One of the things I like the most about GOS is the web installer, and how easy it is to use. If I need a custom build, to run my own server, and sacrifice performance for it, it doesn't seem worth it. It would also be good to know what a debug build entails, how exactly it is "less secure", and so on. Since this is unlikely to be documented by the GOS team, a 3rd party guide would still be helpful.
> It would also be good to know what a debug build entails, how exactly it is "less secure".
Using software engineering terms, think of the official GOS as production release, and the debug version as test release. You deploy it by actiually building it, like building a linux kernel. This takes lots of reaources (RAM + storage). But also is quite flexible because you can compile and build it whenver there is a new update. And you can sign the build yourself. The reason why they say it's insecure is the same why your server sysadmin does not give you the root password. You can do some serious damage if you have no idea what you're doing. On Android, root allow you to peek on other processes and apps, so if you grant root to a malicious app, high risk of data leakage. That's it though. Been rooting and building roms since early android days, no issues for me as I tend to use open source tools most of the time.
I'd much rather be able to simply rsync the data folder for all apps on my phone without having the hardware KeyStore breaking backups installed on another device.
Because it is totally reasonable to expect parents to have total surveillance of all their kids every single moment of kids life up to 18 years old.
The only thing it achieves is ever growing helicopter parenting and related anxieties ... while the same people who complained about parents not controlling everything complain when they try.
We expect shops and passerbys to not sell porn or steal from kids in real life.
> And I don't think kids seeing porn is particularly harmful.
That's not what is happening on Facebook and there is no way I could believe you genuinely think that's what everyone is talking about. Did you even read the article? Porn isn't mentioned once. Pedophiles are asking kids to send them photos, trying to connect with them to arrange sex. You, upthread, told me that the sexual solicitation of minors was only harmful "subjectively" whatever that means.
Does this logic extend to other things society has deemed vices? Should it be soley on the parents to prevent your kid from accessing drugs? What about cigarettes/weed/alcohol? Or anything that society has put in place age-based or other legal gates.
Now imagine all government restrictions on these are removed, and there is a store within walking distance of your house that is staffed by employees that will willingly, without question, sell these items to your kids and their friends? Is it still all on the parents to prevent access?
What about if this store has advertisements specifically targeted toward children? Or has discounts on cigarettes/alcohol/... aimed at the lower age brackets? "First pack free if you're under 18".
Now put this "store" on the internet, accessible from your kid's cellular device.
> Does this logic extend to other things society has deemed vices?
Yes. When a child is too young, parents should be directly preventing access to those vices. As their children get older, parents should have instilled enough values into their children that constant surveillance is no longer required.
Do you have children? Were you ever a child? It really doesn't sound like it. It's easy to stop a 4 year old from going to the liquor store. Basically impossible to stop a 14 year old. And 14 year old kids will do all kinds of dumb stuff for approval/attention from friends or (especially) the opposite sex.
If social media is harmful to children, each child deserves to be protected, no matter what is their parents' opinion. This is obvious for other harmful things, we don't argue that it is up to parents to decide if their child should be allowed to use alcohol or cigarettes.
Harm is subjective and I'd much rather parents make that call than the government.
And there absolutely isn't consensus on when it's harmful to give children alcohol. Many would say it's good to give a child a glass of wine at a family dinner so that they learn to drink responsibly.
Msot agree that cigarettes are harmful at all ages, so that's not really relevant.
The government already made the call, that's why due to child privacy or other protection laws, terms of service of social media platforms require age 13 or up. My complain is that companies pretend they are unable to enforce it.
Are you saying that the sexual predation of minors is not objectively harmful to them? Are you aware that the sexual solicitation of a minor is a crime?
I don't agree that anything can be objectively harmful. I personally agree that it is harmful for minors up to some age. So again I would maintain it's the parents' responsibility to protect them until they reach that age.
Do you think the sexual solicitation of minors should not be illegal? Whether or not it's the parent's responsibility to protect their own children is besides the point. It can also be true that others facilitate and turn a blind eye. I can only assume you think a party in the scenario (one who connects a child with a sexual solicitor) should bear no responsibility? Either civilly or criminally?
> I don't agree that anything can be objectively harmful.
How principled of you. Why don't you go shoot yourself in the head and report back.
If there is sexual activity involving a minor, yes, the parents should be able to pursue criminal and civil cases. Solicitation without any actions doesn't seem that important.
Well, I'm pretty sure every state in the US disagrees with you and I'm not going to be continuing this conversation any further given that you think it's fine for adults to solicit sex from minors so long as "actions" don't happen (again, whatever the heck that actually means). I need to shower this thread off of me.
Yawn. Is this supposed to be charming? Principled? I don't get your shtick. People act like it's politics but it really comes off more as just being foremost disagreable and unreasonable.
Jumping into a conversation about pedophiles to offer that their harms are only subjective is just ridiculous but for some reason I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but I've come to realize that was wrong.
if that were the most effective solution to the problem, we wouldn't be having this conversation. just because something appears to be simple doesn't mean it will be effective.
I laughed out loud at this. It is the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
I'll give you a hard reason of which you must not be aware: it actually takes two parents to have a child.
Think about why that's important. If one parent is too addicted to their own usage of Instagram, and models that for the kids, the kids will pull that towards them, no matter what the other parent does.
You cannot monitor children constantly, unless you are are, say, a billionaire tech executive who has willingly ignored all data to show that his products have damaged society and children in pursuit of personal profit.
There is only one person in the world that can afford to do what you suggest, and his initials are MZ.
It's pretty trivial to block access to certain sites or apps. Or better yet, you raise your kids well so that you don't need to rely on technology to keep them away from bad things.
Well that's an inherent problem of having multiple people with custody of a single child.
Ideally a compromise can be reached, but in extreme cases I suppose it could end up with litigation. But still, this is a private dispute, not something that should require outsourcing parenting to the government.
Making everyone jump through hoops, at great expense, because the proceeds of crime are being laundered seems like the wrong way to approach stopping crime. I'd argue that bitcoin is in some ways more traceable, as all wallets are public.
Problem with KYC and AML is that if you listen to the regulators, there is no end to it, the requirements only increase. I was once asked to provide 20 years of banking receipts for a small savings account that my grandmother had opened for me when I was 5. In the EU at least, it's common for banks to block transfers between countries, even if the transaction is well-documented. The most infuriating thing is that there's no real proof that AML works. It's just excellent at false positives, ending in account freezes for innocent people.
Stablecoins' success is also a reaction to the ever-increasing friction created by overreaching regulation. If you have a supplier in China, and need to buy some in-demand goods, you can sign the contract and send the money now, whereas with the classic banking system, you'd have to wait for two weeks to clear everything. This alone is brilliant and should be welcomed for its usefulness.
What is interesting with stablecoins is that they are on the blockchain, which acts as a decentralized, uncensorable ledger which doesn't require you to tell a bank clerk what is written inside your wedding ring to be allowed to buy a second hand BMW in Poland.
The law says that banks need to do AML/KYC, a blockchain is not a bank, it's decentralized. Besides, being able to break a law can be good, when such laws have little to do with crime prevention, and more about feeding an industrial complex that earns from those frictions. And buying a car is not illegal as far as I know.
The main proponent that dictates the regulations, the FATF, is a shady, unregulated body that is used for political and economical repression.
it's not about taxes, it's about fighting illegal activity. Terrorist financing, drug dealing, human trafficking etc - do you really think it's a good idea to let those actors exchange payments freely?
Yes, I think everyone should be able to exchange payments freely.
Drugs should be legal, so that's not a problem. Terrorism and human trafficking are more complicated topics, but basically I think they should be attacked more directly, not financially.
The government has existed for hundreds of years before these sophisticated mechanisms of surveilling the money system and the people were introduced. And it will continue to exist should they be removed.
You know everything was shit hundreds of years ago right, the wildcat banking system collapsed into miserable failure and the bearer instruments were eliminated because of the risk of train robberies.
I disagree. I'd wager that state of the art LLMs can beat out of the average doctor at diagnosis given a detailed list of symptoms, especially for conditions the doctor doesn't see on a regular basis.
"Given a detailed list of symptoms" is sure holding a lot of weight in that statement. There's way too much information that doctors tacitly understand from interactions with patients that you really cannot rely on those patients supplying in a "detailed list". Could it diagnose correctly, some of the time? Sure. But the false positive rate would be huge given LLMs suggestible nature. See the half dozen news stories covering AI induced psychosis for reference.
Regardless, it's diagnostic capability is distinct from the dangers it presents, which is what the parent comment was mentioning.
What you're describing, especially with the amount of water "given a detailed list of symptoms" is carrying, is essentially a compute-intensive flowchart with no concept of diagnostic parsimony.
Their average life expectancy is around 70 years, and yes, cancer is rarer in elephants, potentially due to the species having extra copies of the TP53 gene.
Cancer is also a result of many other factors of which humans are more exposed to than elephants typically are, environmental and pollution being a major one, and food ingredients being another. A life expectancy of 70 years for a human isn't that great; in 2024 in Europe it was 79 years for males and 84 years for women, and that's with all the contributing cancer risk factors in society as mentioned earlier.
A more interesting species might be immortal jellyfish, but the simplicity of the organism might be a contributing factor in why it works the way it does.
How? We don't know gods exist. We know beings with technology and agency living on planets in space exist. There seems nothing at all similar between the two explanations.
Planet. Man has reach the moon (not in my lifetime) but that isn't a planet. There are robots out a little farther but so far as we can be sure only one planet has life. (you can calculate odds of others but there isn't enough data to be confident)
In the ancient view of the cosmos, God/gods, the heavens and other divine beings were part of the same universe. They were literally above the Earth, but made of a different kind of substance. Or down in the depths.
At some point more this shifted to the divine being an entirely separate supernatural domain.
Sure there are. An easy example is Australian aboriginals. They were geographically isolated for tens of thousands of years. Their subgroups are more related to each other than to other subgroups.
That is one relatively isolated group. The existence of small isolated groups does not mean the whole species has a small number of distinct subgroups. The smallness here is intended to apply to the number of groups, with the size of the groups being correspondingly large.
The boundaries between groups may be blurred, but surely a person whose ancestors lived in location A for the last 10 thousand years will be genetically more similar om average to other people from that location than to people in location B on the other side of the planet.
