fonix232
@fonix232@fedia.io
- Comment on Fine. _zips up, sulks_ 2 days ago:
These kind of fences are crap, with lots of slack - you can lean into it and leave a you shaped dent.
This also means that any movement will rattle like hell. Bounce a ball into it and it sounds like you tossed a hundred stainless steel pans from the twelfth floor.
Now imagine that noise on repeat.
- Comment on There's always money in the banana sta... Flock cameras 1 week ago:
it's 2GB, with a nearly decade old SoC.
- Comment on There's always money in the banana sta... Flock cameras 1 week ago:
Yes it does show RAM. Look at the photo of the SoM.
Here's the spec sheet for it: https://cdn.lantronix.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/MPB-00092-RevB-Open-Q-624A-SOM.pdf
2GB LPDDR3, integrated, so it's not a SO/DIMM module.
- Comment on Is there a reason why toilets are made out of one of the most resonating materials possible while also being made in a shape that makes a small fart sound like a damn trombone? 1 week ago:
But if I take a shit in the forest and the bear hears it, do I get to meet the pope?
- Comment on shipping available 1 week ago:
VÄSPA by IKEA
- Comment on The hill I will die on: Games are the opposite of fun, and I’d ban them for anyone over 12 | Emily Watkins 2 weeks ago:
It's a weird hill to die on, but at least she's dead 🤷♂️
- Comment on The hill I will die on: Games are the opposite of fun, and I’d ban them for anyone over 12 | Emily Watkins 2 weeks ago:
It's not even just games apparently. Any activity with friends that doesn't involve the consumption of mind altering legal substances (yes, coffee IS a mild altering substance), is apparently off the menu.
And it's not even her refusal to do these activities that's mind boggling, but the fact that she thinks it's okay to enforce it. Honey... you're free to ruin your social connections with your stubbornness, but wanting to legislate fun out of existence just makes you a cunt.
- Comment on The hill I will die on: Games are the opposite of fun, and I’d ban them for anyone over 12 | Emily Watkins 2 weeks ago:
The hill I will die on: Emily Watkins shouldn't be allowed to write. Not even a fucking post it note, let alone for a self-proclaimed news portal.
Tens, hundreds of thousands of people would have their lives immediately improved if she never held a pen, or graced a keyboard with her presence ever again.
- Comment on If I had to see it, so do you 2 weeks ago:
I thought we had the communal wank for that?
- Comment on Self-hosted fully working ST:TNG voice computer interface 2 weeks ago:
I think this topic is actually ripe for debate.
On one hand we know that Majel specifically recorded phonemes so her voice can be used for Star Trek purposes after her passing. While not a direct consent of "do whatever you want with my voice", the intent of similar purposes as OP's has been clearly present.
There's also Paramount's refusal to use her voice in new Trek, aside from a few snippets here and there (mostly Picard for the throwback value). Which kinda goes against the spirit of Trek.
On the other hand, the entire area of voice cloning is gray as fuck. It can very easily be used for nefarious purposes, yes - let that be corporate greed or fraud or propaganda. But if I make my own voice system, do I really hurt anyone by using their voice? I am not profiting off of it, I am not sharing the end result, it lives on my computer and that's it.
But, let's say I want to do the same. There's this TV show from some 20 years ago called Eureka. In it is one of the earliest representations of a smart house with an AI governor, called SARAH. SARAH is voiced by one of the recurring cast members, in fact it's an ongoing joke that the house is voiced by this guy "talking like a girl", and that he's trying to get Sarah Michelle Gellar to do the proper, final voice...
Now, the voice itself is pretty unique, but it isn't the voice of the actor, it's been heavily digitally edited. It's also a pretty unique voice but not something 99.9% of people would recognise. I make my clone from my own BR disk collection, with a set of automated and AI tools to get the right audio, clean it up, split by talker, and process all 77 episodes, manually selecting the right samples, manually tagging and labelling each; and finally, fine-tuning my own model for my own use. It will never leave my home, I won't sell or share it, and technically, with me owning the BR collection, this would fall under fair use.
Which is still quite different than, say, a corporate entity trying to sell more product by using your voice.
- Comment on [deleted] 2 weeks ago:
As LycanGalen says, it's kind of pee, in the sense that it comes from the bladder and goes out the peehole.
But pee is strictly speaking waste filtered by the kidneys, with enough urea, ammonia and other stuff in it. And pretty much every single scientifically done testing showed trace amounts of it in squirt.
Think of it like this: you have a "well seasoned" tea mug, with thick, solidified tea residue on its walls, so solid it barely comes off even if you scrape it. You take this cup, fill it with water. Is that water now tea just because it has some marginal tea residue in it?
- Comment on Cheese. 2 weeks ago:
Cheesus
- Comment on Transformers 3 weeks ago:
This ain't the X-Men crossover I was hoping for...
but no complaints.
- Comment on I wish our politicians were this interesting 3 weeks ago:
A gay politician being in a “Christian values” party is such an oxymoron to begin with…
- Comment on Krasnov Gambit 3 weeks ago:
What’s zootube? Is it like, a YouTube clone specially made for cute/funny/educational animal videos?
- Comment on SpaceX stock drops to a new low and loses $1 trillion in value in a month 4 weeks ago:
Ah fuck, I knew I shoulda shorted it...
- Comment on [deleted] 4 weeks ago:
More like trying to tell him that you'll listen to his mixtape as long as he provides drugs for free
- Comment on "Censorship" ☠️ 4 weeks ago:
Wow. Your cognitive skills definitely need honing buddy.
First of all, no, that's not what an ad hominem is. Me calling you an idiot would be one. Do try to keep your fallacies in line.
Second... why do you think that calling someone who supports the continuation of CSAM (even if it's "just" drawn) a paedophile? Why would anyone who doesn't consume such material, support its continued creation?
This is kind of like the "not a Nazi" argument. I'm sorry but if you're doing Nazi shit, and supporting other Nazis in doing Nazi shit, you're a Nazi. Same with paedos. If you want to enable them, then you're just as bad, and thus deserve to be labelled as such. Period.
And thus, calling them out is still not an as hominem.
- Comment on 500,000 households cancel TV licence putting BBC future in jeopardy 4 weeks ago:
IMO trying to milk the end users here is the wrong move. People are unsubscribing from the licence because they're not using it and don't want to pay £170 a year for something they don't use. Which is fair.
But one could easily "tax" the other services - TV channels, radio, streaming platforms like Netflix or Spotify, pushing these companies to provide 1% of their revenue to fund the public broadcasts.
Combine that with the licensing the content abroad and you've got a plan going.
- Comment on "Censorship" ☠️ 4 weeks ago:
Calling a paedophile (someone sexually attracted to children) a paedophile, is calling the disorder by its name. It's not ad hominem in any manner.
But the fact that you can't seem to differentiate between a paedophile (a person afflicted by a disorder they usually do NOT want, someone who deserves appropriate psychiatric help), and a child rapist (someone who has raped a child, and deserves no empathy, but appropriate steps to ensure they never harm a child) is quite telling.
- Comment on "Censorship" ☠️ 4 weeks ago:
Okay, repeat after me:
👏 SEXUALISING 👏 CHILDREN 👏 CAUSES 👏 HARM 👏
It's that simple.
and no, naming a mental illness (paedophilia) what it is isn't "poison to democracy".
- Comment on "Censorship" ☠️ 4 weeks ago:
Ah, going from diddling kids to throwing around slurs. But just like how you chose paedo lite, you also went for slur lite. Boring 🥱
- Comment on "Censorship" ☠️ 4 weeks ago:
Slightly disagrees would be having a different preferred condiment.
This is literally about if I approve of sexualising children. Which I do not, in any shape or form.
- Comment on "Censorship" ☠️ 4 weeks ago:
Problem with your "solution" is that it's reactive. "anyone that harms a real child can have their 2nd head publicly removed" - that doesn't help the child that was raped, doesn't prevent future cases, and so on. Reactive punishments simply don't work, because there's diminishing returns when it comes to the layer of society that the law is required because of...
Proactive handling is the ideal solution - destigmatise the issue, while still punishing the act itself. Being attracted to children isn't the (criminal) problem, acting on that and raping children is. But to resolve that you need to treat the source of the problem, the attraction itself. Which means people need to be comfortable to admit it to a medical professional, and receive appropriate help for it.
- Comment on "Censorship" ☠️ 4 weeks ago:
Sadly there doesn't seem to be any reputable studies in this field - probably because it's super controversial to begin with.
On one hand you have people saying - rightfully so - that such media should be restricted, because even though some argue (without proof) that it reduces harm, it also enables the core behaviour of sexualising children to be socially acceptable because "oh it's just a drawing".
(mind you it's important to distinguish a very similar argument from furries - furries are often claimed to be zoophiles, however an overwhelming majority of furries are against bestiality, and doesn't even sexualise their characters, which are usually anthropic - human shaped with animal physical characteristics - and sapient, therefore able to consent. A child, regardless if they're real or drawn, cannot consent).
On the other hand, some claim that it reduces harm by "disarming" paedos. Obviously those opposing then claim that no, it's actually harmful, because just jerking off to drawings won't be enough for most, and slippery slope fallacy ensue, they'll be gone from jerking to drawings, to kidnapping and raping children.
Again the problem is we don't have any data supporting either way. In my opinion, it could go either way, it heavily depends on the person, and without a thorough study, but that study wouldn't be ethical to conduct because of the potential of endangering children one way or another....
And of course the moment one tries to debate for "on the other hand", that person will be labelled a paedophile, rightfully so, as they're literally campaigning for the legalisation of children's sexualisation in their specific way... which, at the end of the day, is paedophilia.
- Comment on "Censorship" ☠️ 4 weeks ago:
"oh, I only jerk off to fictional underage children, not real ones! I'd never touch an actual child!"
yeah, fuck off paedo. get help. there's plenty of psychotherapy options to curb these urges.
- Comment on If you need a portable reader, is there any reason to choose an e-reader over your phone? 4 weeks ago:
Plenty of reasons.
An e-reader is essentially what a book was 20 years ago, except it's an entire library.
Using it doesn't deplete your phone's battery, and a good e-reader can stay powered for a week or more with constant usage. Your phone, given all the background services etc., would die within 8-10 hours.
Then there's the display. Better aspect ratio for reading, better approach for readability (eink), better optimised for reading (cold-warm frontlight), the list goes on.
- Comment on All hail out Lord and Savior! 4 weeks ago:
Was the tramp stamp removed already?
- Comment on definitely not recording! 5 weeks ago:
No you didn't. You literally can't easily differentiate between the two glasses in public without being up close and personal to the person wearing it.
Meaning by the point you'd see that hey, I'm not actually wearing Meta glasses, you're already committing a crime against me. Meaning, you just assaulted me for thinking that I am wearing something that could be used to assault your privacy. I repeat, no such thing happened. But you still assaulted me, simply because you believed you can dictate what others wear.
- Comment on definitely not recording! 5 weeks ago:
Read. My. Fucking. First. Comment.
These aren't Meta glasses I'm talking about. They DO NOT FUCKING RECORD. Video or audio. Audio I guess I could hack, but at this point it's less useful than the keyword triggers for Siri/Google Assistant/Gemini etc.
The camera feed is processed on-glass, and only detected hand-finger positions are sent to the host device, aka my phone.
Will you also target people whose phones happen to be out, because they could be used for recording? What if I go around using a traditional-ish digital voice recorder to record my thoughts? what about people talking on the phone where the other side is recording and you might be heard? What about stores and their CCTV? What about police and private security with a bodycam? These all record, but interestingly, you only have issue with one specific device where you couldn't even be fucking bothered to confirm it's a RECORDING device and immediately jumped onto telling me off for even having one.
Not to mention other recording devices. Apple updated their AirPods with built in translation, and it can pick up voices within about 5-6m radius. Other similar translation devices exist. Other video recording devices that aren't immediately obvious exist. Where's the hate for that?
it's illegal in my country to have a camera recording in public spaces anyway
So you'll drag every single person who's recorded a video ever in public to court? Will you be suing every single person whose photos you ended up in the background of?