digastricus @digastricus@qoto.org

I've always read that global variables are bad.

This is interesting.
A published paper suggests that our ancestors almost went extinct between 930 000 and 813 000 years ago. During this 117 000 years the population size is estimated at less than 1300 individuals.

Ice age, unfavourable hunting, and generally tough times are assumed the cause.

I'm not qualified to judge the techniques used to arrive at this estimate, but I find that very interesting.

Some details. Text on this diagram in the paper which is, DOI: 10.1126/science.abq7487.

Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of human population size history. Both African (light green) and nonAfrican (light blue) populations are presented. The width of the boxes represents the effective population size (i.e., the number of breeding individuals) with naturally occurred fluctuations. The occurrence time of the out-of-Africa dispersal and the divergence between African and non-African populations are indicated. The gray-shaded time duration indicates the Early to Middle Pleistocene transition between 1250 and 700 kyr BP. The red arrow indicates the peak of glaciation during the transition (i.e., the 0.9 Ma event). The ancient severe bottleneck inferred in this study is highlighted. The gap in the available African hominin fossil record and an indicative chronology for H. erectus, the LCA, and H. sapiens are shown. The estimated time period in which two ancestral chromosomes (chromosome, Chr.) fused to become one is also shown on the right.

@foolishowl @0xSH00T @rysiek

"I use emacs because it's small and fast and starts quickly" was not something I ever expected to be able to say with a straight face.

@gwozniak @steve the whole "write a better prompt" thing amuses me, because I've already got a way of writing very detailed text prompts that the computer reliably converts into the exact program I wanted, and it's called "a compiler".

Just seen a new favourite response to AI text. "Why should I bother to read something nobody could be bothered to write?"

Great news! Humans are now slower and perform worse at solving Captchas than machine-learning bots!

Article here:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12108

#LowTech #History

Once upon a time... the TV remote was simple, mechanical, didn't need a battery, and had great #haptics

The original "clicker" remote.

https://www.theverge.com/23810061/zenith-space-command-remote-control-button-of-the-month

The average US president has been charged with 2 felonies.

“AI is going to take our jobs!”

AI:

Google launching Chrome in 2008: "IT'S JUST A MOON"

2012 "REALLY…"

2014 "…IT'S…"

2016 "…JUST…"

2019 "…A…"

2023: (POWERS UP DEATH STAR)

https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/issues/28

This is a credible proposal for DRM for websites in general. It would enable unbeatable adblock-blocking. It would prevent user customization for not just convenience but also accessibility.

I do not say this lightly: Enabling the forfeiture of control over the browsing experience is a fundamentally evil idea that must be rejected now, as it has been in the past, and we must remain vigilant against its reemergence in the future.

https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity/blob/main/explainer.md

@futurebird I largely agree, deplatforming isnt inherently good or bad, it depends on who is the target.

I do think there is legitimate concern that deplatforming is frivilous and abusive right now from both sides in many cases. That said im not sure deplatofrming is the issue, its more of a symptom. The real issue is just the toxic polarization we have in society that is causing cancel culture from both ends on everything under the sun.

@LouisIngenthron @Unit @unchartedworlds @futurebird
The deplatforming question is an interesting question to me. If we set aside legitimate targetted harassment, intimidation and threats, I cannot work out good first principles for deplatforming on social media. For one, if you don't like what someone is saying, you can just ignore them, block them, dont follow them or whatever. Deplatforming is only done to limit other peoples access to a certain individuals ideas. In the case of children I could understand having parental controls on what ideas they come into contact with since they are not yet mature in their thinking. But for adults I can't come up with a non-paternalistic reason why I should be allowed to limit what other people see online and I also don't trust other people to make these types of decisions for me.

@futurebird I agree that “just allow everything” isn’t a good sentiment, but individuals should be allowed to sort out a majority of information for themselves and be able to openly debate why someone is incorrect.

You lose both of those things when you remove a a person’s ability to speak.

Additionally, you encourage others to move into echo chambers which I personally think makes things far worse.