Spotify has vaguely attributed the need for the API changes to improving security:

• In its blog post, Spotify says that it rolled out the changes with “the aim of creating a more secure platform.”
• In a community forum post, a Spotify employee says that “we want to reiterate the main message from the blog that we’re committed to providing a safe and secure environment for all Spotify stakeholders.” The post has many pages of replies from frustrated developers.
• In a statement to The Verge, Spotify spokesperson Brittney Le Roy says that “as part of our ongoing work to address the security challenges that many companies navigate today, we’re making changes to our public APIs.”

This is fairly disingenuous. The affected endpoints are all GET requests, which are read-only requests that provide some data about the track/artist/playlist/etc. There isn’t really very much potential to do anything insecure here.

The only thing they’re securing is their hegemony.

Correctamundo!

Not yet

That’s an odd way to ask for clarity when you’re looking for help

Squeaker, Fire-belly, Poison Dart, Ghost, Parsley

That’s crazy, how can somebody not know what brand of laptop they…

HOLY SHIT ME TOO

I think the answer depends on how you define art.

Like, the artist in me wants to have a discussion about the appeal of abstraction versus impressionism, and whether you should compromise your artistic vision for the sake of commercial success.

The pessimist in me says that the most popular physical art is probably Pokemon trading cards and other merch.

“Physical Art” is a pretty broad category because there’s still a million mediums you can choose from. Would making prints of digital art count as physical art? That might be a question for the philosophers.

Anyway, if you’re looking to break into the scene then you should probably visit some craft fairs / galleries / tourist traps and see what they’re selling. Talk to the artists in the medium you want to explore.

Yeah, I think these goofy names are all based on trends. There’s probably some overlap between the people who would name their kids without regards for their kids’ feelings, and the people who would jump on some bandwagon or claim it as their own.

A distressingly common one I’ve been seeing is “Nevaeh” which is “Heaven” spelled backwards. If you’re devout enough to name your kid after the pearly gates though, you’d think you’d realize that backwards heaven is likely hell

Mom’s lasagna is the best. It’s the benchmark against which I compare any other lasagna.

She used to make a really great pizza too, but geez, it’s probably been decades since she made one

We’re not Italian, I guess I’m just nostalgic for the food of my youth

I had a kid at a summer camp where I was teaching have an unusual one maybe 5-6 years ago.

I’m going through the roll call, and there’s a kid who’s first name was listed as ABCDE. I think that’s pretty weird, so I assume it’s an error like somebody made a mistake on the intake form or the database garbled something.

So I skip over that one, and at the end I ask if I miss anyone. A girl puts up her hand so I ask for her name and she pronounces it like “Ab-siddy”

I realize they’re the same kid, and that her parents fucked her. I think she knew what was up and was kind of ashamed. Poor kid, I didn’t ask her to spell it

This might count as “unusual” punishment, but imo it’s far less cruel than what’s usually on the table on death row

Segue, what makes you more comfortable for B?

This 🌕🌕🌑🌑🌑🌑
Or
That 🌕🌑🌑🌕🌑🌑

My first read I missed that the you were spinning the chamber between shots. I was thinking people pick B assuming its the first one and then get fucked the second way

Anyway, I think I’d go with C. If it’s going to happen, it’s going to happen, and I didn’t get to death row by not believing in instant gratification

If you’re a roller coaster enthusiast, you might get a kick out of the Euthanasia Coaster, or as I like to call it The Sui-Slide

Obligatory XKCD

A common refrain I’m seeing in this post is that if there’s something wrong with the model you can just retrain it. There’s a couple problems with that assumption.

The state of the technology actually makes training a model somewhere between difficult or opaque. And what I mean by this is that in order to train a model you need to give it data. A lot of data. An amount of data that a single person frankly either doesn’t have access to or has no simple way to generate. And even then, there’s no way to be sure how the model performs until after the training completes, so even if you’ve collected all that data you won’t know it’s an improvement.

But for the sake of a hypothetical let’s ignore the current state of the technology and imagine that wasn’t a problem.

If an AI representative votes for me, and it gets that vote wrong, I won’t know about it until after it has voted for me. And by then it’s too late - I’ve already voted against my interest.

Also it seems that your position is that these AI reps are for people who care enough about politics to care, but don’t care enough to do. I don’t know that those people would ever confirm that their model is actually voting in their favour. If they don’t care enough to vote, then they don’t care enough to confirm their votes either.

The most damning thing about using AI for policy though - AI is NOT a decision making tool. Ask anybody who actually works on AI. It might fool the people who use it, and the people who sell it to you will tell you anything to make an extra dollar. AI is just a formula that spits out words instead of numbers. Sometimes it strings together a cohesive sentence and sometimes it hallucinates. There isn’t any Intelligence happening under the machine, it’s all Artificial.

AI is essentially autocomplete on steroids. It has no capacity to reason or argue, it just says what it’s trained for you to expect. It’s not a thinking machine and I sincerely doubt it ever will be

Zombii looks like my void. Then again, I suppose most voids look like my void

Can you tell me more about gall fruit? I’ve never heard of it, but I guess it must be good for cats if you put it in their toys

Is the idea here direct democracy, but instead of personally voting on each issue, you have a digital assistant cast your ballot?

I propose “direct technocracy” as the term. I also welcome the boom in dystopic cyberpunk media if this gets considered.

Ultimately, I think the problem would be that people are going to think even less about politics if they could abstract it away. It might seem counterintuitive since Lemmy is full of politics, but we’re hardly representative of the larger demographic and apathy rules the political landscape.

There’s also a bunch of issues with making sure that your AI would actually respect your wishes and vote accordingly. It sounds like we’re thinking of a hypothetical AI that’s easier to tune and doesn’t have the problems of today’s AI. But if we’re talking hypotheticals that have somehow fixed implementation problems, then I’d rather have a good, safe, and secure way to just vote online.

I think anybody who says they haven’t questioned their sexuality is likely to be lying. Then again, we’re all biased by our lived experiences and I’ve spent a lot of time questioning things, so I could be projecting.

At the end of the day I want to say to like who you like. What happens between consenting adults is nobody’s business but theirs, and the sun isn’t going to implode because you dig on a girly dude.

Hell, you don’t even need to put a label on your sexuality. Or your gender for that matter, although that’s a whole different can of worms.

Depending on where you are, you might be growing up alongside harmful anti-queer rhetoric. That kind of thing makes it very difficult for a lot of people to admit their sexuality with any degree of nuance. People living in fear will lie to their friends, family, and selves in order to hide their attractions. It’s sad and harmful, and it also makes it difficult for some people to be open about sometimes liking a person that is outside what they believe society expects of them.

You guys should get coffee or something. I wouldn’t pass up on a chance to learn more about myself

I’m not sure if this question is positing that women aren’t stimulated by porn visually, or if it’s using porn as an example of something to be stimulated visually by.

My wife likes cartoons and has a diploma in animation. Her class was like 80% female. Animation is pretty much by definition visual stimulation.

But if we’re talking exclusively about eroticism, there’s female directors making porn for the female eye too. IMO it relies less on the gonzo fake shit and tropes of mainstream porn too, so it might actually be healthier to consume (note: not a sexologist)

Either way, I’m not sure that this divide between men and women exists where you think it does

I agree that the behavior of these companies to hook their users using the darkest psychological patterns is disgusting. It doesn’t become any less disgusting once the user turns 17 though, and no framework is in place to prevent those teens from falling prey once they gain access.

Even if we all agree that a ban is warranted, my stance is that a ban alone isn’t enough. It needs to be accompanied by education and harm reduction.

And it needs to be honest, scientific, and good-faith education. We don’t need another DARE program demonizing something because misinformation can be more harmful than failure to educate

How does someone advance to “rationally thinking” without receiving education?

I don’t disagree that habits picked up in childhood are more difficult to break. But I don’t think it’s a problem exclusively for children either.

Many of us are growing up with parents and grandparents with brainrot. And sure, maybe they would have been more susceptible as kids if the technology existed then. But we all would be better off with decent digital and media literacy.

Plus, who’s giving the kids these devices anyway? It’s usually the parents - who have been raised not to talk to strangers- giving their kids unfettered access to all the strangers of the world