Yes! I mean, blame those who post AI-generated translations as if they were their own, or blame the AI scrappers that use those poorly generated pages for training, but it makes no sense to blame Wikipedia when the only thing they have done is just exist there and offer a platform for knowledge sharing.

In fact, this problem is hardly exclusive to Wikipedia, every platform with crowdsourced content is in some level susceptible to AI poisoning which ultimately ends up feeding other AIs, the loop exists in all platforms. Though I understand wanting to highlight particularly the risk of endangered languages being more vulnerable to this, since they have less content available to them so the AI models have a smaller dataset which makes them worse and more sensible to bad data.

In Windows it’s the same. Though the parameter is -P (uppercase) not -p. That’s why the comment said “it’s hidden behind a startup parameter”.

As best I can tell, there’s no way to make this into a shortcut that you could just click on.

I dont know about Mac, but in Linux you can just manually make a .desktop file to have as a shortcut to call firefox -P, or better a shortcut to a specific profile with firefox -P <profile>. Though what I often do is keep a bookmark to about:profiles and open a new window from there.

It was part of Firefox before Chrome was even a thing.

Many people aren’t aware of firefox -P and/or about:profiles… but it’s one of the oldest features in firefox.

Still, if they were actually being honest, this would be easily solved if they showed those “critical setup screens” BEFORE asking to create the account, and based on what the user selected then they would allow (or not) the creation of a local account…

I wonder what the balance is for the company…

I mean, it wouldn’t be impossible that they still save money even while paying you more if they have fired more people. If they fire 3 people and hire 1 code-reviewer for double the salary they are still having to pay 1 less wage.

This was long overdue! …and it’s not just a meaningless fine, since a solution needs to be proposed within 2 months:

In addition to the fine, Google was ordered to end these self-preferencing practices. It has 60 days to propose a solution, after which the Commission will asses the proposal and either accept Google’s remedy or impose its own.

Do you have a source or is it a guess?

As I understand it, it’s not limited locally. Africa’s Continental Internet Exchange (CIX) connects Africa internally first, but it still links globally. It’s about sovereignty, not isolation.

In terms of networking, this is not different from Europe and other regions with many local IXPs that allow regional traffic within the continent… the thing is that in the past, Africa has not had an infrastructure that allowed connecting to another African country without it being routed through international networks outside the continent.

And what search engines do you enable/disable in SearXNG?

SearXNG is one of those “alternatives that pull from google or similar”, which is what @[email protected] wanted to avoid.

But I don’t understand why don’t they go after the abusers, instead of imposing a fine to the platform. This looks like a criminal case, it’s not just a matter that should be left in the hands of the platform to begin with… so why focus on blaming the platform?

Someone got bullied so hard they died, and the response is to simply ban them and then punish the platform? It sounds like an approach designed by lawyers who just want to make money, instead of actually an attempt to fix/correct the problem.

It’s like blaming the email provider for allowing the exchange of messages and video files in a mailing group that was organizing crime… instead of actually investigating the people who committed the crime and enacting laws / setting precedent that could act as deterrent, independently of which channel was used while committing the crime. Then punish the platform if they are not collaborating or if they are found to be complicit (while investigating the criminals).

the OS community found -often painful- ways to deal with excentric or even toxic and erratic developers.

Do you have an example? I’m honestly not sure what you are referring to here. And I’ve been around for a while.

Yes, what makes it a genocide is the intent to target the civilian population belonging to that nation. It does not necessarily have to be about race or religion, it can still be genocide if it targets the nation. Russia doesn’t have a problem with the kids race, religion or ancestry, but with them being raised under Ukranian society and values.

Yeah, I think the confusion is assuming that it’s only a genocide when it targets specific subgroups inside a population. It also applies in terms of national groups (whole or in part). This means any attack that intents to kill civilians of a country (or that at least intents to not make any distinction between civilian or not) is a genocide.

For example, that list also includes genocide of Ukrainians by Russia.

In case someone somehow didn’t know yet: https://www.stopkillinggames.com/

I feel we are gonna need to reach at least that 1.4M with all the companies being against it and actively lobbying. I bet they they are gonna be extremely nitpicky with the signatures to invalidate as many as possible.

Or not buying any new Ubisoft game that requires online. I don’t want to buy something that isn’t gonna last.

It’s ironic how WebP lossless mode is actually better at compressing the image than the lossy mode.

I bet most people would use the default thinking that they are making a compromise and that increasing the quality would make the compression worse. They wouldn’t know unless they tested making the images themselves, because it’s not easy for users to differentiate lossy webp from lossless webp.

This imho is why lossless should be in its own format, instead of trying to make a single container format do everything like WebP was trying. A new compression level for PNG would be most welcome.

There are many philosophers of the mind that agree that intelligence and consciousness are separate things.

Some examples are Daniel Dennett and John Searle.

There are also currents of thought in philosophy of the mind that disagree that even things like “slime mold” are mindless. Both from the materialist direction (like panpsychysm) and from the idealist direction (Bernardo Kastrup’s idealism).

Most philosophers of the mind would disagree that the reason for their field to exist really has anything to do with any specific terminology / position. I’d say it has more to do with curiosity and the interest for seeking truth. Like most fields of philosophy do.

Your definition of intelligence, which is what the AI companies use, has made people more confused than ever about “intelligence” and only serves the interests of the companies for generating hype and attracting investor cash.

I’d argue it’s your definition, which includes consciousness, what makes AI an attractive term for investors. Precisely because you say intelligence include awareness and it can lead to people to misinterpret AI as self-aware.

Promoting your definition helps the interests of the companies who want to generate hype, and causes just as much confusion as you attribute to mine in that regard.

At least mine is simpler and makes it easier to invalidate the hype, since if intelligence isn’t awareness then AI isn’t awareness. Many philosophers have agreed with that, for years, before LLMs were a thing. John Searle for example is famous for the Chinese room experiment.

Why is it a problem?

Generally, I’d say having clear, specific and useful definitions is a good thing to help communicate and understand what we are talking about and avoid misinterpretations.

What is the reason you think philosophy of the mind exists as a field of study?

Playnite

Interesting. Does it support gamepad input? I wonder how does it compare with things like Heroic Games launcher?

I don’t know, I feel it’s actually the opposite. Awareness is something you can only experience subjectively, it’s “qualia”, a quality that you cannot measure outside of yourself or detect externally. There’s a reason IQ (“intelligence” quotient) tests use puzzles/problems and don’t test conscious awareness. Most of the time in science intelligence is defined as problem solving and capacity to adapt/extrapolate because that definition makes it observable and more scientifically useful.

If it were to include awareness then we can’t in good faith answer the question: “is it intelligent?” …we can only say we don’t know. This is the main struggle of philosophy of the mind, what is often called “the hard problem of consciousness”. Empirical analysis would not show if something is having (or not) the conscious experience of being aware.