Hey! This is a really fun topic, hope it's OK for me to give the perspective of someone who (at the moment :P) identifies as a straight, cis man.

I joined beehaw because it felt like a super nice and safe space, not just for queer people, but for anyone looking for a kinder internet. I've always felt a strong connection though to queer people and we often get along really well. I think it has to do with the fact that, even though I still identify as a straight cis man, I don't really fit into the stereotype well. I hate macho culture, I am often very passionate and emotional, don't like "mens" talk etc. I also have some mental issues which make me "different", and in that sense I feel like we share a similar feeling of "not fitting in", be it for different reasons. Accepting yourself and others for who you really are seems like a central idea in a queer-friendly space, and this is stuff that can help anyone as everybody has something about them that is different or goes against the grain.

I do feel that I am more open to my own possible queerness. I still identify as a man and am attracted to women, but there are moments where I can really appreciate a beautiful man too. Where I would have brushed over something like that in previous years, now I quite like it when I notice it and enjoy the experience. Even though I haven't yet actually felt physical attraction, I like that there is a part of me that is able to enjoy this too.

Tied with The Outer Wilds as my favorite game of all time.

I would love some extra sources for this. A quick reading of the article makes me understand that the researchers have a lot of confidence in the correctness of the AI gradings of policies, which I have my doubts about.

The article worries about the fact that the energy policies score worse than expected, but this assumes that these scores are valid in the first place. There is lots of interesting research happening in trying to use AI for varying problems, but in each case results go from bad to promising, but never outright certainty. The fact that this article almost immediately gives the vibe that the AI results are trustworthy and a valid and desired alternative to the slow human analysis really rubs me the wrong way.

I was playing Peak with my friends groups and one of us suddenly just said: "Is this the golden age of online Coop multiplayer?" And I have to agree.

We've been playing together for around 10 years. We've played legendary games like Left 4 Dead 2, Vermintide 2, overcooked 2, Portal 2 (a lot of sequels in this list), but lately had to search harder for similar quality experiences. Then we bought and installed Lethal Company on a whim and from the first second we were having so much fun. Something about the first person camera combined with directional voice chat makes this game incredibly immersive. We almost never roleplay, but in this game it only took a few minutes for us to start inhabiting our characters and screaming / joking as if we were them.

After playing this for tens of hours, our eye fell on R.E.P.O., a game with a similar conceit and fantastic reviews, and the added bonus of moving mouths. We took the jump, and again it was a slam dunk. Just checked and have been playing it for 18 hours already, and it seems like we just started. A similar feeling was had with Peak.

What all these games share, is an incredibly well designed gameplay loop that leaves enough freedom and space for creativity while still giving you a clear goal to work towards. In all cases everything is extremely immersive and tactile, forcing each of you to become your character in a way that other games fail to achieve.

They might seem basic or simple, but each successful case is so because of extremely intelligent design decisions. We're looking forward to the new innovations still ahead of us in this space!

These books were purchased by them before being destroyed in the scanning process. I fail to see the issue with this specific case. Lots of artists buy stuff and irreversibly modify it. Are we going to be angry now at people who glue their puzzles or use parts of books for scrapbooking? If these were unique works there would be an issue, but I don't think that truly unique pieces would be in their target group, as the destructive scanning is all about cost cutting and unique works cost a lot of money that they wouldn't just destroy.

The fact that they use it for model training and later sell access to that model's work is the shady part that has a severe whiff of plagiarism to it.

I hate AI. Why?

• Because of its extreme energy consumption compared to what it achieves
• Because it is all in the hands of the worst companies on this planet
• Because capitalists are foaming at the mouth to use it to fuck over workers
• Because it is devaluing art and reducing it to another commodity to "produce"

However

I also took the time to read the original blog post, and it is a fascinating story.

The author starts out with using an existing vulnerability as a benchmark for ChatGPT testing. They describe how they took the code specific to the vulnerability and packaged it for ChatGPT, how they formatted the query and what their results were. In 100 runs only 8 correctly identify the targeted vulnerability, the rest are false positives or claim that there are no vulnerabilities in the given code.

Then they take their test a step further and increase the amount of code shared with ChatGPT so that it also includes stuff of the module that had nothing to do with the original vulnerability. As expected, this larger input decreases performance and also reduces the vulnerability detection rate for the targeted vulnerability. However, in those 100 runs, another vulnerability was described that wasn't a false positive. An actual new vulnerability that the author didn't know about was discovered. Again, the signal to noise ratio is very low, and one has to sift through a lot of wrong reports to get a realistic one, but this proved that it could be used as a useful tool for helping to detect vulnerabilities.

I highly recommend reading the blog post.

As much as I like to be critical about AI, it doesn't help if we put our heads in the sand and act as if it never does something cool.

Femenism benefits men too. I am a man and while I primarily support feminist causes for women themselves, there's no denying that patriarchy also damages my life as a man. All these toxic behavioral "rules", the machoism, the competitiveness, the hiding of emotions.

That is the irony, a lot of incels and other misogynistic young men are suffering from that which they are siding with, and are fighting against what could ultimately help them.

The headline feels a bit alarmist to me. The article itself is a bit better and more nuanced, but still I feel they are putting way to much drama around this device while almost all these issues already exist as small slabs of electronics that we wear all the time. Combined with smartwatches, smartphones do almost all the spying that is described here and add some GPS tracking wherever you go.

This is not to say that this is not a big issue, merely that this issue is not related to this new device. And also I believe Apple is in fact the only big tech provider that actually tries to be somewhat privacy conscious (Google and Microsoft don't give damn).

I think he makes the mistake of assuming that every person has a similar life experience to his own. I've read his biography, and apparently he was extremely intelligent and acted like an adult from a very young age. It could be that he hated being seen as a child and saw himself as a fully functional adult in a transitioning body.

In everything he says and does there is an extreme single-mindedness: his extremely strict free software and privacy related ideas show this. I think he applies a similar single-mindedness to a clearly nuanced situation, namely that of conscent. The nuance of power dynamics and coercion probably don't play a role in his experience and therefore he ignores it. This results in the very wrong and dangerous opinions stated in the article.

I am not saying this to excuse any of his opinions, this is just my interpretation of where it might come from. It's sad that the people around him are seemingly unable to educate him on these topics, but I believe it might be the same stubbornness that made him the proponent of the Free Software movement that is causing him to not mentally grow on this specific topic. It's a truly unfortunate situation, but one that should not be ignored and people who oppose him because of these opinions are right to do so.

I'm glad you bring up the power imbalance. The "both sides have been doing horrible stuff" only works if both sides have equal footing, which they clearly do not. This does not negate the crimes commited by Hamas, but extremism doesn't come from nowhere and Israël has a responsibility in that.

Even if you know it's fiction you get the feeling that you are on the "good" side, which may colour your perception on the US military interventions.

Just to be clear, this phone:

• is the only smartphone available that uses fairtrade gold
• has a 100% recycled plastic back cover
• uses ASI certified fair aluminium
• is by far the most repairable smartphone currently on the market

The mainstream electronics supply chain is tainted with literal blood and slavery. The importance of what this company tries to prove and achieve cannot be understated.

The fact that they remove the headphone jack might be annoying and feel like counter to their main goal. As an electronics engineer I can say that removing this jack makes the full phone circuit board more simple, decreases the space used and allows them to make the phone lighter or put a better battery in. As most people are now used to not having this port in phones anymore, this seems like an easy concession to make to keep the design load as low as possible. Remember that they are trying to compete with companies that are way bigger and have way more design resources.

I am all for criticizing companies so that they can improve, but these accusations of greenwashing and them completely disregarding their goal are simply untrue. The difference between them and literally any other smartphone manufacturer in terms of supply chain fairness, repairability and warranty is night and day.

Please don't make us lose this great attempt at improving the smartphone industry by making perfect the enemy of already pretty fucking good.