SO comments are already CC-BY licensed (granted not -NC licensed, but still), but it doesn’t seem to have helped much.

https://frameable.com/company/tech/why-we-prefer-notification-sounds-instead-of-a-human-voice

P.s. you have your markdown reversed with the links - the text needs to be in the square brackets with the link in the parentheses. [text](https://example.com)

Archive Options Failing

This one worked for me, useful if wanting to share the story elsewhere:

https://archive.is/20231224184755/https://www.wsj.com/tech/ai/sam-altman-openai-protected-by-silicon-valley-friends-f3efcf68

Submitted for good faith discussion: Substack shouldn’t decide what we read. The reason it caught my attention is that it’s co-signed by Edward Snowden and Richard Dawkins, who evidently both have blogs there I never knew about.

I’m not sure how many of the people who decide to comment on these stories actually read up about them first, but I did, such as by actually reading the Atlantic article linked. I would personally feel very uncomfortable about voluntarily sharing a space with someone who unironically writes a post called “Vaccines Are Jew Witchcraftery”. However, the Atlantic article also notes:

Experts on extremist communication, such Whitney Phillips, the University of Oregon journalism professor, caution that simply banning hate groups from a platform—even if sometimes necessary from a business standpoint—can end up redounding to the extremists’ benefit by making them seem like victims of an overweening censorship regime. “It feeds into this narrative of liberal censorship of conservatives,” Phillips told me, “even if the views in question are really extreme.”

Structurally this is where a comment would usually have a conclusion to reinforce a position, but I don’t personally know what I support doing here.

It’s worth noting that since FedSearch, Mastodon has actually natively implemented opt-in search on posts.

Which is exactly how the real world works. Harm has to be identified to suggest solutions.

According to the submission, some harms have been identified, and some solutions have been suggested [that could reduce the same and similar harms from occurring to new and existing users] (but mostly it sounds like a “more work needs to be done” thing).

I imagine your perspective on the issues being discussed are different from those of the author. The helicopter parent analogy makes sense in a low-danger environment; I think what the author has suggested is that some people don’t feel like it’s a low-danger environment for them to be in (though I of course – not being the author or one such person – may be mistaken).

Edit: [clarified] because I realised it might seem contradictory if read literally.

I’m not understanding why blocking is ineffective…?

As I understand it, because it requires harm to be experienced before the negating action is taken.

A parallel might be having malware infect a system before it can be identified and removed (harm experienced -> future harm negated), vs proactively preventing malware from infecting the system in the first place (no harm experienced before negation).

Sure, but not much of that battery improvement is coming from migrating the APU’s process node. Moving from TSMC’s 7nm process to their 6nm process is only an incremental improvement; a “half-node” shrink rather than a full-node shrink like going from their 7nm to their 5nm.

The biggest battery improvement is (almost definitely) from having a 25% larger battery (40Whr -> 50Whr), with the APU and screen changes providing individually-smaller battery life improvements than that. Hence the APU change improving efficiency “a little”.

They were careful with how they phrased it, leaving the possibility of a refresh without a performance uplift still on the table (as speculated by media). It looks like the OLED model’s core performance will be only marginally better due to faster RAM, but that the APU itself is the same thing with a process node shrink (which improves efficiency a little).

See also: PCGamer article about an OLED version. They didn’t say “no”, and (just like with the previously linked article), media again speculated about a refresh happening.

It looks like they were consistent with what they were talking about with how it wasn’t simple to just drop in a new screen and leave everything else as-is, and used that opportunity to upgrade basically everything a little bit while they were tinkering with the screen upgrade.

Unless it’s since changed hands again, he did actually buy the domain back from PayPal ~6 years ago: https://www.techspot.com/news/70077-elon-musk-buys-back-xcom-paypal.html

It’s why x.com currently redirects to twitter.