CoderKat

Good fucking luck. Here's a fascinating article about Amazon's attempt to use AI for hiring, which to their credit, they realized was a bad idea and scrapped: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-amazon-com-jobs-automation-insight-idUSKCN1MK08G

In short, it was trained on past hiring data, so taught itself from sexist hiring preferences made by humans. It absolutely not designed to be sexist and I'm sure the devs had good intentions, but it taught itself how to be sexist.

In effect, Amazon’s system taught itself that male candidates were preferable. It penalized resumes that included the word “women’s,” as in “women’s chess club captain.” And it downgraded graduates of two all-women’s colleges, according to people familiar with the matter. They did not specify the names of the schools.

And here's a different but similar AI having some even subtler issues:

[..] The algorithms learned to assign little significance to skills that were common across IT applicants, such as the ability to write various computer codes, the people said.

Instead, the technology favored candidates who described themselves using verbs more commonly found on male engineers’ resumes, such as “executed” and “captured,” one person said.

To be very clear, these issues stem at their root from human biases, so not using an AI is not going to save you from bias and in fact may well be even more biased because at least AI can be the work of entire teams doing their best to combat bias. But it can end up discriminating in very subtle and unfair ways, like how it was penalizing certain schools. It can end up perpetuating past bad behavior and make it harder to improve.

Finally, this article is about Amazon noticing these biases and actively trying to correct them. This law is a good thing, because otherwise many companies won't even do that. While still imperfect, Amazon could have played whackamole trying to root out biases (it sounds like they did for a while before giving up). Many companies won't even do that, so we need laws like this to force them to at least do so. Of course, ideally anti bias laws would also apply to humans, since we are just as vulnerable.

KeePass can be used locally. Often you'd want to store your vault in something like dropbox simply so you can use it on multiple devices for ease of use, but you don't have to. And arguably you don't need to worry if someone gets your vault. The encryption cannot feasibly be broken in any way but brute force. If your password is hard enough to guess, you're fine even if an attack has your vault.

As well, if your complaint is just letting third parties handle your data, Bitwarden is open source and can be self hosted.

Risks aren't all equal though. How often do you smudge something or run it through the wash vs your password manager somehow shutting down without any notice? I've accidentally washed things tons of times, myself. Not a single password manager I've ever used has unexpectedly shut down. Heck, LastPass got sold and you can still use it (though I don't recommend them). Importing my LastPass file into Bitwarden was trivially easy. You also can and should export your passwords occasionally to a local, encrypted file.

And while being pickpocketed/robbed already sucks, I don't see why you'd want it to be worse. And it absolutely can get worse. Lots of people have passwords for financial services that will allow a thief to steal even more money or valuables from you than they can with just your credit and debit cards. Plus that's more things to have to rush to lock.

What is written are just reminders and I can rewrite them.

I'd argue that if you're a typical person with the dozens of unique online accounts that many people have, you generally won't be able to remember your passwords, as that suggests your passwords are at risk for being guessed or too easy to crack.

That said, you often only truly need to remember your email password and computer/phone logins. Generally you can reset everything with your email. Of course, that's not a reminder and is extra hassle.

And even for purely UI changes, the UI totally impacts user adoption. Eg, a 90s style grey everything form is going to feel outdated to many users and they'll associate that with the rest of the software being dated (regardless of whether or not it's true). If your goal is adoption/sales, you often have to keep changing the UI even if it's not broke with regards to functionality.

I'm never gonna kill anyone, anyway. But probably safest not to have the last one in case someone has an accident with the sword. Can you imagine you get home from work and find your kid not only killed their friend with your (improperly secured) "display sword", but also they're now a teenager?

Just go with the hungry glowy sword and enjoy the cool mood lighting.

How constantly are we talking? I think some degree of fear is completely reasonable. If the government wants to, they could ruin your life in countless ways. They can often detain, injure, or kill you legally, and even if it's not legally, there's a good chance that nothing will happen to them. They can pass laws that will make your life harder, very possibly to the point of pushing you out or not wanting to continue living.

I'm not sure which type of fear you have or where you're located, so I'm not gonna try to downplay your fear. There's absolutely some places where you should be afraid of what the government might do at any moment. eg, Russians have a lot more to be afraid of from their government than someone from, say, Canada. Similarly, LGBT folks have a lot to be afraid of from quite a scary number of governments around the world, as well as even some regional governments (such as Florida). But in some places, your fear may be taking it too far, particularly if it's impacting your life too much, since frankly there is no place in the world where governments aren't scary if they wanted to fuck with you.

EDIT: I see another comment of yours mentioning US things. Perhaps the best thing of note for the US is that your state is very influential. The difference between California vs Florida is like night and day. If you're not already in a state that is moving in the right direction, you may feel safer in such a state. Obviously there's still federal government power and even progressive states abuse their powers, but there's no shortage of examples of progressive states standing up against tyrany from the federal government and going out of their way to protect people that other states are actively persecuting.

There's also some feature differences between instances. Some instances disable downvotes, don't allow creating communities, or have stricter rules about communities that are allowed.

I chose my current instance because I wanted downvotes (I see them as critical for quality control) and also wanted to be federated with beehaw.

As an aside, LW made massive performance improvements the other day. They seem to be in a good position to keep growing, currently. There's certainly some benefits to being on the biggest instance, because of how the /all feed works. It's not actually all. It's "all communities someone on my instance subscribes to", so the bigger your instance, the more correct /all is.

Oof, I think I'd have a couple of these.

I also once broke a completely different repo with a history rewrite and force push once. Turned out some repo had some odd form of reference to one of mine that depended on a specific commit hash, so the commit hashes changing (even though the files they cared about didn't change) broke them. Oops. I didn't even know anyone else was using it and thought it was safe!

Yeah, you'd end up with a wrinkly brain. Gross!

It's nice and tingly!

Well, that's what happens when you're not careful enough. You can't just go yanking cables! They need to be finessed. To be bought dinner, first.

Or more like multiple servers within the same umbrella instance? User420@lemmy.world, User420@lemmy.world1, User420@lemmy.world2, User420@lemmy.world3.

This is what I was originally picturing. So that logged in users would be browsing on pretty much entirely separate instances (avoiding them having to reuse as much).

I hadn't really decided on how I best liked the idea of handling logins, since there's so many possible options. It could be that users would just have to either know their server (so you'd have to sign in as User420@lemmy1.world). Or the load balancer could maintain a simple store of users/emails to instances to avoid that. Or at the cost of extra complexity (yay), you could replicate the user across all the instances but only make a single instance active for that user at a time (that's a pretty common technique with systems I work with, with servers being strongly coupled to some range of resources to maximize efficiency).