I've always been confused by this First Amendment argument with regards to TikTok: they're an organization that has been tied directly with an adversarial foreign state. How is this a rational take? Using this logic, Russia should be allowed to foment unrest through fake hate groups on Facebook (which they've done).
People should familiarize themselves with Gresham's Law: bad actors will always beat good actors if bad actors suffer no penalty. If bad actors leverage the rights and freedoms of a democracy to perform attacks without repercussion, we're toast.
>I've always been confused by this First Amendment argument with regards to TikTok: they're an organization that has been tied directly with an adversarial foreign state.
The First Amendment doesn't contain exceptions for adversarial foreign states, it's that simple. If it's acceptable to foment disinformation, hatred and conspiracy natively, and all free speech advocates will say that it is, then the same speech coming from foreign adversaries must also be acceptable.
And let's be clear - the premise that TikTok is some kind of nefarious CCP mind control platform is entirely speculative, and based primarily on Sinophobia. Elon Musk is driving far right wing white supremacist and anti-vaxx content all the time, but people are losing their shit about something TikTok isn't even doing.
>People should familiarize themselves with Gresham's Law: bad actors will always beat good actors if bad actors suffer no penalty.
This is true, but as far as the First Amendment is concerned, it's the job of society to penalize bad actors in the marketplace of ideas, not the government. Which is still further than many free speech advocates are willing to accept, but in practice means that it's up to TikTok (and every other platform) to decide what speech to carry, and what speech not to carry, and under whatever terms they choose, within legal limits of course.
The first time I fired up TikTok I was subjected to video of an older, "surgically-enhanced" woman in a Trump bikini (intention obvious), and someone putting a bumper sticker about killing pedophiles on their car (intention less obvious: a dog whistle for QAnon).
Maybe it's not a nefarious CCP mind control platform. Maybe it is even doing this sort of thing totally blindly based on "engagement". But there's definitely propaganda being served up by default.
Does anyone know if this new model handles silence better? I was trying to use whisper for transcribing bursts of talking amid large spans of silence, but the frequency of hallucinations was too high.
Sure, but that should be considered an accuracy problem. Telling a system to do its best to extract words from background sounds, and then getting words from it, is a different type of problem.
-------
I can't reply to the below, but you have to consider the difference in the signal to noise ratio for why it should be considered a different problem.
If I told a binary image classifier to classify a clear image of a cat as either a "cat" or a "dog", and it said "dog", then that would be an accuracy problem.
If I gave the same classifier an image of a black cat standing in a very dark room, where even a human would have trouble identifying it, and it says "dog" it's not an accuracy problem as much as a signal to noise ratio problem.
It seems like you're making the assumption that all of these have the issues you describe have the same root cause. I don't think that's a sound assumption...tehe.
"Silence" is a problematic term. For me, that word encompasses: squeaky chairs, typing on a loud keyboard, moving objects around on my table, etc. In a perfect world, Whisper —like a human— can easily distinguish a human voice from the din of my office, and only try and transcribe my voice.
Does anyone have solutions for clearing out "silence" from an audio file that works off something a bit more accurate than just "<= decibel x"?
I just wrote a script with Hazel to automatically transcribe my voice notes to txt. It handles punctuation extremely well. What a wonderful contribution!
Simply put: your state exists on each client and the mechanism to reconcile that state across clients is not mission critical. Almost all apps currently are built to get their state from a centralized, remote location. This is easy to build but is fragile and not forgiving for loss of network connection.
CRDTs and local-first ideals means putting the client in charge of its state which leads to all these positive side effects: virtually instant UX interactions, privacy (your not sending data necessarily to a central server, and even if you are it could just be opaque, encrypted blobs that are proxied), network-agnostic syncing (email, bluetooth, internet, wifi, etc) and no fears of a service completely going out of business and losing your data.
Still curious if theres a side of this idea thats about local first software in a more regional or niche demographic sense. Like instagram but just for Oakland, or GrubHub but just for Austin. Im sure there are infinite problems associated with that sort of idea but still curious if theres some movement / push for that as well as this state-related stuff.
There’s geographical locality e.g. apps like ChatRadar[0] that show information from nearby.
And then there’s data-locality e.g. is the data stored on your device or does it all ultimately live on a server somewhere that’s the authoritative source of truth.
I don't think this analogy works. I think it is more akin to police opening a folder and seeing paper evidence, but having no idea who put the paper there, when it was last opened/modified and unable to determine if the evidence is legitimate.
For me, this story isn't about fear that police could leverage the bugs to manipulate a case. It's about the constant fear that laymen rely on unverified "experts" to put people behind bars for years.
Since the bug allows for arbitrary code execution, it's more akin to the officer reading the piece of paper and by doing so, he becomes the subject of some sort of curse that completely controls his actions.
Yes, but you can’t join (“intersectionality”) your campaign against ad tech companies with a campaign against the police if you’re this busy being intellectually honest.
I'm glad to see this article is eliciting in others the same reaction I had when reading it. I'm a huge fan of Linear and use it for our company, but this article just has so much hand-waving going on it's staggering. Where is a single example? They claim that user stories are outdated, inefficient, not valuable and yet show no alternative to the seriously difficult problem of engineering tasks missing context and purpose, especially after a certain amount of time has passed. I can't count the number of times I've fired off a one-line task thinking "This is fine. I'll remember what I need to do when I get to it" only to, after a few weeks, go "WTF?".
The part about writing your own tasks is also strange. So my coworker finds an issue and instead of just writing the task out with context, explanation and direction, he has to... explain it to me in some medium... then I go do it? Really?..
I feel like this article was written as some kind of SEO "let's just get people here looking at our product" kind of thing. I can't believe this was written by someone who actually writes software.
It's interesting reading articles about Level 2 and how it can adversely affect driver attention. I was concerned when I started driving a Tesla for the same reasons. Would I grow complacent? Stop paying attention?
The opposite happened. I'm more focused on the road since I can relax and not multi-task. On long road trips, I'm not feeling that ache in the knee or the tension in the shoulders/back from constantly keeping the car aligned in the lane. In fact, I wish Tesla would just introduce a touch interface into the wheel so it knew your hands were on it, but not require constantly resisting the wheel to trigger the sensor.
The conclusion I've come to: Level 2 can make good drivers safer and make bad drivers more dangerous. I don't look at my phone when I'm driving. I don't text at red lights. I don't constantly fiddle with the screen. If you do these things, you're a dangerous driver. If Level 2 increases this because you feel a false sense of safety, it'll make you more dangerous.
People just need to take driving a 2 ton heap of metal 70mph seriously and we'd all be much safer.
> In fact, I wish Tesla would just introduce a touch interface into the wheel so it knew your hands were on it, but not require constantly resisting the wheel to trigger the sensor.
We recently rolled out capacitive steering wheels in several Mercedes-Benz models for that reason. It's pleasant.
> I wish Tesla would just introduce a touch interface into the wheel so it knew your hands were on it, but not require constantly resisting the wheel to trigger the sensor.
Morons will use devices that clamp to the steering wheel to defeat this sensor. Actively turning the wheel is harder to spoof.
edit: looks like we went through this process already.
Why is this a problem? My car is at a complete stop and is not legally allowed to proceed. What's the threat? Doing things while moving (even creeping along in stop/go traffic), sure, I'll agree, but stopped at a light?
If your head is down in the car, you lose track of what's going on outside and have to reaquire situational awareness from scratch when you 'wake up'. That takes longer at best, and you may miss something important at worst.
Small things like bikes and pedestrians are frequently occluded and you may miss the glimpses of them you needed to predict their future trajectory.
We could argue about the absolute importance of this effect, but it's definitely real.
Especially when you don’t notice the light has changed, someone honks at you, and now you have half a second to reacquaint yourself with what’s going on in front of you before stepping on the gas. I see many drivers looking down (presumably at their phone) at a red light who get honked at and almost immediately take off without any safety checks. If, say, a child had run out in front of the car, that child would get run over.
The problem is not texting itself, it's not paying attention to your surroundings, while moving or standing still.
If you're sitting at a red light fiddling with the stereo, the light turns green but you missed it, so the person behind you honks, chances are you'll start moving forward without actually being fully aware of the scene in front of you. And if there is someone in front of you, you could hit them. So why take the chance? Always pay attention to your surroundings.
Man, this is why self-driving cars can’t come soon enough. Everyone else’s replies to this already sort of answer your question, but for me this hints at the bigger issue: people don’t take driving seriously. My counter is: why do you need to be looking at your phone in a car? What text is so important that you can’t pull over and read it? Why give up the situational awareness that is absolutely required to safely operate a machine that can kill people?
Life is about trade offs and constant cost/benefit analysis. How is reading/responding to a text message slightly sooner worth the decrease in situational awareness and possible accident involving a 2 ton vehicle?
I think we have normalized the dangers of driving a vehicle to the point where we sort of just shrug at the monumental number of vehicular deaths. I’m confident that when my kid is an adult, he’ll look at us with astonishment when we say we used to drive vehicles around, poorly trained, staring at phones, half-drunk, kind of paying attention sometimes, a bit sleepy and it was not only legal but _normal_. It’ll be like us hearing about how our great-grandparents had a 2 year old work dangerous farm equipment alone. You think “How the hell did anyone survive?”
> It’ll be like us hearing about how our great-grandparents had a 2 year old work dangerous farm equipment alone. You think “How the hell did anyone survive?”
This reminds me of a old news article from Sweden I came across some weeks ago. The headline was something like "Driver crashed into house, judge released him without any fines because he was drunk so couldn't properly control the car"
In the context of the modern world, it's hilarious. But one could wonder how that news headline was reacted to back in the day.
> In 1928, a materially serious car accident occurred on the national road between Örkelljunga and Åsljunga.
> It was an Örkelljunga resident who drove over a merchant from Skånes Fagerhult.
> At the subsequent trial in Klippan, it was said that Örkelljungabon, who was the cause of the accident, received a mitigating sentence because he had drunk brandy and therefore had difficulty controlling.
That was the conclusion in the article too. The editor chose to highlight the less likely (in the real world) situation where the user is new to their L2 equipment.
Yep, I was just highlighting the fact that most articles about Level 2 or, in general, < Level 4, are written with a concern for situational awareness. In my experience, it was the opposite: it improved it.
People should familiarize themselves with Gresham's Law: bad actors will always beat good actors if bad actors suffer no penalty. If bad actors leverage the rights and freedoms of a democracy to perform attacks without repercussion, we're toast.