Kogasa

A Riemannian manifold isn’t necessarily non-Euclidean, it’s just a smooth manifold with a Riemannian metric, which is just sort of a way of defining local geometry in a coherent way. Namely it’s a smooth family of inner products on the tangent spaces at each point, where an inner product on the tangent space is sort of a way of comparing any two directions at a point and the smoothly varying part means that for sufficiently close points, the comparison function on their respective tangent spaces is similar.

Anyway, like “manifold” is a formalism intended to capture the idea of a “shape or space,” a “Riemannian manifold” is just “a shape or space we can do geometry on.”

IT WAS TWENTY YEARS AGO TODAY

People are using LLMs to diagnose disease, write prescriptions, deny health care claims, deny loans and grants, write scientific papers, review scientific papers, draft engineering and architectural documents, and talk to their loved ones

Despair

I don’t support the change. That’s not my point. My point is that if we’re going to argue the dev being threatened isn’t a victim because he’s actively harming privacy, we should be aware that the changes he proposed are not actually harming privacy at all.

Age verification laws: slippery slope. Sure. I agree.

Adding optional age field to systemd userdb: not slippery. Systemd isn’t being weaponized as an age verification suite. It’s just not happening.

You don’t, and you don’t have to fill them in with accurate information, so it isn’t.

It’s mostly not going to be used at all.

As I said, I also object, but you have to realize you’re literally just doing the slippery slope meme unironically. The part that makes it a fallacy is the unjustified assertion that more egregious changes are the inevitable result of the first one, except the first one is materially harmless and in line with existing PII fields in userdb. It’s completely reasonable to expect systemd to go no further than it already has.

No, it literally just can’t violate your privacy in any way. You have complete control over what, if anything, is placed in that field. No information about you can be gained or disclosed by virtue of the systemd change alone. You can think it’s a bad change because it signals intent to follow a trend of supporting privacy-invading age verification, but you can’t say this specific change in itself is privacy-invading.

“user is likely accessing service from a *nix device” isn’t PII. of course anything can be used for fingerprinting, but this type of “leak” is about as insignificant as it gets. It’s not what most people would consider a violation of their privacy.

It may be inconsequential in a literal sense if the law isn’t enforced meaningfully, which is probably pretty likely. I don’t really care what California law says and I doubt they’ll try to convince me.

I don’t think the changes in question are “upholding” any law, but rather giving system admins and software devs a convenient/predefined way to attempt to comply with the law if they choose. “Upholding” the law would be requiring the field to be filled or checked.

That said, to your point, if someone proposed a race field “so that devs can implement segregation if they choose,” I’d find that reprehensible even though it doesn’t do anything on its own. Similarly, I object to the systemd change.

Do you think that would prevent or discourage age verification software from existing? It’s not as if a systemd user field is the only place a user’s birthday could be stored.

Realistically, age verification software that is seriously attempting age verification isn’t even going to touch the systemd field, because why would it? The field could only be trusted if it is managed by an age verification service anyway, in which case the service could just as easily store the data outside of systemd.

what is stopping him

The pull request approval process? It’s quite easy to recognize that one change is harmless and another is not. The slope is not THAT slippery.

I completely understand objecting to the systemd change, I also object, but acting like the fascists have already won is a bit crazy.

Adding birthday fields is not privacy invading in itself.

Assuming this “AI NPC” is a functionally useless jelly blob that says jelly-blob things on occasion, “smoke and mirrors” may be good enough. I don’t think it’s supposed to be gameplay-driving or deep, just amusing.

Having played Automata first myself, I don’t think you lose anything by doing so. Playing Replicant may cause you to recontextualize stuff you remember from Automata, which I found to be fun. Either order should be fine.

YoRHa is the military organization consisting of androids (humanoid machines like 2B) which exists to fight the Machines (robots constructed by aliens) on behalf of humanity.

Providing a place to store and read data for minimal, nominal, non-invasive compliance with legislation so that people can protect themselves without harming anyone else

Things I have never said anything about:

• Facebook
• Giving your age to anyone
• Laws in the US
• Protecting kids
• Fingerprinting

I don’t think that’s a reasonable assessment of this change