I'm traveling to Japan in 19 hours 🤩
Remote
neatchee
@neatchee@urusai.social
mastodon 4.8.0-alpha.3+glitch
I run the toxicity-free, happy home for otaku, https://urusai.social
If you're into anime, manga, games, light novels, etc, and want to see more weeb stuff on your TL, signups are open!
Sr. "Dishonesty Unmasking Agent" @ PlayStation, ex-Bungie #GameSecIsNotInfoSec
Gamer, former esports commentator, Kingdom Hearts fanboy
Opinions are *definitely* my own
[ he/him ]
1640 Followers
1448 Following
50 Posts
Joined November 12, 2022
DISCORD:
neatchee#3938
ANCIENT:
This can't be real. We are living in the most absurd timeline. ffmpreg is actually happening
I really love this community. You all are such wonderful, thoughtful, kind-hearted people. Even when someone inadvertently offends (through no malice, just oversight) everyone places the concern for others first, and even the aggrieved is quick to accept that no harm was intended and we can all move on having improved from the experience.
But you also take no shit from people who are intolerant, quick to anger, or just plain toxic.
A few experiences over the past two weeks have really reminded me how much I love what we've been able to build here at Urusai, and why the fediverse is so great as a model for social interaction.
#fediverse #community #respect #tolerance #love #safety #social #Urusai
New user asked why we don't federate with a specific server. I told them it is because they allow posting of lolicon.
Their response was "well then I hope you don't federate with servers that post murder simulations either (most video games)" like it was some kind of "gotcha"?
Tbh I would genuinely be in favor of defederating a server that allows, like, a school shooting simulator? Really don't understand why people are confused about the difference between fiction that depicts violent harm, and fap material that depicts children :akkoShrug:
Who wants Miku merch when I visit in 2 weeks?
https://www.timeout.com/tokyo/news/the-official-hatsune-miku-store-is-now-open-in-harajuku-042426
Crazy idea: Change Trans Day Of Visibility to overlap with Easter, call it Trans Recognition Day, convince the bigots "trans" stands for "transubstantiation", and the pink and blue are just Easter Bunny pastels.
Replying to
@apc@starside.social A rare entry from me...
The 🎀 game in Makeine is very strong. Not only are there four per uniform, but they color match the ties of their love interests
#animangaFoundIt
I'll be completely honest...I am very suspicious of most mutual aid posts that ask for wide distribution.
So many of them come from accounts that have very, very little organic interaction except for things related to whatever situation they're in. It feels really icky, and like an easy way for scammers to take advantage of the current sociopolitical environment.
I'm sure there are plenty of people who are legitimately in need. I just wish there was a better way to validate that the need is genuine.
Ooooook #Pragmata. Why would you do this to my heart? I was not prepared.
Replying to
@Ragashingo@starside.social @cthellis@urusai.social the show is very self aware and it's one of the reasons I like it (and the books)
Replying to
@lina fwiw Gemini is not good at code and likely wasn't trained to be.
I'm not talking about what they advertise it as. That's a different ethical issue.
If you posed the same request to Claude - assuming a well formed prompt - you'd get much better results. I know this because it has been invaluable in my team's recent work (and, unfortunately, for attackers as well)
Claude is good with code analysis
Gemini is good with data aggregation and reporting
ChatGPT is good with language fabrication and transformation
It's a pet peeve of mine when all models are dismissed because one failed at a specific task.
I'm not trying to defend them - they're all bad in various ways - but I at least want us to be accurate about how we apply our criticisms
I don't always agree with Cory Doctorow, but sometimes his perspective is so deliciously whole in how he sees problems, their causes, and their potential futures, that I can't help but applaud the guy.
Read about why the solutions to AI enshittification may not be what you think, even for those with the best intentions
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2026/jan/18/tech-ai-bubble-burst-reverse-centaur
Replying to
Replying to
@ami_angelwings@urusai.social the ongoing offline interactions and medical shenanigans is an especially convincing touch 🧐
Replying to
@rustyshelf@mastodon.social China govt has teeth and will destroy Apple's production capacity if they push back. This is a direct threat to their business and thus something called "fiduciary responsibility" kicks in and literally requires their leadership to act in the interest of shareholders
The EU has no teeth. They have no way to hurt Apple enough without producing huge backlash. Once again "fiduciary responsibility" dictates that Apple do whatever they can to maximize shareholder profit, which means pushing back when they know they can
It sucks but until the EU figures out a way to really hold Apple's feet to the fire, the law requires this response
Hey #GameDev folks, I'm looking for an artist I can commission to make some very early mockups of the card-game I'm developing.
The images will be used in a seed-funding investor pitch.
I would also love one or two "mood" concept art pieces but that's of lesser importance.
If that sounds like you, or someone you know (and trust), please reach out!
THANKS! :zerotwoheartlove:
Replying to
@futurebird@sauropods.win it was a real struggle picking between 3 & 4 for practical reasons, and 1 for the sheer meme of it
Replying to
@abacabadabacaba@infosec.exchange @lina@vt.social mostly because the incentive to cheat for time is so high and it places an ever increasing burden on the organizers to develop LLM detection methods that are prohibitively cumbersome.
Rules without the ability to enforce them effectively are just guideposts for bad actors
Replying to
@qgustavor@urusai.social @moleSG@urusai.social that's never been a strong argument in my opinion. The only reasonable argument around legality is that the law is a blunt instrument and it's nearly impossible to craft a law that bans this type of artwork without immediately providing the precedent required to ban all sorts of very important, very good art.
"Don't exploit and sexually abuse children" is an easy thing to understand with clear lines. "Don't depict things that cause harm to children" is much, much more nebulous and dangerous if you try to make it a law
Replying to
@moleSG@urusai.social I think the thing that confuses me more than anything is them going out of their way to waste their time on this when we clearly market ourselves as a wholesome weeb community. Like, I'm not out here trying to change laws. I have nuanced opinions about the legality of content. But what on earth makes them think I would change my opinion about what kind of stuff we want in a small weeb community? It's just so silly and pointless
Unchecked chocobo breeding :ElainaYikes:
Happy international mic-check day, everyone!
Replying to
@rustyshelf@mastodon.social p.s. I think the whole thing is fucked up. Fiduciary responsibility is one of the worst things we've ever come up with
Replying to
@pirijan@c.im @rustyshelf@mastodon.social because it's literally the law and they are obligated to follow it? Like, you don't have to personally care about it for their leadership to act based upon it. "I don't care about politics" yeah well the fuckers screwing us all over do.
Unless all you want to do is bitch about Apple, without actually doing anything to stop them.
You know, kinda like the EU.
Replying to
@krushev@hachyderm.io @zbrando@social.vivaldi.net @rustyshelf@mastodon.social The regulatory body exists in the first place is to care on behalf of the consumers, collectively, because consumers individually don't care and get taken advantage of as a result. Consumers care about these things in hindsight, rarely if ever at the time of purchase
Replying to
@zbrando@social.vivaldi.net @elessar@social1.ortolo.eu @rustyshelf@mastodon.social I agree! But they're not just going to do that for funsies.
Perhaps a good long term strategy for the EU would be to aggressively undercut Chinese manufacturing through subsidy until they have the leverage they want.
Embrace, extend, exterminate is a strategy the EU could model their relationship with Apple on if they wanted. Would just take time and investment
Replying to
@zbrando@social.vivaldi.net @rustyshelf@mastodon.social I'll believe it when I see it. And I expect the next two headlines to read "Apple closing all retail stores across Europe" and then "Consumers outraged over EU's Apple fiasco, demand accountability".
Because consumers don't care about alternative app stores. They just want their phones and laptops.
Apple has insane cash-on-hand and could easily outlast any such embargo, IMO
Replying to
@elessar@social1.ortolo.eu @zbrando@social.vivaldi.net @rustyshelf@mastodon.social There is a huge difference between enforcing a universal technical standard on everyone and dictating what types of software must be available for a device
(Edited to clarify "types of software", not a particular program/app)
Replying to
@cthellis@urusai.social it's not a show to me taken very seriously. It's patently absurd at many levels. But it still successfully tells "true" stories. That's the charm :)
Replying to
@elessar@social1.ortolo.eu see my edit; I meant to say "types of software" not specific software.
The ISP situation you're talking about isn't the correct comparison. A more appropriate comparison is the (very common) situation where a legislative body requires that a home be serviceable by more than one service provider, and if they're not, then the single service provider must allow another provider to piggyback on their infrastructure.
And in that scenario, yes, I consider that to be dictating what type of connectivity must be available to the consumer
Replying to
@zbrando@social.vivaldi.net @elessar@social1.ortolo.eu @rustyshelf@mastodon.social unfortunately, because they are incorporated in the US, and traded on American stock exchanges, the fiduciary duty will always apply. They're an American company so their obligations can be dictated by us law
Replying to
@v@merveilles.town @pirijan@c.im @rustyshelf@mastodon.social Please point me at the Fortune 500 company that uses your interpretation instead of "make money, more more more more money!" I'm happy to point you at cases where people were successfully sued for violating the law on this
Replying to
@elessar@social1.ortolo.eu we're talking about allowing alternative app stores (see OP) on their platform. That's software
Replying to
@zbrando@social.vivaldi.net @elessar@social1.ortolo.eu @rustyshelf@mastodon.social ..... Dude, you can have a company be bound by the laws regarding corporate malfeasance where they're based and also be bound by the laws of the country they're operating in while there. They're not mutually exclusive. It can be both. And it is.
Replying to
@zbrando@social.vivaldi.net @elessar@social1.ortolo.eu @rustyshelf@mastodon.social it is in this case because it's not a question of where they're doing business, but where their stock is traded. An American company, with stock traded on an American stock exchange, with American shareholders is bound by American laws when it comes to the relationship between the company and the shareholders
Replying to
@elessar@social1.ortolo.eu bruh, I worked for an android OEM and have been rooting/jailbreaking phones since the second ever Android phone (t-mo mytouch). And building PCs, and generally tinkering since long before that. I know exactly what is required. They aren't resistant because it's difficult. They resist because it's profitable
Replying to
@zbrando@social.vivaldi.net @elessar@social1.ortolo.eu @rustyshelf@mastodon.social Those are WILDLY different scenarios in COMPLETELY different segments of industry. Hardware manufacturing and sales is not the same as website accessibility
Replying to
@elessar@social1.ortolo.eu bruh, did you even read what I wrote? That's not what we're talking about right now. I just replied to you in another fork with the same point: this is a thread about why Apple pushes back on reasonable EU requests but doesn't push back on unreasonable China requests.
And on that subject, I stick by my answers above
Replying to
@zbrando@social.vivaldi.net @elessar@social1.ortolo.eu @rustyshelf@mastodon.social Better for whom? For consumers? For the company's brand? For long-term shareholders? Short-term shareholders?
That's the problem. Our legal system strongly incentivizes Apple executives to prioritize the interests of short-term shareholders - people who want to make money fast - over everyone else. This is true for more reasons than just fiduciary duty, for what it's worth.
Apple's original sin was working with Foxconn in the first place, instead of refusing on the grounds that it would irreparably damage their brand. Could've made a good argument back then. Too late now
Replying to
@elessar@social1.ortolo.eu @zbrando@social.vivaldi.net @rustyshelf@mastodon.social But that's not what this conversation was about. Go back to the OP I replied to. This is about Apple pushing back against the EU when they don't push back against China.
I'm trying to tell you all that it's because the Chinese government has shown to be a far greater potential threat to their business than the EU has, and all anyone wants to talk about is how "it's so easy, and reasonable, and they could just..., they should just ..."
Like, I get it, and I don't disagree, but that is not how businesses are run. Proof is in the pudding, as they say
Replying to
@elessar@social1.ortolo.eu @zbrando@social.vivaldi.net @rustyshelf@mastodon.social Yes, if you could find evidence that there was research conducted that showed exactly what you're saying - that they would only receive a fine, and the fine would be less than the profit, and there would be no brand image damage, and it wouldn't effect their sales, etc etc - then they would have a duty to do so.
It IS super fucked up. The language of the law is so broad that it creates fucked up situations like that. If you can show that when all is said and done, doing X would be in the best interests of the shareholders, that's what they have to do
It's insane. But that's how it is
Replying to
@zbrando@social.vivaldi.net @elessar@social1.ortolo.eu @rustyshelf@mastodon.social No. They can't. If there is internal research showing their current strategy is more profitable then they are literally required by law to continue down this path or expose themselves to lawsuits from shareholders. They don't even have to lose the lawsuits to be screwed. If there are enough of them that don't get thrown out as frivolous, the leadership would crumble just from the legal costs. Remember, it wouldn't be Apple that gets sued in that situation, but the individuals making the decisions
Replying to
@blogdiva@mastodon.social @nazokiyoubinbou@urusai.social Not to say you're wrong, but other interactions that are not DMs include boost, bookmark, share, and translate.
So it's not like this implicitly means DMs are included, as it would if DMs were the only other type of interaction
Replying to
@zbrando@social.vivaldi.net @elessar@social1.ortolo.eu @rustyshelf@mastodon.social Also don't forget that their relationship with China isn't just that of OEM and consumer audience. China is where most of their hardware is manufactured. Souring that relationship could cost shareholders billions if they're forced to go elsewhere for manufacturing
Replying to
@elessar@social1.ortolo.eu That's....not really the point though? I know that, yes, but I'm not sure how it's relevant to the conversation at hand.
Like, I agree with you that for the sake of consumers, they ought not be allowed to prevent sideloading apps, but this conversation is about enforcement and Apple's willingness to comply with different requirements from different governments