would be Trump. If there are only two choices, I will vote for the one that’s less like Hitler to stop the one that’s more like Hitler from getting into power.
The thing is, I don’t really care what argument you’re trying to make, because everything you’re saying is totally unproductive. Regardless of whatever point you’re trying to make, you’re trying to convince me. What should I do as a result of your argument?
You’re arguing that me voting for Kamala is wrong. Cool, what else should I have done? This entire argument is you trying to convince me, so what are you trying to convince me of?
You’re voting for a fascist with different aesthetics.
Democrats, so far, have not shown to me that they are fascist in any meaningful way. They actively engage in messaging and political action that abhors the idea of a natural social hierarchy, have still worked to uphold general democratic ideals, and are still liberal. (among much else) That alone doesn’t meet what most people would consider fascist. They’re simply just not very good, but I wouldn’t go so far as to call them fascists. not yet, at least. If they continue going further along that path, I will always reconsider based on the best evidence I have available.
if you decide to vote for either of the major candidates this time you’re giving material support to a genocide
If the only two options on the ballot are genocide, and even worse genocide, and not picking just increases the chances of the even worse genocide happening, I’ll pick the option that does less genocide any day. I am not choosing to support a genocide, I am choosing between two possible genocides, of which one will inevitably be chosen regardless of my input. I have no choice in whether it will happen, only how badly it will.
I am a utilitarian. When given a limited set of options, if one will reduce the overall harm caused, I’ll pick the one that does the least harm. If I must pick between someone killing 5 people, and someone killing 10, I will pick the one who kills 5. (assuming I have no way to prevent either option in the first place)
This election will happen. One of these candidates will be chosen. It is the same dilemma, a choice where a result will occur, but to what degree it affects the world is something I can influence.
Knowing Trump’s past policy and rhetoric, and comparing it to that of Kamala, and the Democratic party more broadly, it’s extraordinarily easy to tell that Trump will cause more overall harm to the world, not just in the case of the Palestinian people, but of all people across the globe. As long as the opposing party will do less harm, that is who I will vote for in order to reduce his chances of winning. Not necessarily because I support every policy they have, but because I know they will produce the least harm comparatively.
Use your energy organizing.
I can do that and vote according to my utilitarian ideals at the same time. These are not mutually exclusive.
it’s no exaggeration to call you a nazi. Fuck you.
Get me a definition of Nazi-ism and explain how it ties into my rhetoric thus far.
In a system where my vote categorically will not positively influence society if it is used to vote outside of the duopoly, I have two choices, the blatantly fascist candidate that is substantially more akin to Hitler than any Democrat, or the somewhat more mild Democrat.
If I vote for a third party, my vote will only give the fascist a higher chance of gaining power than he otherwise would.
If I vote for Kamala, at least there’s a lesser chance of the fascist winning. That’s a start, and I can then continue advocating for the Democratic party engaging in better actions going forward, engage in direct political action, and do what I can to push the overton window to the left, hopefully making it harder for fascists to get into power in the future.
I do not enjoy this system, but it is the one I live in. I can either vote for Trump, or Kamala. Any other choice simply removes any meaningful effect my vote would have had.
So, what do you suggest I do? I’m serious. Do you think I should have voted for Trump instead?
I’m saying Israel should be given the right to Palestinian land, and that we should support Israel in their genocide of innocent human beings while denouncing attempts to get a ceasefire? Wow, that’s news to me.
I believe there should be an immediate ceasefire, the return of all land taken from Palestinians to Palestinians, and significant monetary reparations paid to the Palestinian people to cover the cost of rebuilding the society Israel bombed into rubble. I believe Netanyahu should be charged for his crimes.
If anything I actually say and do lines up in any way with what you think Trump has said he’d do, I’d be quite surprised.
Your answer is shaming people who oppose genocide.
Trump opposes genocide? Dang, I guess when he said to “finish the problem” in relation to Israel’s invasion of Gaza, released a plan for the Middle East that included giving Israel sovereignty over their illegal West Bank settlements that were the result of their ongoing campaign against the Palestinian people, and told Netanyahu to “Get your victory and get it over with,” while also denouncing calls for a ceasefire, then saying “I will give Israel the support that it needs to win but I do want them to win fast,” he was just joking around.
IPFS seems similar to what you’re looking for.
(See: A copy of Wikipedia on IPFS being censorship-resistant, and globally distributed)