Ferk

Since he said that the authenticator is the one that handles the communication & access, I expect banning the person from the authenticator would already automatically prevent anyone using that authenticator (or any other authenticator federating with it) from seeing the content.

As I understand it, the only thing the content provider would do is hosting the data. But access to that data would be determined by the service doing the access control, in the same way current instances are doing it.

I don't know, I feel it's actually the opposite. Awareness is something you can only experience subjectively, it's "qualia", a quality that you cannot measure outside of yourself or detect externally. There's a reason IQ ("intelligence" quotient) tests use puzzles/problems and don't test conscious awareness. Most of the time in science intelligence is defined as problem solving and capacity to adapt/extrapolate because that definition makes it observable and more scientifically useful.

If it were to include awareness then we can't in good faith answer the question: "is it intelligent?" ..we can only say we don't know. This is the main struggle of philosophy of the mind, what is often called "the hard problem of consciousness". Empirical analysis would not show if something is having (or not) the conscious experience of being aware.

Yes, that's what I meant 2 comments above by "fungus" (though to be fair, whether slime molds are fungi depends on your definition, they used to be classified as one, before "protist kingdom" was made up to mix protozoa, algae & molds, but I keep preferring the traditional autotroph / absorptive heterotroph / digestive heterotroph division).

I also mentioned ants who can find the optimal path by simply following scents left by other ants without understanding how this helps with that.

You can be intelligent without being aware of your intelligence, or you can be stupid without being aware of your stupidity... like how humans are actually creating problems for themselves in many cases.

Intelligence != awareness

Yes there there as many types of intelligence as there are types of problems. Emotional intelligence deals with emotional problems, social intelligence deals with social problems. This doesn't conflict with my definition, it's still problem solving.

Just because a being is intelligent does not mean it can solve all the problems of all kinds, it would require general intelligence, and even a generally intelligent being needs the right training... if you are trained wrong or trained for a different kind of problem that does not fit the current one then your current experience might actually get in the way, as you point out.

They’re no more intelligent than an AC/DC converter

The problem is in the definition of intelligence.

To me, intelligence is simply problem-solving ability. It does not necessarily imply consciousness, having self-awareness or anything like that. A simple calculator is already displaying intelligence, even if limited to a very narrow situational set of problems, in the sense that it can resolve mathematical questions.

That doesn't mean the calculator is self aware.. it just means it can resolve problems. Biological systems can also resolve problems without necessarily being aware of what they are doing.. does the fungus actually knows it's solving a maze the scientists prepared for it when it just expands following what is preprogrammed by its biological instincts determined by natural selection? Do the ants really know what they are doing when they find the shortest path just by instinctively following a scent of pheromones left by other ants?

Knowing exactly what causes consciousness is an entirely different problem.. and it's one that has not been resolved by any scientist or philosopher in a satisfactory manner. So we simply do not know that.

No, what makes the poor majority choose to voluntarily vote against their own interest and shoot themselves in the foot is not the fact that there's a powerful minority, it's the manipulation.

Are you not aware of how popular capitalism is with the masses? the poor majority is primarily capitalist in all the capitalist countries. The majority disagrees with your idea of communism being the solution.

Manipulation is the name of the game. Appeals to compliance and stability, pushing narratives to vulnerable people in ways that is hard for them to examine them critically, politics being intermixed with social psychology, group-thinking and sometimes even reaching the levels of religious belief.

Manipulation is a tactic used by Nations of all colors.. and it's specially obvious with governments that explicitly seek lack of transparency, opaque systems, suppression of political opposition, silencing dissent, censorship.. and.. yes, lack of separation of powers (which does help with all of those). Like I sad before, the more safeguards you remove the more and more you are allowing traits of dictatorship to creep in.

The moment you punish people for expressing being unhappy is the moment you can no longer trust that people will be honest when asked if they are happy. This adds extra levels of complexity, it only seems simple if you only look at it from a very superficial surface level.

Ah sorry, I misunderstood completely, I didn't read it right. For some reason I thought you were talking about the router / wifi service being SOWPL.

what if, instead of a group of old men wearing weird wigs, it was actual representatives of the people chosen through democratic centralism?

You are assuming that people will never ever choose the group of old men.. or that the group of old men isn't gonna create an alternative progressive looking group that actually is just as bad, but happens to be very good at propaganda, marketing and appealing to popular social media poison trends / manipulation.

And I say "never ever" because the most dangerous thing is that a malicious group only needs to gain power once, in such a no-barriers system, to impose a dictatorship.

If electing officials were that easy, the people in Berlin would not have needed a referendum to push for this law, the elected officials would have pushed for it instead.

Of course, you can advocate for having direct democracy at any step of the way, but then you are essentially also doing separation of power, since you are essentially translocating the tribunal to the entire population, and it would be just as separate and varied as the whole country itself. I'd argue that direct democracy is the opposite of centralization of power.

It's so much of a hurdle that all fascist regimes have been forced to weaken the division and ultimatelly break it completelly in order to build a fascist regime.

A "progressive law" is easy for a fascist in power to overthrow if they actually are able to weaken the division of power.

Why do you think Trump has been able to do a lot more in this term than in the previous one? Because he has been able to weaken that division, the judicial system is on his side, and he has a lot more connections with people inside the state now.

Ok,. so lets imagine your example from Berlin: would the situation have been better if there was no division of power and the same group of old men in a tribunal were the ones deciding the referendum should be made, deciding what laws should be passed, how should they be written and in which manner should they be executed, with which level of strength?

Division of power also means that if a group of old men in the legislative dictates a horrible anti constitutional law, there's a chance the law can be repelled due to the judiciary being compelled to do so.

He didn't say that separation by itself is sufficient. So naturally just having separation is not enough.

However, it's a fact that a dictator needs, by definition, to break the separation of power in order to truly become the authoritarian leader with control over the country.

So NOT having separation of power is actually necessary to destroy a democracy.

I feel that trying to defend those things that someone would need to break in order to remove democracy is not a bad idea if we want to maintain democracy.

There are also a lot of other things that are necessary for a dictatorship.. such as the dictator not being held accountable (meaning.. transparency and mechanisms for accountability would be another principle to maintain democracy), or the dictator suppressing political opposition or dissent (so protecting opposition, whistleblowers and dissent, instead of prosecuting it would be another one). And I'm sure there are many others.

I mean.. sure, you can, in theory, have a democracy without those things... but the more safeguards you remove the more and more you are allowing traits of dictatorship to creep in..

HDR and EXIF are great changes.. APNG, if already being used for some apps/services, seems a logic choice. Maybe it'll finally mean the end of gifs once and for all?

What I'm more excited for though, is the improvements in compression that the article hints that are being worked on. Specially if it can beat other more modern formats that have added lossless compression like jpegxl. I feel it's best to have separate formats for lossless and lossy, to prevent the off-chance of lossyness getting through.

IANAL, but I feel that coffee shop case would not be different if the software were under AGPL... if you are providing a service to other people, even if "the other people" are the customers to your shop, it could be argued that under the terms of the AGPL (not to be confused with GPL) they should have the right to see the source of the service that they are making use of.

But if the SOWPL requirement really does apply to private code that isn't providing service to others, the implication would be that even if you are the only user (no coffee shop customer), and even if you are the only one who knows about it, you would still need to make the source code public in some way... which I feel this is very impractical and probably unenforceable anyway.