Muehe

I can fuck up your vision through drugs, none of which actually affects the physiology in your eyes.

So? Thus? Therefore? I can fuck up your vision by poking out your eyes, none of which actually affects the physiology in your brain. Both of those are nonsense statements in the context of this discussion.

The brain is the one that transmogrifies the light and reassembles your world.

It's involved, but so are all parts of the eye and the visual nerve connecting them to the brain. I still fail to see how this is relevant.

It’s the brain that puts it all together. And that processing matters.

Not to (most) colour perception, that happens in the eyes and the visual nerve. For example our cone cells would be perfectly able to perceive ultraviolet light, but for most people it never reaches them because the lens of the eye filters that wavelength. There are people born without a lens, and they can indeed see ultraviolet light.

And glasses can’t help you. Even if you somehow fixed your cones to see colour, your brain would still be left in the dark. It’s… complicated. More complicated than putting a film over your eyes.

Well that might be true, if your entire premise wasn't wrong from the outset. You don't fix the cones, you fix the light. You take light of a wave length that would be indistinguishable to the cones, refract it, and then you have light of a wave length that is distinguishable by the cones. No brain or eye surgery necessary.

It’s a scam.

Enchroma? Yes. But not because they sell something that doesn't work, but because they sell something that does work for some colour blind people at inflated prices while lying about what it does exactly.

However, people still had the best of intentions despite their limited brain capacity. They just didn’t know how to actually fix the world.

And real life we have people actively denying climate change despite the obvious effects not out of idiocy, but because they are literally being paid to, and because it makes a decent wedge issue for political gain.

I mean I guess the paid shills are part of it, but there is also a large group of useful but ultimately well-meaning idiots repeating their propaganda. And even disregarding that nobody really knows how to fix climate change once you start adding stipulations like not crashing the bejesus out of the holy economy, so not that far off I would say.

An idiocracy, they actively want to fix the climate problems, they are just literally too stupid to use water instead of Gatorade for plants. Because everyone is taking a slogan more literally than actual evidence.

We want to fix climate change too, but we are Not Sure about how to handle the Brawndo stock crashing and how long it takes the nitrate levels in the soil to normalise once we switch back to water. See CO² emissions still not decreasing but rather increasing for decades now despite everybody knowing it's the major cause of global warming, never mind that we would have to pull CO² back out of the atmosphere to stop the damage it will cause in the future from happening.

Camacho was fully aware there was a problem, acknowledge the people who were suffering and the Direct effects of the problem, and put the smartest man in the world in charge of fixing the problem.

My man Camacho also nearly killed Not Sure in a monster truck arena because of the unforeseen stock crash resulting in like half the population being unemployed and the soil nitrate level delay hiding that the solution worked, the latter being revealed Just In Time™ for dramatic effect.

It is not an app comparison, because Society is not the way it is because it is stupid, but because it is actively being manipulated by malefactors and bad faith agents.

Meh, it's both stupidity and malice IMHO. When in doubt refer to Hanlon's Razor:

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

Sometimes nobody having THE solution to a problem is a bitter part of reality that we have to face, and I fear the issue of climate change in particular is one of those problems. Existing malice notwithstanding.

Nach meinem Verständnis sollen die Clubs vereinsrechtlich organisiert werden, und der Verein kann Mitarbeiter normal entlohnen wie andere Vereine auch, selbst gemeinnützige. Die Gewinnbeschränkung betrifft ja nur den Verein als juristische Person, nicht die Angestellten.

Obligatorisches "bin kein Anwalt".

Apparently the archive sites block some DNS providers, Cloudflare ones specifically. Try switching to another if you are using that.

We've had TWO incidents of legislative violence (Sumner slavery incident and 6 January incident).

I mean I guess it depends on your definition of "legislative violence", but I feel like you are forgetting a certain "states rights" incident here...

Minors can and have used more or less most of the internet safely. What is most of the internet? Services like Omegle or Chaturbate or Stripchat surely are not on it.

Well that claim is a bit arbitrary IMHO. For one I don't see a reason to exclude those services you mentioned from being part of "most of the internet". On the contrary, from what I see all of them are clearnet services, accessible to the public, so this extraordinary claim would need some evidence toward it I would say. Secondly the latter two are explicitly pornographic in nature, so I don't really see the relevance towards the point of children being harmed by accessing them; They shouldn't be there in the first place. There is of course a valid discussion about moderation to be had if they are used to distribute CSAM, but that seems orthogonal to the question of parental oversight of minors internet use.

Minors have used social media all this while, and other than what Facebook/Instagram on behest of US capitalist machinery has done to minors, [...] most services do not abuse human psychology to this degree.

Again, only according to your arbitrary definition of what "most services" are. Basically all of social media is doing attention hacking, large swaths of of the gaming industry intentionally abuse dopamine cycles to sell worthless "digital goods", the www is full of dark patterns in large part fuelled by advertisement delivery. I mean Meta is indubitably a front runner in the race of surveillance capitalism, but isn't that an argument in favour of Omegle in the context of this discussion? Facebook/Instagram/WhatsApp are much more certainly than Omegle a part of "most of the internet" after all, however you define that, and they are a clear and present danger to children.

However, children’s minds are highly neuroplastic until adulthood, and a lot of the internet is damaging to the psyche of children, which is an entirely different discussion. If that seems like flipflopping, it is because internet safety has various degrees to it and the definition of safety varies from healthy usage to consumerism to addiction to gray area to developing deviant persona and even illegal uses.

I don't think it is a different discussion at all, rather it's exactly the crux of the issue. The psyche of children is vulnerable; How do we best protect it and who is in the best position to effectively do so?

It is fairly known how peer pressure wins over parental control on minor access to internet, so the “parent’s duty” argument is very flaky and invalid. Education on things rest of the society is freely using is not very conducive to children at the age of puberty (12-16), and 18 is supposedly the adult age.

It might not be a definitive argument, but certainly not invalid. A parent is chiefly responsible for the safety, education, and behaviour of their children in basically all other areas of life. This responsibility doesn't go away because the neighbours kids peer pressured them into throwing stones through a window or drinking alcohol. Why should access to the internet be any different?

So is the argument now going to be letting kids do whatever they want by the time they are 18?

Well yes, but within the confines of legality obviously. That's literally the status quo in most jurisdictions, isn't it?!

Or will this be decided upon a combination of evaluation of mental age using tests related to Asperger’s, neurodivergence, ADHD and so on? How frequently will these tests be taken by kids?

Gee I hope not. That sounds like the abyss below the slippery slope. But I don't think anybody argued for that.

Will there be exposure of the child to concepts like “absolute American freedom” and various forms of consumerism? Because that is what the child will get exposed to, as soon as he/she meets people outside home, or goes to the market with parents.

Again, I don't see the relevance to the Omegle situation. This is just life, the world is a dangerous place and while society can help by creating laws and such in the end the ones in the best position to safeguard their children according to their own world view will be the parents. Of course that is a duty in which every individual parent will inevitably fail by some metric, but so will society. Case in point, many children will be exposed to "absolute American freedom and various forms of consumerism" inside their own homes already, so if that's your metric as a parent the only one who could ever protect a child from that is you, by preparing them for their inevitable confrontation with those concepts and hoping they take that lesson to heart.

Their argument comes off as distasteful, even though a whole decade of video streaming exists as proof of Omegle being a key mainstream hub for minor sexual abuse content, with no kinds of methods used by the evasive service owner to combat it. Read the link I supplied in above comments regarding that.

Yeah you claimed variously that it is a key part of Omegle "content", for which I don't see much corroborating evidence in the links you provided. Both the BBC story and the NCOSE piece seem to reference the same case of an 11 year old girl using the service unsupervised.

Which leads me to why I'm taking issue with the statement of Omegle having content. It doesn't in the sense most people would understand that. It revolves around having a conversation with an absolute stranger, and either side of this conversation can record it or publish it. There is no content here unless one participant creates it and distributes it elsewhere than Omegle, or takes other content and distributes it on Omegle. Everything on Omegle is content in the same sense as a phone call is content, to which I would argue it isn't, at least not inherently. It's an ephemeral conversation unless a participant records it.

It might be content in the sense argued by the law and the court in the "A.M Vs Omegle" case, but that apparently ended in the motion to dismiss being partly granted and partly denied, which to me as a layperson sounds like a win for Omegle, at least temporarily.

Furthermore you say Omegle and Brooks didn't do anything against the abuse, but this is in direct contradiction to what Brooks claims in the message in the OP:

Omegle worked with law enforcement agencies, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, to help put evildoers in prison where they belong. There are “people” rotting behind bars right now thanks in part to evidence that Omegle proactively collected against them, and tipped the authorities off to.

And this is all besides the point that giving an 11 year old unsupervised access to Omegle is kind of the same as letting them out into the shady part of town to talk to random strangers (when you ignore the added risk of physical harm there of course). That's what the website was principally about, meeting random strangers. And if a parent were to let their child do that unsupervised in offline life we would put at least part of the blame for any harm on them.

The internet wasn't designed with the safety of children in mind, in fact not with anybodies safety in mind. Saying that it should be is an opinion, but in any case not the current reality. That leaves the majority of responsibility for the safety of children on the parents. And there is a bunch of things they can do, like not giving them networked devices in the first place, or restricting network access with whitelists, or educating them before the parents or others do give access. Yes, this parental control breaks down in social settings, but that is the case for a lot of different aspects of life and I don't see how purging everything dangerous for children from the public internet is either a possible or even a desirable solution to this problem.

Take for example what you and the NCOSE argued for, age verification. The state of the art for that on many explicitly pornographic services is a simple dialogue asking if the user is of legal age in their jurisdiction. The infrastructure to do otherwise, which would require a governmentally issued digital ID of some kind, doesn't exist in most countries let alone globally. Never mind the implications this would have for user privacy. Some services use a certain identifier so that their service can be automatically filtered, but that again leaves the parents with the responsibility to set up and maintain said filter. And in the end there will not be a way around that at all, unless you purposely rebuild the internet with a level of control it simply is not engineered to provide currently.

You should be able to see clearly that I am quite interested in such discussions without the moderator part.

Well the one who brought that into the discussion was you. Not to diminish your efforts, but I stand by what I said on the matter earlier.

Minors can use most of the internet safely.

I beg to differ. Minors can't safely use the internet at all, it's the internet. Every depth of the human psyche is mirrored onto it, and frankly any guardian letting a child onto it without at the minimum strong primers on its dangers is derilict of their duty. Which might have been excusable 20-30 years ago when everybody was confused about what the internet even is, but not so much in 2023.

If you make another deranged argument like that, you will get the banhammer.

Just for clarity, I'm not the person you said this to, but I think if you are out here threatening people with bans over a rhetorical question, you might want to take a break. Nevermind the disconnect between you saying you haven't used it at all but purpoting to know exactly what kind of "content" was on it these last years, when it didn't even really have content in the usual sense of the word.

They used both terms as well as "Machtübergabe" (transfer of power) to refer to Hitler being appointed chancelor, but that was neither the beginning nor the end of the multi-step coup the Nazis enacted, which is what I wanted to highlight. The term makes it seem like a singular event, when in reality it was a longer process.

This somewhat misleading, Hitler and the NSDAP were indeed voted into the position to seize power by democratic means which they then abused, the voter supression mainly happened in later elections when the undermining of institutions and the consitution was already well underway. "Machtergreifung" is the propaganda term the Nazis used themselves to describe the process of what happened after the fact, which in reality was much more cloak and dagger-y than the term suggests.

P.S.: Germany didn't have a two-party system, so having a majority wasn't that important. You would form coalitions of parties after an election which then had a majority, or even form a minority government that then has to actively hunt for their missing votes from other parties to get any legislation passed.

Als Server-OS für x86 Hardware kann ich Proxmox Virtual Environment empfehlen, das ist ein Debian-basierter VM/Container Host der über ein Webinterface gesteuert wird. Viele appliances sind dort als vorkonfigurierte LXC-Images von Turnkey Linux verfügbar was mehr oder weniger reibungslos funktioniert für die meisten Sachen. Es gibt auch ein Proxmox Backup Server OS welches man auf einer anderen Box installieren kann für einfache automatisierte Backups.

Hab auf einem Thinclient aber auch gute Erfahrungen mit Ubuntu Server und manuell über SSH verwaltetem LXD gemacht, wobei ich LXD wohl mittlerweile mit dem neuen Community-Fork ersetzen würde von dem mir gerade der Name entfallen ist...

P.S.: Ist beides nicht immutable, da kenne ich mich leider nicht aus.

As Shelena said it means Artificial General Intelligence. It's a term coined to distinguish a hypothetical future system with actual intelligence in the colloquial sense of the word from currently existing "Artificial Intelligence" systems, because that has turned into an almost meaningless buzzword used to sell machine learning systems to investors and the general public over the last two decades or so. Don't get me wrong, "AI" has indeed made impressive progress as of late, I'm not doubting that. But the existing systems are hardly "intelligent" in the sense that most people would define that word.

Deforming on time scales longer than a human life, so that's why you wouldn't see it. It might indeed be an urban legend, I don't know, but given the claims in the article I cited I wouldn't entirely discount the possibility.