If you voluntarily visit my website and my web server sends a response to your IP address, have I “taken” your IP address, or did you give it to me “voluntarily”? What if I log your IP address?
Is there a size cutoff you would say where diminishing returns really kick in?
My experience doesn't disagree, at least. I've been using Qwen for coding locally a bit. It is much better than I thought it would be. But also still falls short in some obvious ways compared to the frontiers.
I'd rather the symbol be there and occasionally see this discussion happen then the symbol be omitted and occasionally have the discussion where we try and figure out if the person was serious. When talking in person there are all sorts of visual and vocal cues and the speaker has cues in response to confirm the sarcasm was received. There are two parties that can correct that misunderstanding and have well established tools to do so.
/s is basically the internet-enabled equivalent of a sarcasm tone or a wink - it is much more difficult to detect genuine subtle sarcasm on the internet because of the absence of common communication tools. /s is also a valuable accessibility tool for those that might have difficulty with social cues and subtlety so, for all my autistic friends, I'm happy to defend it.
I think the sarcasm indicator is useful especially for some neurodivergent folks who may not pick up on social cues well. And the sacram indicator does not in any way detract from the joke.
Yeah it does. If you have to explain the joke, it makes it not funny. In the real world, people don't have explicit sarcasm markers, you have up deduce it. As a neurodivergent person, I reflexively downvote on /s because coddling people isn't going to help them grow or deal with the real world.
In the real world we have things like intonation, facial expressions, body language, and other indicators to denote sarcasm.
On the internet it is very possible and often plausible that someone can very much believe what may appear to a reasonable person to be sarcasm. Having a crutch online does not equate to an equivalent crutch offline.
Anecdotally, neurodivergent folks I know prefer, and some even require, a sarcasm indicator online.
There's even more to it — real conversations are interactive, so if a statement causes confusion, it can be cleared up immediately. Forum posts, however, must stand alone for the most part.
You probably also know the person you're talking to irl, so it's way easier to make the judgement call on whether they're serious or not, compared to a random person online.
I'm sure had you omitted it - instead of that reply there would have been a series of comments talking about how Microsoft actually has a track record of doing things like this. It's impossible to please everyone on the internet but I very much appreciate when people lean towards making their communication clearer.
Let’s make very clear that "France" here stands for MEP sent by France.
Only 51% of people able to vote in European elections actually vote (with 2,81% white ballot), so it’s not even a majority of electors sustaining them, despite abstention being at record low level in decades.
Elites being disconnected from people day-to-day reality and needs is a recurrent topic leaking even in the mainstream media which almost all owned by oligarchs by now.
European institutions are notoriously opaque and byzantine, which doesn’t really help with feeling represented, even before Qatar gates and the 1/4th of MEP revealed "implicated in judicial cases or scandals."
"Protecting children is not optional," said Lena Düpont MEP, EPP Group spokeswoman on Legal and Home Affairs. "We call on the S&D Group to stop hiding behind excuses and finally take responsibility. We cannot afford a safe haven for child abusers online. Every delay leaves children exposed and offenders unchallenged."
Personally, I feel there must be other privacy-preserving ways to address child abusers than mass surveillance.
Also, for the record, here is the list of parties that lobbied for this for Mrs Düpont, alongside very few privacy-focused organisations. Not sure why Canada or Australia are lobbying for EU laws.
ANNEX: LIST OF ENTITIES OR PERSONS FROM WHOM THE RAPPORTEUR HAS RECEIVED INPUT
- Access Now
- Australian eSafety Commissioner
- Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer (BRAK)
- Canadian Centre for Child Protection
- cdt - Center for Democracy & Technology
- eco - Association of the Internet Industry
- EDPS
- EDRI
- Facebook
- Fundamental Rights Agency
- Improving the digital environment for children (regrouping several child protection NGOs across the EU and beyond, including Missing Children Europe, Child Focus)
- INHOPE – the International Association of Internet Hotlines
- International Justice Mission Deutschland e.V./ We Protect
We need to add Palantir in bold letters to that list, they are behind this in every way except for 'officially'.
> The Commission’s failure to identify the list of experts as falling within the scope of the complainant’s public access request constitutes maladministration. [0]
> The Commission presented a proposal on preventing and combating child sexual abuse, looking in particular at detecting child pornography. In this context, it has mentioned that support could be provided by the software of the controversial American company Palantir... [1]
> Is Palantir’s failure to register on the Transparency Register compatible with the Commission’s transparency commitments? [1]
(Palantir only entered the Transparency Registry in March 2025 despite being a multi million vendor of Gotham for Europol and European Agencies for more than a decade)
> No detailed records exist concerning a January meeting between European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and the CEO of controversial US data analytics firm Palantir [2]
Kutcher defended a rapist in court when they thought they were anonymous (they weren't), the same rapist who bragged about assaulting their underage peer/co-star to Kutcher, and then harassed the children of the plaintiffs[1] in his trial where he was convicted and sentenced to 30 years to life:
> Another plaintiff stated that she and her neighbors observed a man snapping pictures from her driveway, and later that night, broke a window in her 13-year-old daughter's bedroom.
Interesting how these actually abuse children. This has nothing to do with children.
The age verification also has nothing to do with children.
They are using rhetorical tricks to confuse voters who are clueless. I have seen how this works on elderly people in particular, and mothers who are not tech-savvy.
I have a list of organizations who are lobbying for Chat Control as well, compiled from investigative reporting articles:
> Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), the Canadian Centre for Child Protection (C3P), the International Justice Mission (IJM), ECPAT, the Children's Rights Network, World Vision, Terre des Hommes, Innocence in Danger, the World Childhood Foundation, the Stiftung digitale Chancen, the Children's Rights Network Germany, SafeToNet Foundation, Thorn, Ecpat network, the Brave organization, the PR agency Purpose, Justice Initiative, Oak Foundation, Eurochild, Missing Children Europe, Molly Rose Foundation, NSPCC, Hopewell Fund, Heat Initiative, Children’s Investment Fund Foundation
In the past two years, the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) has been spearheading the lobbying efforts. The CEO of the IWF is Kerry Smith, and she sometimes shares her delusional beliefs on Linkedin in addition to her blog.
Many of these groups receive funding to lobby for Chat Control from the Hopewell Fund, Oak Foundation, and Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF). The British billionaire Alan M. Parker controls the Oak Foundation, and British billionaire Christopher Hohn controls the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation. The Hopewell Fund is controlled by Arabella Advisors (rebranded to Sunflower Services), and they work hard to conceal the sources of their dark money.
The Online Safety Act 2023 (the Act) protects children and adults online. It puts a range of new duties on social media companies and search services, giving them legal duties to protect their users from illegal content and content harmful to children. The Act gives providers new duties to implement systems and processes to reduce risks their services are used for illegal activity, and to take down illegal content when it does appear.
Illegal Content
As of 17 March 2025, platforms have a legal duty to protect their users from illegal content online. Ofcom are actively enforcing these duties and have opened several enforcement programmes to monitor compliance.
im not aware of any law that went through parliament that directly impacts installing apps. OSA has already hit and didn't impact app stores. Can you link me the relevant legislation or hansard debates?
reply