OK. I’ll just claim French privacy law is better than GDPR then. If you ask I’ll just point you to French law. If you tell me that doesn’t help I’ll call you a troll.

I mean honestly if that’s how you interact with people I’d rather just block you, I don’t need more noise in my life. Take care.

IMHO LLM usage isn’t coherent with independence. That being said I wrote quite a bit on self-hosting LLMs. There are quite a few tools available, like ollama itself relying on llama.cpp that can both work locally and provide an API compatible replacement to cloud services. As you suggested though typically at home one doesn’t have the hardware, GPUs with 100+GB of VRAM, to run the state of the art. There is a middle ground though between full cloud, API key, closed source vs open source at home on low-end hardware : running STOA open models on cloud. It can be done on any cloud but it’s much easier to start with dedicated hardware and tooling, for that HuggingFace is great but there are multiples.

TL;DR: closed cloud -> models on clouds -> self-hosted provide a better path to independence, including training.

Paying for DRM-free quality content https://www.defectivebydesign.org/guide/ and pirating the rest. Also promoting the concept of Big Content from Chokepoint Capitalism https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/710957/chokepoint-capitalism-by-rebecca-giblin-and-cory-doctorow/

How is asking to justify a position trolling? You are the one who claimed that Danish law is better than GDPR. I didn’t claim you lie or that law elsewhere was better, I solely asked for the proof. It’s not because I mistrust you, I just want to learn and you saying it is so without an actual comparison is not enough. If you don’t want to help that’s perfectly OK you can just say so. It’s fine to say you prefer Danish product because they are better and refuse to give proof that it’s the case. It won’t help me nor others though.

It’s the Privacy community on Lemmy, I bet others would love to learn too.

AI tools can find bugs faster than they can be patched

Not a security expert but wasn’t that the case already? It feels like before AI there were already a lot more bugs, security related or not, on backlogs. That’s precisely why there are metrics like severity.

Bought a 2nd-hand Pixel 8 to put GrapheneOS on it, not sure if that counts. Feels old, more ecological, cheaper and more private. Not sure how repairable it is but in theory I can use it for up 7 years so hopefully by the time I need to repair it I wouldn’t even want to.

Thanks, skimmed through https://www.recordinglaw.com/world-laws/world-data-privacy-laws/denmark-data-privacy-laws/ but it’s quite difficult to do a “diff” between one and the other. From reading it I didn’t notice significantly better for my normal usage but I’m not a lawyer. It also makes me wonder, if you have done it, how do you know it’s not better than say another random EU country also national specific modifications, e.g. Slovenia? Is there any “benchmark” somewhere that identifies which national changes are better?

Which Danish law go beyond GDPR?

CoMaps can export a GPS Exchange Format (GPX) route. See https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/GPX and that can be used to get most of the data your need. I imagine you could write a spreadsheet or online to do your visualization. I also bet others already did it.

I’ve done something like that for hikes to plot the path in 3D for WebXR.

As others points out GadgetBridge if you want additional data, typically biosensors for heart rate monitoring, is great to see which hardware is supported.

Prof Christian Brand, the emeritus professor in transport at Kellogg College,

This guy doesn’t even have a degree.

I really hope you are a troll lobbying for the car industry … because a rando questioning the credential of an Oxford professor which we can verify with a single DuckDuckGo query reading “Professor Christian Brand is an interdisciplinary environmental scientist, physicist and geographer with over 25 years research experience in academic and consultancy environments.” from the page of one of the most prestigious university in the World, for centuries, is really weird.

It doesn’t mean though that appeal to authority is right and thus that whatever Prof Christian Brand writes is correct. It’s not because he’s a professor researching in the area of expertise of the paper that he’s right… but his credentials are definitely on point.

Egoist mentality : “I’m scared of others, I need a car that looks like a tank so that at least I’m safe, even it means other are less so.”

Arguably capitalism is fostering “optimizations” but unfortunately it does so entirely amorally. When the only metric is profit then everything else becomes a negative externality to ignore.

TL;DR: yep.

🍾

I think the “trap” is to believe “we” can “win” once and for all.

Under capitalism (and I’m not suggesting there are better systems, only highlight a core mechanism) there will always be competition to capture value, both customers and lawmakers who (should) protect them.

There are countless examples but one of the most obvious on that topic if Microsoft itself with it’s sadly now classic EEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish of which we can admire the comtemporary version with Github. Initially Github was acquired and no changed, nowadays a lot of basic functionalities, e.g. search within a repository are locked behind a login, there are more and more advertisements for Microsoft other products, e.g. CoPilot. That last product itself is questioning the foundation of free software and open source with its license washing process making unclear who did what, breaking provenance, etc.

The same happened with Google acquiring Android but not locking it down more and more.

The list could grow longer and longer, overall the point is to showcase a pattern : nothing is just “let” alone to grow on its own. It’s gradually captured and enshittified until there is nothing left but the name of a project because corporations exist only to extract more money. There is no moral, only an imperative for profit or their death.

So… unfortunately we WILL have to keep on both building AND protecting what’s been built so far with newer and more powerful threats. Microsoft, Google, and all large corporations who advertise themselves as allies of free software and open source MUST be judge on what they actually do, not on what they claim.

We have to push back and we will always have to. This year and the next.

Makes me curious, I assume within the EU with GDPR it would be roughly equivalent.

What’s the difference between EU countries then and why?

Sadly FUD as ANYTHING that is NOT increasing profit for surveillance capitalism, i.e Google, Meta, etc is a win for privacy!

Of course /e/OS could be better, GrapheneOS could also be better (including on security) but the big picture is that still ANY of those solutions is making surveillance capitalism, the loss of privacy for profit and power, less efficient. That’s good for all of us who, being on Lemmy or other federated instance, believe we do benefit from having more privacy, or at least not trading it away.

TL;DR: be inclusive, bring others up, don’t be exclusive aiming for perfection none of us can attain.

I suggest to replace RTFM by WHYTSF : What Have You Tried So Far.

The goal isn’t to blame or guilt trip anyone, rather it’s to genuinely help and for that others need to know… WHYTSF?!

Love that quote “We’re going to search your house. We don’t have a warrant, but we paid your landlord $100 to give us a spare key. So now we’re searching your house without a warrant,” by Laperruque

Isn’t it “source: model” basically roulette? We go back to the initial problem. Also anything else that is not model might also be hallucinated if at any point the string that gives back “source:” goes through the model.

Can’t it source other LLM outputs as “verified source” and thus still say whatever sounds good, like any LLM? Providing “technical” verification, e.g. SHA, gives no insurance about the content itself being from a reputable source. I don’t think adding confidence and sourcing changes anything, the user STILL has to verify that whatever is provided is coherent and a third party is actually a good source. Thanks for making the process public though, doing better than OpenAI does.

Most distributions include Wine AFAICT yet I’d argue you shouldn’t use Wine because typically it means using proprietary software.

If you are using Wine for games then it’s also reconsider that there are plenty of open source game you can still pay for to support their author.

If you still want to play proprietary Windows games without native support then I would recommend to use a wrapper, e.g. Bottles (because of Proton, not because of the GUI) or even Steam (since you want to play proprietary Windows games anyway) as they’ll remove a layer of tinkering to find the right version, path, etc (basically prefix management).

… but yeah, even though Wine is amazing I would argue every time one uses it, if they are using Linux because they want more agency, they probably should reconsider and search for a free software alternative instead. It will be awkward at first, other UI, other UX, new community, but it’s an investment in the future.