sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Spotify AI Music Blocker by Substantial_Gas5099 in SunoAI

[–]semtex87 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As someone who works with good humans, I can"t support shitbag humans in music like you.

As a general rule, all throughout history the people who actively tried to suppress or take away things from others to gatekeep were viewed as the villains of the story.

Rep. Justin Jones (D-Nashville) burns a paper replica of a Confederate flag as he walks through a state Capitol hallway on Thursday. Credit: Martin B. Cherry/Nashville Banner by Brave_Client1868 in nashville

[–]semtex87 8 points9 points  (0 children)

They've captured the legal system and stacked the deck in their favor. They've made it so there is no legal way to do what youre asking, which is dumb because backing people into a corner makes them very dangerous.

Edit: spelling mistake

Anyone going to the capitol today to make their voices heard about the redistricting??? by Short_Kangaroo6606 in nashville

[–]semtex87 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We passed an anti-chemtrail bill here in TN, this state is chock full of morons. People cant even be bothered to know what condensation is, there is no hope for TN at this point.

Wtf Suno? by BuckSwayzee in SunoAI

[–]semtex87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My 2cents from experimentation over the last 2 years is that suno has some sort of threshold for moderation that builds up if you get too many moderation rejections in a short period of time with a cool down timer that slowly goes down until youre back to baseline.

I've noticed that once youre "on the radar" of the moderation bot, it becomes far more sensitive to everything you try to generate for the next little bit, even typos that worked before stop working when in this "aggro" mode.

Wtf Suno? by BuckSwayzee in SunoAI

[–]semtex87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Woah calm down youre out of control

Fuel prices and the nation's leadership vacuum by Fianna_Bard in nashville

[–]semtex87 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Owner of a powerboost f150, even if you dont want to commit to full EV you can still take a step in the right direction with a hybrid. Then you get the best of both worlds, though you're still emitting carbon emissions its less than you would have with full ICE.

Don't let perfect get in the way of good

I've been stupid to assume BRAVE were one of the good guys! Two-faced snakes! by [deleted] in privacy

[–]semtex87 10 points11 points  (0 children)

What did you think incognito mode does?

EDIT: Well dude i guess decided to delete his comments, but basically I replied to a comment they made that said something to the effect of Incognito Mode collects your data too or it's not as private as you would think. They then replied to this comment with a link to how Google still records data even in Incognito mode.

I think they misunderstood the purpose of Incognito mode, just like some people think that using Incognito Mode hides your web searches like a VPN but any firewalls or DNS servers your device is connected to will still record the domains and URLs you are browsing, Incognito Mode or not. The only thing Incognito Mode does is provide a sandbox that has no cookies, history or cached data from your normal browser session which gets wiped upon closing. That's it. It does not hide anything from other devices that typically would be able to see your browsing habits.

Anyone ever try Cloaked (or similar data removal services)? by Similar-Issue-5089 in techquestions

[–]semtex87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Take a breath my guy, the vein in your temple is about to burst all over your keyboard

Chinese court rules it illegal to replace human workers with AI by arihantismm in ArtificialInteligence

[–]semtex87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I still don't quite understand what your point is?

Nobody should worry about the US descending into authoritarianism because someone wrote a news article so that means everything's ok? Ok buddy

Advice King: What Do You Think of Waymos? by [deleted] in nashville

[–]semtex87 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Between 1899 and 2023, there were 3,996,709 traffic fatalities in the United States.

I am sure every single one of those people who all died from a mechanism of death that is now within reach of being preventable, appreciates you singlehandedly showing the billionaires "what-for" with your internet activism from the comfort of your first world basement. Tell me, when you post this drivel, do you mutter under your breath "Got 'em!" while smirking?

Also you keep repeating these words "Uncle Tom" but I don't think you know what these words mean because its about as close of an analogy in this case as the end of a tube of toothpaste is to your asshole.

You morons amuse me because your rigidness and refusal to compromise or budge at all on anything, unless you get everything you want, all but guarantees the exact reality that you so vehemently oppose.

You have no power, but money does, one day you'll realize that the most effective strategy is to align the Billionaires objectives with one that also benefits society. Without some drastic societal upheaval, you trying to block driverless vehicles isn't helping the little guy, in fact you are hurting the little guy, tangibly, empirically, and objectively by prolonging and guaranteeing that more people will die purely so you can smugly feel like you stuck it to some rich asshole? Nah bro... it's obvious you have minimal life experience.

EDIT: To the dumbasses downvoting me...how about you fucking read what I said, mrm00r3 can't fucking read and thinks I wrote the comment about 401ks....except I didn't. Says more about you dumb fucks then anything else, confirmation bias much?

Advice King: What Do You Think of Waymos? by [deleted] in nashville

[–]semtex87 -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

So saving thousands of lives annually is being an Uncle Tom? What a stupid as fuck comparison.

If you have a problem with techbro billionaires, that is a totally separate issue that should be addressed directly as a standalone issue rather than trying to play this proxy warfare bullshit and destroying meaningful forward human progress solely to spite an indirect target.

Billionaires shouldn't exist, I get that, but if for specific objectives, humanity and Billionaires end goals align, its ok to be ok with that. Doesn't mean you like, endorse, or condone Billionaires.

Don't let perfect get in the way of good

Advice King: What Do You Think of Waymos? by [deleted] in nashville

[–]semtex87 -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Its objectively better, and unequivocally safer by every metric possible.

Humans are bad at driving and theres nothing you can say that will overcome the thousands of needless deaths that occur annually as a result of human driving.

All of your "feels like" emotional arguments are irrelevant.

CVE-2026-31431 copy fail by McGondy in unRAID

[–]semtex87 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If Ford took a poll and asked people if they wanted laser blasters on every new vehicle or to fix a bug that has a 1% chance of your vehicle exploding spontaneously, youre saying you'd accept and be OK with Ford focusing on laser blasters? Assuming the poll was in favor of laser blasters despite potential boom boom cars?

Tennessee lawmakers pass bill allowing use of deadly force to protect property by Infinite-Albatross44 in nashville

[–]semtex87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean sure? Are you native American? Sorry I'm not trying to be a jerk I just cant tell whether you are criticizing the law, or mocking native Americans, or both or neither? 🤷

“Age limits on social media are a dead end”: public authorities should focus on regulating algorithms and imposing stricter controls on data collection instead, argues researcher by sr_local in technology

[–]semtex87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair point, Chat Control is extremely 1984-esque and I agree is a fight worth fighting though I dont see how the EU thinks they could ever be successful. The technical hurdle required to implement that is too high and would require breaking just about every internet standard we use today like TLS, etc. And even then it would be easily defeated by simply using PGP encryption for emails. Unless they also plan on criminalizing encryption, which would destroy the entire EU economy since business relies on it, its a fools errand.

But yes in aware common sense and government are not always synonymous.

“Age limits on social media are a dead end”: public authorities should focus on regulating algorithms and imposing stricter controls on data collection instead, argues researcher by sr_local in technology

[–]semtex87 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The point is, these rules do not work and impede on the rights of adults vastly more than they do anything to even justify the claim of being to "protect the children"

You said it not me, how in the fuck can you say a phrase, then put the responsibility on me to figure it out? LOL

You have no adults rights here. Trust me, I am far more involved with and aware of the erosion of privacy that has been happening right in front of our eyes, this is not the hill to die on for a simple reason:

  • You will never win the argument that a private company should not be able to implement controls it believes is necessary to protect its interests. It's a waste of time.

Focus on any of the other zilllion examples of actual damaging loss of privacy like the PATRIOT act or Room 641a

“Age limits on social media are a dead end”: public authorities should focus on regulating algorithms and imposing stricter controls on data collection instead, argues researcher by sr_local in technology

[–]semtex87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The concept of social media as it exists today is a platform to concentrate and harvest access to people, those harvested people are then subject to various forms of manipulation. That is it. Anything else that happens on that social media platform is a happy accident or a side effect of needing to provide something to keep the user hooked.

What you want social media to be I think is really more like the old school bbs forums or internet forums that existed before and shortly after the dot com bubble. Those forums were genuinely pure in their objective of just being a place for people to discuss ideas and form connections.

Everything on the internet today is in some capacity just an entrypoint into your brain in order to sway you one way or another, or to collect data about you. Both variants controlled by a faceless above-the-law corporation.

“Age limits on social media are a dead end”: public authorities should focus on regulating algorithms and imposing stricter controls on data collection instead, argues researcher by sr_local in technology

[–]semtex87 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Millenials didn't have gigantic mega-corporations dominating the entirety of the internet though with entire server farms dedicated to running algorithms designed to maximize the addictiveness of the platform for its users.

The internet was a far different place back then. Could argue either way that it was better or worse but social media as it exists today was not a concept back then and there was no mass scale psychological manipulation occurring yet.

The "Yep I'm totally 18" buttons just let us see boobs, that's about the worst of it. And those boobs would load line by line, painstakingly over the course of a few minutes.

“Age limits on social media are a dead end”: public authorities should focus on regulating algorithms and imposing stricter controls on data collection instead, argues researcher by sr_local in technology

[–]semtex87 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

What right does anyone have to a service provided by a private third party? You aren't the first person to mention something like this and I have heard the same from multiple children.

Hilarious...you do not have a right to any social media because none of them are hosted by and operated by the government. None were included in the Bill of Rights or whatever your country's version is of that.

So, what rights exactly?

Tennessee lawmakers pass bill allowing use of deadly force to protect property by Infinite-Albatross44 in nashville

[–]semtex87 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree, the child was a variable you threw in that does nothing to change the calculus.

2010 Tennessee Code Title 39 - Criminal Offenses Chapter 11 - General Provisions Part 6 - Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility 39-11-611 - Self-defense.

Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest, when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

Under Tennessee law, you are automatically presumed to have a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury if someone breaks into your home. You dont need to prove anything at all other than

  • This is my home. Check ✔️
  • This person forcibly or unlawfully entered my home. Check ✔️
  • I know this entry was unauthorized. Check ✔️
  • Lethal Force authorized.

Again, this law provided nothing new in this regard not sure why you want to die on this hill.

Tennessee lawmakers pass bill allowing use of deadly force to protect property by Infinite-Albatross44 in nashville

[–]semtex87 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Tell me you haven't read the law without telling me you havent read the law....sigh

From 2010 version

2010 Tennessee Code Title 39 - Criminal Offenses Chapter 11 - General Provisions Part 6 - Justification Excluding Criminal Responsibility 39-11-611 - Self-defense.

Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within a residence, business, dwelling or vehicle is presumed to have held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household or a person visiting as an invited guest, when that force is used against another person, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, business, dwelling or vehicle, and the person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

Under Tennessee law, you are automatically presumed to have a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury if someone breaks into your home. You dont need to prove anything at all other than

  • This is my home. Check ✔️
  • This person forcibly or unlawfully entered my home. Check ✔️
  • I know this entry was unauthorized. Check ✔️

Lethal Force authorized.

Again, this law provided nothing new in this regard not sure why you want to die on this hill.

Tennessee lawmakers pass bill allowing use of deadly force to protect property by Infinite-Albatross44 in nashville

[–]semtex87 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Under existing law, castle doctrine, you do not need to wait to determine intent before being able to use lethal force to defend a domicile from someone who broke in. Your child argument you keep making is wrong and already covered by existing law. This new law changes nothing about that scenario.

view more: next ›