Is it false? Even if it is dumb, here we are 15 years later talking about it. Still, after hours we’re still going back and forth about it.

Can someone ELI5? He’s admitting it was never truly open? Or they were wrong for thinking open was good at all?

I brought up a story about a red square, of which you are, 15 years later, still trying to convince someone that it’s not art. Something that is still being debated on 15 years later is pretty interesting, especially for it being just a red square. The more we talk about it, the more it legitimizes it.

Half of those “AI Executives” are just part of hype companies wrapped up in the AI bubble. It’s the exact same as the crypto bubble, everyone started some company to get gullible VCs to dump money into them. Now it’s popping. Congrats. Now we’re going to lose the rest of the internet as we know it because they wanted to make it rich quick.

Yet here we are talking about it.

This is a very nuanced question, because art isn’t always about skill.

I remember I was one of those guys who thought modern art was stupid. My family took me to MoMA and I remember I was looking at a painting of a red square. It was a large 2 foot by 2 foot red square. I remember saying “but anyone could do this” to my aunt. She replied:

But nobody else did.

Stopped in my tracks and it clicked. The fact that they had done it, and we were there talking about it and discussing it, that right there proved it was art.

So it’s not just quality. I’m sure AI could spot out 1000 red squares, and some would consider that low effort, but no one would ever discuss them.

Guaranteed this was some idiot committee decision based on whatever hear they have today. They probably have zero idea what Linux is or that their entire infrastructure runs on it. In fact, if they were asked what Facebook uses I am sure they would say “we all use Macs!”

This sounds like the perfect thing for whatif by xkcd

Seconded. I went down the dark path of trying to hook up each emulator and it was pain. RetroArch made it so much simpler. (OP it’s not just for Arch, I learned that too late)

It’s not about the messaging - the money flowed through OF. That’s the illegal part, OF allowing money to transfer through them for crimes makes them complicit. That’s why FinCEN is involved.

• Person A wants to buy something illegal from Person B.
• Person A cannot send money directly to Person B, as it leaves a paper trail/it may be illegal/sanctions/there are also lists of known bad actors
• Person B tells Person A to instead buy <<some product>> on a random site, in this case OF
• Person A buys the product, money flowing to OF, looks like a normal transaction
• Person B receives money from OF, also appears to be a normal transaction, and there is no direct link between A and B except hidden behind the scenes through OF’s bank account (which has millions of other transactions, none of them linked)

Finance has rules about keeping logs about what money was transferred from who to who, why, when, and for what. If those logs are not meticulous and precise, they will come in and shut you down. In this case we see Visa and others also get wind, they want nothing to do with feds coming in and shutting them down (remember if they’re aware of it and allow it to continue they are also liable), and that’s how we get here.

Source: I worked FinTech at an exchange for several years, and we were sued by multiple agencies for things we weren’t even aware of (years after they even happened). If you want to pay people out through your system, first hire a team of lawyers.

A good writeup, but the wrong conclusion. I used exFAT for a while for my secondary drive. It has nothing to do with what your primary drive is, but exFAT’s hard limitations. The largest of which is that as you assumed, exFAT does not support symlinks which in gaming is extremely important. That’s why reformatting to ext4 worked.

Money laundering is incredibly complex now, but it’s still pretty dang hard to hide, especially if you’re a credit card company with just a metric shitload of data with a ton of available compute to find it.

I think the important bit isn’t necessarily that they were hosting content, but funneling money - which is an important distinction. The content may not have been hosted there, but the money was still being funneled through there to pay for illegal content.

An analogy, occasionally you see something make the rounds from facebook marketplace. “Half eaten mcdonalds sandwich. $600”. Everyone laughs and says how stupid is that - but is it? Or is it a completely legal transaction if someone buys it. It’s just that what you don’t know is that on another platform they were asking to buy drugs, and said “To transfer the money go buy the half eaten sandwhich on FB”.

If FB knows that’s happening and doesn’t stop it, that’s on them because they’re allowing money laundering to happen.

OF in this case probably didn’t even host any content - but they probably knew that money was being funneled for other activities and it’s on them to stop it. Take it as a lesson folks, if you let money flow through your site (even a completely above board site) between two parties - you’re at risk of something like this.

It helps me to remember that informed voters 50-70 years ago were people who read the papers. Not even regularly, just those who knew what was going on in the world on a regular basis. It is not normal or healthy to have a constant barrage of news and input - and more than that it’s not wrong to take a break from it. I had to learn that the hard way, that it’s okay to take a break, it doesn’t make you a bad person, that online is making you anxious. I folded in on myself, I had panic attacks, I couldn’t function - and I got help. That help helped me realize that I don’t have to shoulder this alone, I do not have to keep watching and listening. I’m informed, I know what’s going on, I know what happened today - but that doesn’t mean I’m going to turn my filters off either.

Very level headed answer. We like to stand on principle here, but if OP doesn’t go that’s pretty much the end of their relationship, we’re talking decades to repair. If that’s what OP wants that’s what OP wants, but in this case it might be better to take the high ground and say “I think your political views are horrendous, but you’re still my brother”. Get a few drinks then duck out after the speeches.

Just CDs? Pretty much any of them

The number one thing I’ve learned through the last several decades is that if it’s bad for the economy, no one will do it. Greed is the number one driver of everything right now. Maybe that will change, but I doubt it. Look at all the positive progress we try to make, it’s stopped the second anyone rich would lose any money.

Yikes I thought you were referencing something else, but yikes

For us who are bad at writing though that’s exactly why we use it. I’m bad with greetings, structure, things that people expect and I’ve had people get offended at my emails because they come off as rude. I don’t notice those things. For that llms have been a godsend. Yes, I of course have to validate it, but it conveys the message I’m trying to usually

I use it for parsing through legalese or terms and conditions. IT IS NOT PERFECT. I wouldn’t trust it ever over a lawyer. But it’s great for things like “Is there anything here that is extra unusual or weirdly anti-consumer or very bad for privacy?”. I think it’s great for that.

People here are just “it will take jobs it’s inherently evil”. They said the same about Photoshop, and computers before. I think there are evil uses for it sure, but that doesn’t mean that it has no valid usages

Exactly. Even Meta and their thousands of lawyers would immediately say this. How does it harm people? Prove it does. Why are they singled out? They’re just showing content they think is relevant, and I’m guessing they honestly are. It’s that political groups take advantage of that, and make slop that enrages and inflames. But Meta would just say “you can’t punish us for trying to make our platform successful”. A mess all around