bun's recent activity
-
Comment on <deleted topic> in ~health
-
Comment on <deleted topic> in ~transport
bun Link ParentOh absolutely. But that's still not an excuse for the shenanigans done by Boing/FAA to skip several steps in ensuring it's a safe plane. I'm pretty happy that it seems we're now being extra strict...Oh absolutely. But that's still not an excuse for the shenanigans done by Boing/FAA to skip several steps in ensuring it's a safe plane. I'm pretty happy that it seems we're now being extra strict on verifying things, rather than just taking the word of FAA.
-
‘I think therefore I cycle’: Fifty years of Dutch anti-car posters – in pictures
16 votes -
Comment on <deleted topic> in ~transport
bun LinkOne issue major flaw is already a critical failure but two just shows that Boeing doesn't take safety seriously. I sure hope the aftermath of this is that we allow companies less freedom to...One issue major flaw is already a critical failure but two just shows that Boeing doesn't take safety seriously.
I sure hope the aftermath of this is that we allow companies less freedom to certify their own products. You see this stuff way too much in almost any field.
-
Comment on Europe’s controversial overhaul of online copyright receives final approval in ~tech
bun Link ParentI am sick and quite busy with a few things in real life, so I have not been able to have another read through it yet. I was going to participate here but I was only able to get a few pages in...I am sick and quite busy with a few things in real life, so I have not been able to have another read through it yet. I was going to participate here but I was only able to get a few pages in before the letters were "dancing" around on page.
Assuming it has not changed massively, I am in the opinion that most people against it are either being fed a massively warped view of the directive or haven't actually bothered researching it.
The iffy part primarily comes from it being a directive, so each individual member country is given a lot of freedom in how they want to implement it. The directive itself does not seem that bad, in many ways it could even be good for the internet.
-
Comment on <deleted topic> in ~life
bun Link ParentMicrosoft is known to have added backdoors to their software, like Windows and Skype, to foreign intelligence agencies like the NSA. Not the least, Windows itself collects a lot of telemetry which...Microsoft is known to have added backdoors to their software, like Windows and Skype, to foreign intelligence agencies like the NSA. Not the least, Windows itself collects a lot of telemetry which it sends home.
But ignoring that the software is known to be neither secure nor respectful of your privacy, there is a bigger and more fundamental issue with Windows. There is no good way to check what the software actually does. We can reverse engineer and monitor behavior of course, but in the end we are still operating with a black box of software.
-
Comment on <deleted topic> in ~life
bun Link ParentWe're talking within reason here. Assuming you still want to use a computer, you do have options.We're talking within reason here. Assuming you still want to use a computer, you do have options.
-
Comment on <deleted topic> in ~life
bun LinkSmall clarification, the software that is named "Pi-Hole" runs on several Linux distros, and does not exclusively need to run on an Raspberry Pi either (though that is most likely the easiest...For the technically inclined person there is Pi-Hole which is a network-wide adware/malware blocker. The name comes from the use of a Raspberry Pi to act as a black hole for adware/malware. Currently, supported operating systems include Raspbian, Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, and CentOS.
Small clarification, the software that is named "Pi-Hole" runs on several Linux distros, and does not exclusively need to run on an Raspberry Pi either (though that is most likely the easiest implementation). Any modern OS should be able to take advantage of Pi-Hole, you just need to change your network settings.
A much easier method, which essentially does the same thing, is to modify your computer’s hosts file. For a safe and easy way to do this, I recommend that you use free GUI software to implement this. Windows users can download Hosts File Editor+ and Mac users can download Gas Mask.
I would dispute it's an easier method, as this method requires you to install things on each individual unit. It also will be a headache/impossible on devices that won't let you easily edit your hosts configuration, for instance your android, iOS, PS4, Switch, etc.
Furthermore, at least windows has some host names that are hard coded into the OS and will not be honored by the hosts configuration. This would not be an issue with the Pi-Hole. Though if you truly care about privacy and security, you would not really be using windows anyways.
-
Comment on Utrecht shooting: 'Three dead' after attack on tram in ~transport
-
Utrecht shooting: 'Three dead' after attack on tram
10 votes -
Comment on Giving automation the power to detect crime and enforce punishment has ramifications, even for minor infractions in ~tech
bun Link ParentWould that not be a good example for why he should be fined then? There was opposing traffic and a crossing, both being factors that increase chances of accidents, as opposed to your example....While there's the potential for people to develop bad habits, I think traffic density does play a role in the risk posed by many maneuvers, so to a degree yes. Speeding is actually a great example of this, since it tends to be relative speed differences that cause accidents.
Would that not be a good example for why he should be fined then? There was opposing traffic and a crossing, both being factors that increase chances of accidents, as opposed to your example.
Have speed limits and fines been adjusted accordingly with 100% enforcement? Are they still used on divided highways where there is essentially no possibility of an oncoming collision? What is the recourse for a maliciously configured camera?
These are questions that are a bit hard to answer on a EU-wide basis.
Have speed limits and fines been adjusted accordingly with 100% enforcement?
Why would that even matter? Should we give twice as high fines because we most likely didn't catch you that other time?
Are they still used on divided highways where there is essentially no possibility of an oncoming collision?
Yes, but you are ignoring many other reasons one could use a camera. Road condition, visibility, wildlife crossings, weather conditions, etc. All those can lead to accidents, where with speed control you could avoid them. Even when incoming traffic is not an issue.
What is the recourse for a maliciously configured camera?
In most countries, the agency operating the cameras are not the same as the ones responsible for configuring the cameras. If this truly is an issue in your country, then the issue is not with the speed camera itself.
Additionally what's stopping people from learning where the cameras are and minding their speeds only there? It should also be noted that cameras don't pull people over, so if someone is driving recklessly and it leads to a fatal accident, the camera did nothing. I'd be interested if you can link some studies that confirm your assertion.
Absolutely. Here for instance is one done on order by Statens Vegvesen.
The summary is in english. Super summarized, it has a great effect, especially on the most deadly of crashes.
Generally speaking, road engineering is the best collision safety possible. There are ways to design roads to control speeds without the use of speed bumps, such as narrowing them or creating rough shoulders. This doesn't stop reckless individuals but it will slow down the 85th percentile -- which is something to read up on, if you're interested in this kind of thing!
Can you show me some research or statistic that compares such solutions, to speed cameras?
It's not as absurd as you might think! Pavlovian responses in humans are real. Emotional associations as well. Merely pulling someone over with simply a warning for an early offense is very effective, in fact, despite not issuing a fine! Emotional triggers to memory are real, and a disassociated punishment is not as effective. This guy got a fine and didn't even know he did anything wrong.
I agree the fine should have come together with the info on what he did wrong. That was not what I considered absurd. This is the part I reacted on:
You don't use the 'stick' on an animal two weeks after it pooped on your rug. There's no association, and it's merely cruelty. This, itself, at these levels, is merely cruelty for revenue's sake.
We humans can understand that our actions had consequences, even if the consequence is delayed. When you say a fine that came a period after the incident is human cruelty for revenues sake, I consider that absolutely absurd.
Should we just ignore any wrongdoings that's done, unless a perpetrator is caught red-handed?
Additionally, a very high percentage of electronically issued tickets are dismissed when appealed in the US. This typically involves having to take a day off work, which also destroys real human productivity.
That is not a problem with the speed camera or the automatic ticketing system. That's a problem with your legal system.
Not only that, speed and red-light cameras can be abused. There are often situations where certain speed limits don't make sense with the way a road is set up, or light timings can be maliciously adjusted -- there are actual cases of these things in the states.
If your law enforcement tampers with evidence and equipment, that is a problem with your law enforcement.
You could have been operating in a completely reasonable manner and then suddenly have a 400$ ticket -- as was the case in this article.
That's your opinion. What we know is, he broke traffic law, in a crossing, with oncoming traffic. Unless you know something I do not from that article, it seems completely reasonable he received a ticket.
You may not be allowed to cross that white line, but what if doing so prevents you from hitting a pedestrian or causes you to avoid an accident?
Then you should not be fined. But that was not the case in this article.
If no one is in danger, then I fail to see the purpose of issuing blanket fines with no situational consideration. That is literally why we have judges, juries, and sentencing guidelines.
And that is why you can appeal on your fine. This is not an issue with the camera itself.
-
Why airlines are cracking down on "skiplagging"
20 votes -
Why humans have evolved to drink milk
15 votes -
Comment on <deleted topic> in ~tech
bun LinkI'm not the biggest fan of it myself, but a lot of the stuff on that page is hyperbolic. I had a look at a version of the article here:...I'm not the biggest fan of it myself, but a lot of the stuff on that page is hyperbolic. I had a look at a version of the article here:
-
Comment on War over being nice in ~misc
bun Link ParentIsn't that what we are living in anyways? Most cultures tend to have things from either, but usually lean much more heavily towards one of them. Where I live it's very much so type A, and many...What about going for a third alternative? Can we live life full of mirth and gaiety?
Isn't that what we are living in anyways? Most cultures tend to have things from either, but usually lean much more heavily towards one of them. Where I live it's very much so type A, and many people would argue that the frankness and directive...ness(?) is part of the reason why people get along. But there's definitely a bit of both.
I think in the end, the types are more so based on the opposites of the world that the author sees, but for me they aren't opposites.
-
Comment on The text of Article 13 and the EU Copyright Directive has just been finalised in ~tech
bun Link ParentSo I finally got around to reading article 11. There are some bits I don't like, but my main issue is it's too vague. But here is my reading of it. So basically, for home usage or non-commercial...- Exemplary
So I finally got around to reading article 11. There are some bits I don't like, but my main issue is it's too vague. But here is my reading of it.
- Member States shall provide publishers of press publications established in a Member State with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the online use of their press publications by information society service providers. These rights shall not apply to private or non-commercial uses of press publications carried out by individual users.
So basically, for home usage or non-commercial usage, article 11 will not apply. For instance Tildes might be excempt due to being non-profit. This makes sense, you need to have some sort of cash flow to "tax" for a "link tax" to function.
The protection granted under the first subparagraph shall not apply to acts of hyperlinking.
The rights referred to in the first subparagraph shall not apply in respect of uses of individual words or very short extracts of a press publication.
I read this to mean that just providing a link and/or excerpt/quote/title is not enough usage of someone elses material to trigger article 11. This to me also makes sense, else services like google would have to pay for any results they show. This would most likely make most of the usage of pages like reddit excempt too, as a link and title would not trigger article 11. This is most likely more so in case large parts of an article is reproduced.
But this is too vague for my liking.
- The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall leave intact and shall in no way affect any rights provided for in Union law to authors and other rightholders, in respect of the works and other subject-matter incorporated in a press publication. The rights referred to in paragraph 1 may not be invoked against those authors and other rightholders and, in particular, may not deprive them of their right to exploit their works and other subject-matter independently from the press publication in which they are incorporated
A bit weirdly phrased. But I basically read this so that if the author quotes or reproduces parts of his article elsewhere, he will not have to pay for his own article.
The rights referred to in paragraph 1 shall expire 2 years after the publication of the press publication. This term shall be calculated from the first day of January of the year following the date of publication. Paragraph 1 shall not apply to press publications first published before [entry into force of the Directive].
So basically, you can only seek compensation for up to two years after publication, and article 11 does not apply to anything published before article 11 enters into force.
4a. Member States shall provide that the authors of the works incorporated in a press publication receive an appropriate share of the revenues that press publishers receive for the use of their press publications by information society service providers
This is the more iffy one. It states that member states need to provide a mean (mechanism? licensing system?) to allow authors to receive an appropiate share of revenue. Question here is how this is supposed to work, and if this is something needs to be seeked specifically (like in article 13) by author or something that needs to be done by the republisher (for instance a blogger reproducing parts of an article).
Another question is what an "appropriate share" is.
The next two sections of the article mostly goes into the reasoning of why such an article is required.
(33) For the purposes of this Directive, it is necessary to define the concept of press publications so that it only covers journalistic publications, published in any media, including on paper, in the context of an economic activity which constitutes a provision of services under Union law. The press publications to be covered would include, for instance, daily newspapers, weekly or monthly magazines of general or special interest, including subscription based magazines, and news websites. Press publications contain mostly literary works but increasingly include other types of works and subject-matter, notably photographs and videos.
This basically covers what actually a piece of media is that is covered by article 11. So it seems to specifically aimed at news as we understand them today, and not so much on for instance entertainment, forums or public information.
Periodical publications published for scientific or academic purposes, such as scientific journals, should not be covered by the protection granted to press publications under this Directive.
Scientific papers and academic journals are not protected by article 11.
Neither should this protection apply to websites, such as blogs, that provide information as part of an activity which is not carried out under the initiative, editorial responsibility and control of service provider, such as a news publisher.
If you're not under an editorial responsibility, you will also not be covered by article 11. So a random blog or youtube channel will most likely not be covered.
The rest of the article just kinda repeats things already covered. All in all, its not that bad, but it is too vague on the actual mechanics for my writing. I would also have liked to see some sort of "minimum" profit, so that you don't hurt bloggers but go after places like Facebook. We will just have to see how it develops.
-
Comment on The text of Article 13 and the EU Copyright Directive has just been finalised in ~tech
bun (edited )Link ParentThis is from the very first paragraph. Emphasis is mine. Assuming Tildes falls under "non-commercial" usage, then this would not apply. I would recommend reading the text before making statements....- Member States shall provide publishers of press publications established in a Member State with the rights provided for in Article 2 and Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/29/EC for the online use of their press publications by information society service providers. These rights shall not apply to private or non-commercial uses of press publications carried out by individual users.
This is from the very first paragraph. Emphasis is mine. Assuming Tildes falls under "non-commercial" usage, then this would not apply. I would recommend reading the text before making statements.
EDIT: Also look to my other comment (https://tildes.net/~tech/adk/the_text_of_article_13_and_the_eu_copyright_directive_has_just_been_finalised#comment-2lsb) for other reasons why Tildes most likely is not covered. Primarily by the amount that is needed for article 11 to be triggered, which is also written about in the first paragraph.
-
Comment on Tildes folks, are you learning another language or multilingual? in ~humanities
bun LinkI speak five languages, three fluently. I can also understand 3 more but if I open my mouth it will sound too bad for usage. Currently I am learning dutch, which is going pretty well. It's...I speak five languages, three fluently. I can also understand 3 more but if I open my mouth it will sound too bad for usage.
Currently I am learning dutch, which is going pretty well. It's currently good enough for day-to-day usage, though I obviously notice that there are some fields that are much better than others.
-
Comment on The text of Article 13 and the EU Copyright Directive has just been finalised in ~tech
bun Link ParentAlso, am not a lawyer or policy maker, just a humble engineer. Take everything I say as a laymans reading.Also, am not a lawyer or policy maker, just a humble engineer. Take everything I say as a laymans reading.
-
Comment on The text of Article 13 and the EU Copyright Directive has just been finalised in ~tech
bun Link ParentI wonder if EFF and I have read the same article, because at least on Article 13 we see completely different realities. This is so blatantly warped based on the actual text, it borders on...I wonder if EFF and I have read the same article, because at least on Article 13 we see completely different realities.
is responsible for ensuring that no user ever posts anything that infringes copyright, even momentarily.
Those filters will subject all communications of every European to interception and arbitrary censorship if a black-box algorithm decides their text, pictures, sounds or videos are a match for a known copyrighted work
"best efforts" to license anything their users might conceivably upload, meaning that they have to buy virtually anything any copyright holder offers to sell them, at any price, on pain of being liable for infringement if a user later uploads that work.This is so blatantly warped based on the actual text, it borders on fearmongering and propaganda.
I could swear 2 liters was also the recommended amount where I am from. One thing in your link that wasn't obvious to me was how they calculated the daily total average. If they are calculating it from just average size, it could be that a larger amount of overweight and obese, or an ageing population, could drive up the average requirement. Thats speculation on my side though.