I think it’s about generating alt text for people with disabilities when they are missing from pictures.

I hate the term and the fact it became widespread. Unfortunately, mass adoption also means it will mutate and evolution will follow its course.

The obvious solution on X’s side is to ID everyone that wants to post anything. And remember that the obvious solution doesn’t have to be the best solution, a good solution or, even, a real solution at all.

Maybe people are not really choosing, just going with the only option they know/ remember. If they have to choose from a menu, the first option is very likely and I imagine randomness would be involved.

“If you have an outcome-based approach and you do not reach the goals, then you have to apply additional measures […] whereas now you say okay, I tried, but unfortunately, it didn’t turn out the way I wanted to,” Paulus explained.

Politicians and producers love good ideas that will attract the public’s attention, but should be tweaked just enough to not be executed as intended.

He was, uh, totally asking for it.

I’ll admit that I got confused. If you visit the site, the article is a response to the research that says women also hit men. I’d argue they simply chose stories of men beating women, flipped the gender and wanted people to be outraged.

Understanding people’s disabilities more precisely is the direction we want to go. Using that to decide some of them (a lot of some of them) are not disabled enough is the problem. The researchers defend their method in the name of uniformity, which tends to squash personal realities.

Basically, they want to exclude people that answer “some difficulty” which equates them to “no difficulty at all”. There’s a world of difference between " I have no difficulty walking" and “I have some difficulty walking”. I imagine the researchers judge the difference by seeing who’s left behind and ignoring who is suffering to get to the same place.

Telegram is the same. It’s the app people will migrate to because it’s the app people learned to use when WhatsApp can’t operate for some reason. Not many people there. People here are overly attached.

For the people who suggest users just change apps. Imagine I just ban all your current forms of text communication (you can still have e-mail), but only you, your family and friends will keep their ecosystems. Do you care you won’t talk to them anymore? Can you convince them to use a new app? Does it affect your life beyond social interactions? Is it worth making your life harder?

The article didn’t go in the direction I expected. Theoretically, open source software can be fixed by experts outside of the main company, but it would be very niche. The expert would need to be familiar with the specific hardware at least, have varying degrees of medical knowledge and have access to the individual in need in some cases.

Forced updates and treating medical software as no more special than a game is the problem when dealing with apps. Tag medicals apps and make it so that system updates have to be manual or go through warnings before being deployed. Offer the option to go back to a version that previously worked. Create regulations to make companies liable for malfunctions.

The problem that I see is that power comes in great part from the responsibility to educate yourself. In a community, you don’t have to know everything to contribute to its workings, but someone has, enough people do you escape the clutches of external players. Everything is quite individualist right now though. Things must just work without the help of anyone.

They probably are. That said, it’s always a good idea to ask the question: “why would people use the worse alternative?”

They can block access to the site if they don’t comply. Then people use VPN.

I don’t think it’s the same concern. It’s not that people will become pedophiles or act on it more because of the normalization and exposure. It’s people will see less of a problem with the sexualization of children. The parallel being the amount of violence we are OK being depicted. The difference being we can only emulate in a personal level the sexual side.

Maybe there’s the argument that violence is escapist, sexual desire is ever present and porn is addictive.

That’s really curious. LLM were usually on the other side of this note and not considered the traditional AI people referred to.

I think submitting the whole article will put the instance in danger of copyright strikes.

I understand the sentiment. By saying we, I meant myself and the other users. We should take more responsibility for what we share. Maybe we can try to make that part of the culture. The title should be the information we personally want to spread or call to attention.

We really should moderate the titles more. I just realized that every article I ignored I basically accepted as truth. Or, at least, my brain accepted as truth in the background. I’ll see the same lie twice a day everyday and start processing as fact.

Variety is good for your brain, but it will overwhelm you after a while. You get used to it and a blind spot appears. With the information I have, I’d suggest planning your day around one activity. Be on theme.

You start your day with a goal and imagine how you can achieve it. The planning is one activity by the way. You plan for house long you will do any given thing continuously and where the pauses will be. One hour and then fifteen minutes rest? After a pause, you can reflect upon the subject, write about it, see if you haven’t stayed off course, basically process, rinse and repeat.

It’s weird being this generic, unfortunately I see no other way.