Search
232 results for “hrefna”
-
@hrefna Interesting when CEOs do a bad job, they fire employees who had absolutely no responsibility for Exec actions. #GoldenParachutes for corporate, nothing for people who do the actual labor.
-
@hrefna Interesting when CEOs do a bad job, they fire employees who had absolutely no responsibility for Exec actions. #GoldenParachutes for corporate, nothing for people who do the actual labor.
-
> Unsafe
The most unsafe part about #fediverse is master-don dominates with its #antiFeatures.
M'don is not much decentralised as many assume (see #CDNs). We just had a little rant about it.
We cannot protect fedizens, without protecting instances themselves. Adoption of I2P and/or at least proposals like #GlutPlug to help decentralise #contentDelivery will protect instances, but such discussions are nowhere.
Case in point, even slow-moving #bitcoin has #I2P support now.
-
> Unsafe
The most unsafe part about #fediverse is master-don dominates with its #antiFeatures.
M'don is not much decentralised as many assume (see #CDNs). We just had a little rant about it.
We cannot protect fedizens, without protecting instances themselves. Adoption of I2P and/or at least proposals like #GlutPlug to help decentralise #contentDelivery will protect instances, but such discussions are nowhere.
Case in point, even slow-moving #bitcoin has #I2P support now.
-
> Unsafe
The most unsafe part about #fediverse is master-don dominates with its #antiFeatures.
M'don is not much decentralised as many assume (see #CDNs). We just had a little rant about it.
We cannot protect fedizens, without protecting instances themselves. Adoption of I2P and/or at least proposals like #GlutPlug to help decentralise #contentDelivery will protect instances, but such discussions are nowhere.
Case in point, even slow-moving #bitcoin has #I2P support now.
-
> Unsafe
The most unsafe part about #fediverse is master-don dominates with its #antiFeatures.
M'don is not much decentralised as many assume (see #CDNs). We just had a little rant about it.
We cannot protect fedizens, without protecting instances themselves. Adoption of I2P and/or at least proposals like #GlutPlug to help decentralise #contentDelivery will protect instances, but such discussions are nowhere.
Case in point, even slow-moving #bitcoin has #I2P support now.
-
> Unsafe
The most unsafe part about #fediverse is master-don dominates with its #antiFeatures.
M'don is not much decentralised as many assume (see #CDNs). We just had a little rant about it.
We cannot protect fedizens, without protecting instances themselves. Adoption of I2P and/or at least proposals like #GlutPlug to help decentralise #contentDelivery will protect instances, but such discussions are nowhere.
Case in point, even slow-moving #bitcoin has #I2P support now.
-
CW: self-promotion
@hrefna I implemented #LocationLabels using #UlamSpirals, for which I used the #OEIS to find an algorithm to iterate over the spiral (implemented at whenwhere.cf)
-
@hrefna #rego for “routing” of messages is a pretty cool use case! I believe they do that in some #AquaSecurity project. A home made one sounds interesting though! Would love to take a look later if you publish it.
-
@hrefna Implementing the how the most desired #ActivityPub features function (technically and in the #UX) before #GAFAM decides for us, will protect us more than the whole #Faceblock debate, regardless whether our instances decide to #DefederateMeta or not.
Just imagine if it's possible to easily move posts from Mastodon.social to Facebook, but not the reverse? Or if people deciding what instance to use are told they can only use #Meta to have their messages be secure and *cough* private? 🤢 🤮
-
Surveys, coincidences, statistical significance 🧵
"What Educated Citizens Should Know About Statistics and Probability"
By Jessica Utts, in 2003: https://ics.uci.edu/~jutts/AmerStat2003.pdf via @hrefna#nullHypothesis #probability #probabilities #pValues #statistics #stats #education #higherEd #statisticalLiteracy #bias #media #causalInference
-
If #rdflib "does too much" for your purposes I would not consider that a major problem. In any case the rdflib community likely would also welcome more active people ;-)
-
If #rdflib "does too much" for your purposes I would not consider that a major problem. In any case the rdflib community likely would also welcome more active people ;-)
-
If #rdflib "does too much" for your purposes I would not consider that a major problem. In any case the rdflib community likely would also welcome more active people ;-)
-
If #rdflib "does too much" for your purposes I would not consider that a major problem. In any case the rdflib community likely would also welcome more active people ;-)
-
If #rdflib "does too much" for your purposes I would not consider that a major problem. In any case the rdflib community likely would also welcome more active people ;-)
-
@maegul @hrefna Innovation my asp. #stocktonrush was in a hurry to exploit deep sea mining & he didn’t have the money or investors to do it properly. His solution? Put the lives of people at risk. It was greed, entitlement, & a desperate need to be as well-known as Branson or Elon. #titan #titanic
-
CW: AI, Nivenly, Haidra, StableDiffiusion
@[email protected] @[email protected] the parent post has links to a great case-study-in-progress of community governance; and @[email protected] and @[email protected] this ties in with the discussion here as well.
Some of the things to look for, based on the experiences I noted with some of other community governance efforts ... thinking about these up front could lead to a more inclusive and effective discussion, and once it's done looking at them in retrospective could be another good data point for what does and doesn't work.
-- @[email protected]'s #TertuliaExtraordinaria discussion (collected here in a single document) is a great example of a fediverse governance-related discussion conducted in a way that lets multiple voices be heard (as opposed to privileging those with the largest platform). What if any mechanisms will be used here, both in the broad initial discussion and then the next phase of the general membership discussion?
-- In the social.coop and cosocial discussions, BIPOC and transvoices were almost completely absent. Will there be a similar dynamic here #nivenly discussion? [To be clear, I'm talking both about who participates and whether cis white participants elevante the voices of non-participating BIPOC and trans people.]. And the parent post discusses another "who's at the table" question that could crop up here:
"For example Nivenly is tech- and open-source focused. How well represented will artists, photographers, writers, actors, and musicians -- the people who tools like #Haidra exploit -- be in the discussions and voting?"
-- Mastodon doesn't have no way of getting notified about replies to a post that _don't_ mention you; it's functionality that's been requested multiple times, dating back to 2018 if not earlier. Github discussions are better on this front; and unlike vanilla Mastodon they allow formatting via Markdown. So on the one hand it's a more useful platform for people who are used to Github -- which, given Nivenly's techie and open-source focus, presumably includes all the board and paying members, and quite possibly most of the people who have accounts on @[email protected]. At the same time though @[email protected]'s has some good points about the lack of inclusivity of using github.
Of course Nivenly's also encouraging discussions on the fediverse and in their Discord chat, and offering an email option for people to submit questions ... that's good: people without github accounts aren't excluded from the conversation. Still, the structure certainly favors people who do have github accounts. In particular, techies (who as a class, and in some cases as individuals, are more likely to profit from normalizing exploitative AI governance) are more likely to have github accounts than artists, photographers, writers, actors, and musicians (who as a class and as individuals are the ones who are exploited), so this could accentuate the potential "who's at the table" problem.
-- as @[email protected] mentions in the post, it's not clear what mechanism to use for voting. is there a way to use existing affordances to address this? If not could some straightforward improvements help?
@[email protected] @[email protected] -
CW: AI, Nivenly, Haidra, StableDiffiusion
Nivenly, the cooperative that runs hachyderm.io, is having a community discussion and vote on what to do about Haidra and AIHorde, a distributed generative AI system.
@quintessence's Our First Community Discussion and Vote: Haidra has a summary and information about next steps. @Db0's The Birth of Haidra and the Join With Nivenly has background.
The discussion's open to all but voting is restricted to members They're also tracking discussion on social media in the Discord chatrooms but ask that official questions be submitted via Github discussions or email to [email protected]. They're gathering questions between now 8 Aug 2023, and will be. posting followup blog pots, followed by a general member discussion from August 14 - 25 August 2023 and an "election" after -- specific mechanism TBD,
Eligible voters including project members, trade members, and general members who pay $7/month). Something that's always interesting to watch in situations like this who's at the table. For example Nivenly is tech- and open-source focused. How well represented will artists, photographers, writers, actors, and musicians -- the people who tools like Haidra exploit -- be in the discussions and voting? What happens if somebody used #AIHorde ("a crowdsourced distributed cluster of Image generation workers and text generation workers") to generate fake avatars and profiles, sign up 1000 new accounts and voted to ban these exploitative tools?
Here's an excellent thread from @hrefna with some initial thoughts and questions https://hachyderm.io/@hrefna/110833561126744694). The "ACM" references in the thread are to the ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct at https://ethics.acm.org/
Nivenly's discussion potentially affects cross-intance communication as well, and is a good chance to think about AI-related issues in general. In the Github discussion, for example, somebody brought up a question about whether posts and images that federate to hachyderm (or another nivenly-run instance) would be used to train future AIs. With Haidra, based on the discussion so far, the answer appears to be no; but this isn't the only situation where there's a risk of using federated data without consent to train AIs. What kind of ground rules do other instances want to have, and do we need to have conventions such as extending the nodeinfo structure (which gives basic data about every fediveres instance) to include information about whether or not an instance is using data for AI training?
So it's certainly a discussion worth tracking -- and participating in, if you're interested.
EDIT: A response in the github discussion describes why data federating to Hachyderm isn't being used to train Haidra's models, so I updated the text above to make that clear. It's still a good example of how this conversation highlights more general issues. If other instances using images and text they receive to train AI models, should they have to disclose it?
-
I am Rania from Gaza 🤍
I am the sole provider for my children, and we are living in a tent under very difficult conditions, especially with Ramadan approaching.
Please help us by donating or even sharing
https://gofund.me/d0cc0587
#Famine #WarCrimes #SettlerColonialism
#GazaVerified
#SaveMyChildren
#humanitarianappea
#gaza #palestine #mutualAid #fundraiser
@alf
@morph
@spectrumgirl
@FloydyStu
@bebatjof
@alexpalacefan
@sophie_vela
@hrefna
@MANOUCHKYA -
@zdl imho it's a bit different : the hype meta and web3 brought is down, it's a good thing, but the tech is still growing, with the fruit company joining in, and a still growing trend of sell in the VR gaming segment, while the tech is being more and more used in professional and education environments ...
Any hype is a problem, and the fact you hardly can get out a "product" without it is a very concerning question of #permacomputing #sustainablility #democracy
@smallcircles @Blort @hrefna -
UPDATE 2:
since @hrefna has been quite vocal on here about fake #strikes
https://hachyderm.io/@hrefna/113989429417162630just wanted to point out, #RickyRenuncia started as one organized protest with the intention of it breaking up into smaller manifestaciones across the island and over time, EXACTLY BECAUSE A GENERAL STRIKE WOULD FAIL.
most workers in Puerto Rico are NOT unionized. it’s boneheaded to ask individual workers to lose wages or their jobs.
yet another example of meeting people where they are.
-
CW: AI, Nivenly, Haidra, StableDiffiusion
@[email protected] @[email protected] the parent post has links to a great case-study-in-progress of community governance; and @[email protected] and @[email protected] this ties in with the discussion here as well.
Some of the things to look for, based on the experiences I noted with some of other community governance efforts ... thinking about these up front could lead to a more inclusive and effective discussion, and once it's done looking at them in retrospective could be another good data point for what does and doesn't work.
-- @[email protected]'s #TertuliaExtraordinaria discussion (collected here in a single document) is a great example of a fediverse governance-related discussion conducted in a way that lets multiple voices be heard (as opposed to privileging those with the largest platform). What if any mechanisms will be used here, both in the broad initial discussion and then the next phase of the general membership discussion?
-- In the social.coop and cosocial discussions, BIPOC and transvoices were almost completely absent. Will there be a similar dynamic here #nivenly discussion? [To be clear, I'm talking both about who participates and whether cis white participants elevante the voices of non-participating BIPOC and trans people.]. And the parent post discusses another "who's at the table" question that could crop up here:
"For example Nivenly is tech- and open-source focused. How well represented will artists, photographers, writers, actors, and musicians -- the people who tools like #Haidra exploit -- be in the discussions and voting?"
-- Mastodon doesn't have no way of getting notified about replies to a post that _don't_ mention you; it's functionality that's been requested multiple times, dating back to 2018 if not earlier. Github discussions are better on this front; and unlike vanilla Mastodon they allow formatting via Markdown. So on the one hand it's a more useful platform for people who are used to Github -- which, given Nivenly's techie and open-source focus, presumably includes all the board and paying members, and quite possibly most of the people who have accounts on @[email protected]. At the same time though @[email protected]'s has some good points about the lack of inclusivity of using github.
Of course Nivenly's also encouraging discussions on the fediverse and in their Discord chat, and offering an email option for people to submit questions ... that's good: people without github accounts aren't excluded from the conversation. Still, the structure certainly favors people who do have github accounts. In particular, techies (who as a class, and in some cases as individuals, are more likely to profit from normalizing exploitative AI governance) are more likely to have github accounts than artists, photographers, writers, actors, and musicians (who as a class and as individuals are the ones who are exploited), so this could accentuate the potential "who's at the table" problem.
-- as @[email protected] mentions in the post, it's not clear what mechanism to use for voting. is there a way to use existing affordances to address this? If not could some straightforward improvements help?
@[email protected] @[email protected] -
CW: AI, Nivenly, Haidra, StableDiffiusion
@[email protected] @[email protected] the parent post has links to a great case-study-in-progress of community governance; and @[email protected] and @[email protected] this ties in with the discussion here as well.
Some of the things to look for, based on the experiences I noted with some of other community governance efforts ... thinking about these up front could lead to a more inclusive and effective discussion, and once it's done looking at them in retrospective could be another good data point for what does and doesn't work.
-- @[email protected]'s #TertuliaExtraordinaria discussion (collected here in a single document) is a great example of a fediverse governance-related discussion conducted in a way that lets multiple voices be heard (as opposed to privileging those with the largest platform). What if any mechanisms will be used here, both in the broad initial discussion and then the next phase of the general membership discussion?
-- In the social.coop and cosocial discussions, BIPOC and transvoices were almost completely absent. Will there be a similar dynamic here #nivenly discussion? [To be clear, I'm talking both about who participates and whether cis white participants elevante the voices of non-participating BIPOC and trans people.]. And the parent post discusses another "who's at the table" question that could crop up here:
"For example Nivenly is tech- and open-source focused. How well represented will artists, photographers, writers, actors, and musicians -- the people who tools like #Haidra exploit -- be in the discussions and voting?"
-- Mastodon doesn't have no way of getting notified about replies to a post that _don't_ mention you; it's functionality that's been requested multiple times, dating back to 2018 if not earlier. Github discussions are better on this front; and unlike vanilla Mastodon they allow formatting via Markdown. So on the one hand it's a more useful platform for people who are used to Github -- which, given Nivenly's techie and open-source focus, presumably includes all the board and paying members, and quite possibly most of the people who have accounts on @[email protected]. At the same time though @[email protected]'s has some good points about the lack of inclusivity of using github.
Of course Nivenly's also encouraging discussions on the fediverse and in their Discord chat, and offering an email option for people to submit questions ... that's good: people without github accounts aren't excluded from the conversation. Still, the structure certainly favors people who do have github accounts. In particular, techies (who as a class, and in some cases as individuals, are more likely to profit from normalizing exploitative AI governance) are more likely to have github accounts than artists, photographers, writers, actors, and musicians (who as a class and as individuals are the ones who are exploited), so this could accentuate the potential "who's at the table" problem.
-- as @[email protected] mentions in the post, it's not clear what mechanism to use for voting. is there a way to use existing affordances to address this? If not could some straightforward improvements help?
@[email protected] @[email protected] -
CW: AI, Nivenly, Haidra, StableDiffiusion
@[email protected] @[email protected] the parent post has links to a great case-study-in-progress of community governance; and @[email protected] and @[email protected] this ties in with the discussion here as well.
Some of the things to look for, based on the experiences I noted with some of other community governance efforts ... thinking about these up front could lead to a more inclusive and effective discussion, and once it's done looking at them in retrospective could be another good data point for what does and doesn't work.
-- @[email protected]'s #TertuliaExtraordinaria discussion (collected here in a single document) is a great example of a fediverse governance-related discussion conducted in a way that lets multiple voices be heard (as opposed to privileging those with the largest platform). What if any mechanisms will be used here, both in the broad initial discussion and then the next phase of the general membership discussion?
-- In the social.coop and cosocial discussions, BIPOC and transvoices were almost completely absent. Will there be a similar dynamic here #nivenly discussion? [To be clear, I'm talking both about who participates and whether cis white participants elevante the voices of non-participating BIPOC and trans people.]. And the parent post discusses another "who's at the table" question that could crop up here:
"For example Nivenly is tech- and open-source focused. How well represented will artists, photographers, writers, actors, and musicians -- the people who tools like #Haidra exploit -- be in the discussions and voting?"
-- Mastodon doesn't have no way of getting notified about replies to a post that _don't_ mention you; it's functionality that's been requested multiple times, dating back to 2018 if not earlier. Github discussions are better on this front; and unlike vanilla Mastodon they allow formatting via Markdown. So on the one hand it's a more useful platform for people who are used to Github -- which, given Nivenly's techie and open-source focus, presumably includes all the board and paying members, and quite possibly most of the people who have accounts on @[email protected]. At the same time though @[email protected]'s has some good points about the lack of inclusivity of using github.
Of course Nivenly's also encouraging discussions on the fediverse and in their Discord chat, and offering an email option for people to submit questions ... that's good: people without github accounts aren't excluded from the conversation. Still, the structure certainly favors people who do have github accounts. In particular, techies (who as a class, and in some cases as individuals, are more likely to profit from normalizing exploitative AI governance) are more likely to have github accounts than artists, photographers, writers, actors, and musicians (who as a class and as individuals are the ones who are exploited), so this could accentuate the potential "who's at the table" problem.
-- as @[email protected] mentions in the post, it's not clear what mechanism to use for voting. is there a way to use existing affordances to address this? If not could some straightforward improvements help?
@[email protected] @[email protected] -
CW: AI, Nivenly, Haidra, StableDiffiusion
@[email protected] @[email protected] the parent post has links to a great case-study-in-progress of community governance; and @[email protected] and @[email protected] this ties in with the discussion here as well.
Some of the things to look for, based on the experiences I noted with some of other community governance efforts ... thinking about these up front could lead to a more inclusive and effective discussion, and once it's done looking at them in retrospective could be another good data point for what does and doesn't work.
-- @[email protected]'s #TertuliaExtraordinaria discussion (collected here in a single document) is a great example of a fediverse governance-related discussion conducted in a way that lets multiple voices be heard (as opposed to privileging those with the largest platform). What if any mechanisms will be used here, both in the broad initial discussion and then the next phase of the general membership discussion?
-- In the social.coop and cosocial discussions, BIPOC and transvoices were almost completely absent. Will there be a similar dynamic here #nivenly discussion? [To be clear, I'm talking both about who participates and whether cis white participants elevante the voices of non-participating BIPOC and trans people.]. And the parent post discusses another "who's at the table" question that could crop up here:
"For example Nivenly is tech- and open-source focused. How well represented will artists, photographers, writers, actors, and musicians -- the people who tools like #Haidra exploit -- be in the discussions and voting?"
-- Mastodon doesn't have no way of getting notified about replies to a post that _don't_ mention you; it's functionality that's been requested multiple times, dating back to 2018 if not earlier. Github discussions are better on this front; and unlike vanilla Mastodon they allow formatting via Markdown. So on the one hand it's a more useful platform for people who are used to Github -- which, given Nivenly's techie and open-source focus, presumably includes all the board and paying members, and quite possibly most of the people who have accounts on @[email protected]. At the same time though @[email protected]'s has some good points about the lack of inclusivity of using github.
Of course Nivenly's also encouraging discussions on the fediverse and in their Discord chat, and offering an email option for people to submit questions ... that's good: people without github accounts aren't excluded from the conversation. Still, the structure certainly favors people who do have github accounts. In particular, techies (who as a class, and in some cases as individuals, are more likely to profit from normalizing exploitative AI governance) are more likely to have github accounts than artists, photographers, writers, actors, and musicians (who as a class and as individuals are the ones who are exploited), so this could accentuate the potential "who's at the table" problem.
-- as @[email protected] mentions in the post, it's not clear what mechanism to use for voting. is there a way to use existing affordances to address this? If not could some straightforward improvements help?
@[email protected] @[email protected] -
@ieatkillerbees @hrefna and that's the problem:
#LackOfAccountability & #LackOfConsequences basically made a #facist #PoliceState by the very defiition possible!
