• 0 Posts
  • 22 Comments
Joined 9 months ago
cake
Cake day: February 6th, 2024

help-circle

  • It is a public concern and any organization/people not a part of the lawsuit can talk and discuss it. Which we are doing. I even used the Wikipedia page we are talking about to discuss the lawsuit since it has the Order is on it. The full lawsuit isn’t on that page, I made a mistake last night.

    If there is a ongoing lawsuit that Wikimedia isn’t a part of then they can have a Wikipedia page and discussion going on. That’s their right.

    My agreement is with the request in the Order for Wikimedia to not having ongoing discussion about the lawsuit. This isn’t a gag order on everyone, it is just Wikimedia removing the info on the page about the lawsuit. And Wikimedia has info why they removed it and allowing people to read the Order so I think that is Wikimedia saying something without discussing it and it makes the Indian government look bad.

    The order mentions more than “complicates the issue” so you might want to read the Order and gives more examples of what you see of their vagueness because it seemed reasonable to me. I find the lawsuit itself wrong and should have been thrown out.


  • LockheedTheDragon@lemmy.worldtoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 days ago

    I think this is confusing so tried to understand it and here is what I understand. The Wikipedia page for Asian News International is up. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International And it says things like ANI is the “mouthpiece” of the Indian government. There is a section about the lawsuit and it quotes what ANI didn’t like about it. This is what the lawsuit was first about, but this page and the discussion page are still up as of 27 Oct 2024. The page can’t be modified and given what you can see it looks like there was some editing wars that happened before editing was taken away.

    Now about https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_News_International_vs._Wikimedia_Foundation The article and discussion page that was taken down is about the ongoing lawsuit. It been replaced with a page saying it was taken down and a link to the actual lawsuit. Which I suggest people read. I do think the Indian government has a point if you read the lawsuit. This is a ongoing lawsuit and the page taken down had info on it and a discussion page where people were talking about the ongoing lawsuit. The lawsuit says that this “…Complicates and compounds the issue at hand.” And if you know anything about lawsuits the first thing people do or are told to do is to shut up about it. This page was really the opposite. I can see why Wikimedia complied.

    That the lawsuit happened in the first place is disturbing. But I think Wikimedia replacement page for the ongoing lawsuit is not surprising and reasonable. If they had taken down the main article, now that would be disturbing.








  • Three monitors for work and sometimes wish for a 4th. I’m doing research and pulling info from various documents into one document with commentary. A 4th would be nice so I could have email and chat on it. I’ve missed people asking me questions because I had documents in front of the chat and missed the pop-up. Sometimes you need 5 programes and then multiple documents open to understand what going on to explain it and then have to copy and paste from various documents.

    For personal I liked it when I had 4 monitors. Main for web browsing and one for chats. The other two, one for playing video or music and the other to drag stuff to. The other two really shined when I would do photo editing or writing. Spreading things out over 3 monitors made things easier. Right now with my living situation I’m pretty much on a laptop so one monitor. Really makes photo editing not as fun and writing when I need to keep pulling up references stuff outright frustrating at times. I actually have more than 4 monitors at home since I kept picking them up at thrift stores, (DVI into USB adapters are nice) but didn’t find any real benefit to more than 4. But once everything settles I plan on getting my 4 monitors setup back and a Linux station for certain projects with 2 monitors and Raspberry Pi with 1 monitor.



  • AI is more like torrents, password cracking software, TOR, ect than guns. Just because they can be used for bad or illegal things doesn’t mean those software programs are bad. When companies in the past tried to get certain software banned they ran into the issue that if it could be used for legal reasons that enough for them to exist legally.

    Now AI does have the issues with how it is trained so the AI itself can be problematic.

    I didn’t say we shouldn’t talk about the problem with the AI I have issues with people making the AI the complete issue ignoring that people use the AI. It reminds me of how automakers tried to make the people driving cars the reason for deaths in car crashes.Thankfully that didn’t work and automakers where forced to make cars safer making it safer on the road. It didn’t stop car crashes from happening since the human element is there. Which there are things in place that partly address that (Such as Driver’s license test, taking away some people’s driver’s license, ads reminding people of the rules of the road.). I’m annoyed that articles are doing the opposite of what car makers did. Humans are using the AI to do bad stuff mentioned that also! How can we change that? Yeah, it will probably be best to do something to the AI program, but we can’t ignore the human element since they the one who are creating the AI, using the AI, and consuming the AI products.

    People use guns to kill people so we need to look at both to make it happen less.



  • I think this is companies making something annoying blaming it on EU privacy laws and then they thinking people will be against these laws in other countries because of the inconvenience.

    Same strategy of companies doing things like putting “Contents may be hot.” on hot coffee and encouraging people to make fun of the McDonald’s Hot Coffee lawsuits. People think it was a joke when it was McDonald’s deciding to keep coffee extremely hot since it last longer, they saved so much money on coffee they could easily pay people off who got 2nd and 3rd degree burns because of the extremely hot coffee. But then one elderly women got severely burned in the groin area and the jury got so angry they awarded her a couple days worth of McDonald’s coffee profit. Don’t let companies do this type of thing!



  • You could get a pelvic exam while unconscious without knowing it happened. Some states have put limits on it, but then they can bury it in the T and Cs you sign and do it “technically” with your consent and not tell you. So unfortunately the privacy and dignity you think you have from the medical system isn’t as good as you think.