Comments by "LoneTech" (@0LoneTech) on "Steve Lehto" channel.

  1. Not sure which particular kind of deranged she was, but my first thought was one of those religious cultists who want to ban most video games tried to cause a police report so they'd be able to claim there was video game related crime of that sort.
    17
  2. Absolutely. They've established the fine is less punitive than the process of getting it applied. This isn't justice.
    14
  3. That would not be proportionate at all. He has established he thinks that's basically harmless, and has no idea how sensitive and cruel kids are (yes, both).
    13
  4. ​​ @BitcoinMotorist  Perhaps because they subscribe to the notion that merely knowing nullification is an option means you're biased against law? Personally I consider that offensive, biasing jurors towards lack of education and therefore both gullibility and prejudice. That's not the route to informed decisions.
    12
  5.  @tomeauburn  "Quit resisting" means "if I happen to be recorded abusing you, I want an excuse on record." Often accompanied by a few extra painful jerks just to make sure an unresisting target won't be obvious. If there was honesty involved, they'd be using instructions, not admonishment.
    5
  6. Specifically, a tax on the vulnerable. It's unjust.
    4
  7. They might need potty training. They didn't earn a driver's license.
    4
  8. Don't use coded language. The statement is simple: There can be no guilt, because this law is unjust. "Insufficient proof" would be sending the message to harass the accused harder, not to stop. Of course, not every case will be as clear as this; sometimes the law has a sound purpose but fails to account for humane priorities. This doesn't seem like one of those to me.
    3
  9. You can absolutely disconnect the antenna. GPS antennae tend to be very recognizable, usually ceramic pucks connected by coaxial cable.
    3
  10. It apologizes and attempts a different answer. If it involved something complex, it is very likely to make unrelated and incorrect changes as well.
    2
  11. By very professionally ignoring the wrapper explaining ChatGPT is unreliable. It's fine print like any other TOS or EULA, after all; only relevant when the big company decides to go after their customers, not for Very Important Lawyers.
    2
  12. It's not exactly lying because the concept of true or false is just as abstract to it as any other. It has only language flow, not reasoning, knowledge or self as you might expect. However, the producers do prioritize producing an output over making it accurate or relevant, and do share blame for hyping it up for things it remains horrible at. The very architecture of ChatGPT is incapable of "doing the research".
    2
  13. This is also a fundamental problem with the death penalty. If complying cannot improve your situation, why should you?
    2
  14. The devices that can tell their position with pinpoint accuracy by GPS are doing so by fixing their position, i.e. their receiver antenna is mounted on a temperature controlled concrete block with an open view to the sky. They're used to measure the performance of GPS itself and derive correction signals for D-GPS. It's not what you find in a phone.
    2
  15.  @stephencarbajal5657  Nope. That's a different radio. The GPS receiver doesn't transmit anyway. You can disable cellular radios too, but it's not as easily identifiable and far more likely to be destructive. Their antennae are often glued or molded in and the radios can damage themselves if the antenna isn't connected. Wifi antennae are often just a few millimeters in size. The proper solution if you don't want to own a device that works for someone else to collect information on you is to not purchase such a device.
    2
  16. They also got ordered to put up a notice reminding them that they're not allowed to use this particular excuse for stealing wages.
    2
  17. This is the result of applying the appalling standard of absolutely no warranty of functionality from the blatantly negligent software world as if it satisfied legal evidence requirements. And the current field of "AI" has as a main goal to remove even traceability from the manufacture of such software - by "learning" instead of "copying", they hope to excuse plagiarism. No culpability, no responsibility, all those successful prosecutions count as grand success.
    1
  18. The Find My network does not report where the separated tag is - rather it reports where some other device (phone, tablet or computer) was when it heard it. And even then with an accuracy rarely better than 10m.
    1
  19. ​ @austinwilburn1772  It absolutely is. Being in uniform implies representing the authority, and thus the crime reflects on the force. Pretty sure there's some law in the books about that, like willful violation or breach of duty. It's a distinct crime from the theft.
    1
  20. Note: Asking ChatGPT to check its work is not making ChatGPT check its work. ChatGPT is far lazier than you, and will blandly assume its own output was correct for no more reason than having said it.
    1
  21. That's silly. Why harm the resale value when you can simply unplug it?
    1
  22. Also two layers of deceit (hiding from the kid, and blaming the kid) specifically to cover up the home invasion (not sure what the titles for those are, some kind of fraud), and making that insane false claim of ownership is one or two other crimes in itself. Obviously falsely claiming the authority on what the law is, but likely also some form of theft (not quite typical adverse possession). They explicitly abused their positions (both physical and as LEO).
    1
  23.  @jamesnew8170  Those numbers appear to lead to some laws on research procedures. Are you trying to claim this was a study and the invaded people were test subjects?
    1
  24.  @jamesnew8170  USC 18 § 241 and 242 do seem to match. 19 appears to be a typo. Thank you for the clarification.
    1
  25. The fine print on signing up for Chat GPT say you're responsible for any use you make of its output and no veracity guarantee exists. You know, just like any other fine print, the absolute disclaimer is the first thing they put in. Then come the restrictions telling you you're not allowed to do things.
    1
  26.  @johnflynn-pk2mk  I wouldn't be surprised if they add the 3rd, 6th, 7th, and 11th to the list, somehow.
    1
  27.  @WhydoIsuddenlyhaveahandle  You're very gleeful about that human rights violation, aren't you?
    1
  28. Climate Town recently posted a video on this particular idiocy of USA development, titled Parking Laws Are Strangling America. This happens to be rather direct harm.
    1
  29. Ever heard of the GDPR? It's not the first of its kind. It already makes e.g. tracking someone using some shrinkwrap license as an excuse illegal. Unfortunately, the worst offenders regularly get away with it by claiming "testing" or "accidentally left enabled".
    1
  30. It's not even a search engine; it's an automated bullshitter. Just try to get a reply of "I don't know" three times out of it.
    1
  31. The buzzword always was.
    1
  32. No, by design. That would impede the plagiarism.
    1
  33. Such engineering, prompting a system that won't be around next week and is specifically designed to not be reproducible.
    1
  34. The producers of chatgpt are promoting it for all uses, largely through training it to do the promotion, so they can pretend it wasn't their claims. Its primary function is automated plagiarism and its goal isn't to be accurate but to respond. Actual traceability would be counter to that primary function, so don't expect it to produce references reliably.
    1
  35. It's cute how people keep telling others to use currencies where the complete audit trail is entirely public for anonymity.
    1
  36. Bullies latch on to completely arbitrary factors to define their in and out groups. Looking, moving or speaking differently just happen to be the easiest attributes to notice. Sometimes they just make things up, so there's really no avoiding it. Just dismiss it as the uncivilized and uncouth behaviour it is.
    1
  37. It doesn't really target novelty either. It simply goes with the flow, and if you're specific enough you just might end up with a chunk of unaltered training data. Which the producers of the LLM generally have no license for.
    1
  38. No. Much more terrified that people are selling a product well known to hallucinate (it does not understand falsehood or knowing, so cannot knowingly tell falsehood) as panacea and more people don't even listen to the caveats, just preach and use it as infallible. The concern is reasonable but this system is far more basic.
    1
  39. No, officer, the deafening air raid siren blaring at all hours in my front yard is not a disturbance, it's those pesky eavesdropping neighbours!
    1
  40. It wasn't the tag's location at all. It was the location of some other device that heard the tag. It would be fairly simple to repeat the tag's signal to make it show up in lots of places it isn't.
    1
  41.  @jodyhoo  The tag doesn't even receive. It just shouts "This is me! I'm lost!" (after 15 minutes or so) and a "finder" reports having heard it. The location is from the finder; "someone thought they were there when they heard a shout with this ID". The report does include an accuracy field, but it's an estimate of how well the position matched the finder, not the tag.
    1
  42. ​ @1486230  While you have a point, you can still choose to make or demand a guarantee - as in some agreement of compensation if the results fail. With chatgpt or similar, you've already entered an agreement there will be no guarantees, and the system you're talking to is incapable of entering agreements.
    1
  43. There's no real need. It's just the piece of personal information that Florida law permits leaking of together with all these other details of the case. Thus it's been "Florida man" and occasionally "Florida woman" all these years, rather than "Florida person".
    1
  44. No name needed. Time and location is identifiable information, and anonymization is very ineffective. You just don't collect location data without explicit informed consent.
    1
  45. Nope, that's not it. It's not conscious, and does not know or care what is true or what truth is. What you should fear is how many humans blindly believe it, or other bullshitters, over any evidence. For instance, be concerned about why ChatGPT is trained to advertise and advocate ChatGPT (note: not itself, it's not self aware). Its bias is way out of proportion with its performance, and that's because people put it there. However, you are correct that deception will be a greater problem once machine learning does begin to contain intelligence. It's already a common issue.
    1
  46. Systematic fraud, to be precise. It's organized crime.
    1
  47. Stress is highly systemic and can indeed exacerbate all sorts of things severely.
    1
  48. Funny thing about illegal jamming devices, they tend to be pretty bad at picking their ranges and levels. The simplest kind is basically a microwave oven with all the protective and focusing shielding removed. You want that where, exactly?
    1
  49. I've had the pleasure of getting arrested for being illegally confined by the police force. One of the ever so kind things they told me was their excuse for beating me with a weapon; they're allowed to carry weapons. Oddly enough, it was not the presence of a tool I was objecting to, it was being attacked and harmed.
    1
  50. It's worse. They're trained to recognize the phrase and attempt to circumvent it by lying to you (the company's lie, the bot doesn't have knowledge and doesn't know it's repeating falsehoods). The one you hit presumably claimed it didn't understand, the last one I had to struggle with claimed it couldn't redirect the call. Sometimes they add a filter to only connect you when you roar at them, you know, to ensure their actual employees get the worst conditions possible.
    1