Communist

none of those issues work because there is a whitelist of specific terms instead of a blacklist

-1 cannot be selected, a lizard isn’t on the list of inputs, and my point with the sql is that this isn’t a huge attack vector like an input field on a website, this is a dropdown list, essentially.

i challenge you to come up with one relevant attack that isn’t order too much of a thing or order conflicting modifications (note of course the modifications are also essentially read from a dropdown list)

everyone here seems to believe that the input field paradigm is not solveable when the inputs are fixed, that isn’t true.

No special characters, this is speech to text, inherently sanitized inputs.

This isn’t something you can input any text into, it’s fixed, that joke doesn’t apply, you can’t do an sql injection here.

If what I was saying was false, there would be the same issues with the touchscreen ones.

there is an incredibly finite number of ways to mess with this, they just need a button to send a report to the engineers with how they got messed with and eventually they’ll have a complete list. I really doubt it’d take long to iron out the vast majority of ways that can be thought of.

In software in general? Sure, here? I really doubt it

Tbh this is an incredibly easy fix, either cap the number of waters someone can order in software or have an override where a human takes over if an order is suspicious, there’s not an infinite number of ways to fuck with this.

Antitrust lawsuits and plausible deniability

interesting, thank you.

It really is spotify’s killer feature for me, probably won’t switch to something that doesn’t have it.

Spotify has a feature where if it is playing on another device, you can control it with any other device logged into the account, is there any good way to replicate this with a linux desktop and an android phone?

My point was that censorship is valid when it is to prevent harming individuals/fraud/bullying

my goalpost did not move at all.

you are being a hypocrite by saying it was okay not to have that on wikipedia because it was already banned

you should oppose that ban on the basis of censorship, no?

for the same reason they don’t give resources to blatant harassment campaigns.

both are against the rules and both are censorship for nearly identical reasons

If I made a wikipedia page showing your social security and banking information would your stance hold true?

This is to stop a cyberbullying campaign against a disabled person

That kind of censorship doesn’t sit will with me. What else are they keeping from us?

probably other things to harrass individuals with?

That’s pathetic.

Well, that’s a bad argument, this is all a guess on your part that is impossible to prove, you don’t know how empathy or the human brain work, so you don’t know it isn’t computable, if you can explain these things in detail, enjoy your nobel prize. Until then what you’re saying is baseless conjecture with pre-baked assumptions that the human brain is special.

conversely I can’t prove that it is computable, sure, but you’re asserting those feelings you have as facts.

Empathy is not illogical, behaving empathetically builds trust and confers longterm benefits.

also the notion that an ai must behave logically is not sound.

And ontop of that, they have no incentive to work on performance, if they made it better you’d have less of a reason to upgrade your machine, they want to slowly make performance worse and worse to maximize this effect

Nah