BraveSirZaphod

If something is possible, and this simply indeed is, someone is going to develop it regardless of how we feel about it, so it's important for non-malicious actors to make people aware of the potential negative impacts so we can start to develop ways to handle them before actively malicious actors start deploying it.

Critical businesses and governments need to know that identity verification via video and voice is much less trustworthy than it used to be, and so if you're currently doing that, you need to mitigate these risks. There are tools, namely public-private key cryptography, that can be used to verify identity in a much tighter way, and we're probably going to need to start implementing them in more places.

That is not at all what right to work means.

I get the frustration, but if you're going to criticize a thing, it's a lot more effective if you actually know what the thing is.

You're never going to get an honest answer to this question, but props for asking it anyway.

Maybe you can run the servers and pay the engineers with good vibes or praxis?

That other org is literally Hamas.

Meta will probably be pretty cautious and strict about what inbound content is allowed, since they have a global quagmire of laws and regulations to comply with and cannot just open up the firehose without significant legal risk. I'd imagine they'd only accept content from vetted instances that agree to some amount of common policy.

In which case you essentially return to the status quo right now, where the Fediverse is a small group of somewhat-ideological tech enthusiasts.

To compare forced labor camps where the alternative is being murdered to people making the active choice to volunteer to serve as moderators is a comparison so lacking in perspective that I'd expect to only find it on Reddit, but I guess Lemmy has managed to foster the same kind of behavior.

Are you going to compare Reddit killing the API to the Holocaust next?

He'd be gone by lunchtime.

Why?

There's this narrative that Israel is completely dependent on US aid and would be powerless without it, but I don't think that's obviously true. What military is going to meaningfully threaten them? Jordan has no interest in another giant wave of Palestinian migrants (given that the last one led to a coup attempt), nor does it have a significant military. Lebanon hardly has a genuine government. Syria is a mess. Egypt does have some legitimate power, but also has no interest in a massive war right next to them.

The only regional power capable of meaningfully threatening Israel is Iran, and Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Sunni coalition do not want massive expansion of Iranian influence.

Not to mention, Israel has already defeated all of its neighbors, simultaneously, twice. I'm fairly confident that the only thing that would actually happen if the US stopped sending aid is a bit of a dent in the Israeli economy.

This is just exposing that you don't actually read the New York Times.

Here's an article on the plight of Gazans in Rafah in the face of a potential Israeli invasion.

Here's an overview on the gang situation in Haiti as the government is functionally collapsing.

And here's an article discussing the increasingly common practice of restaurants charging significant cancellation fees.

Meanwhile, the NY Post has such great stories as:

• Kate Middleton officially hits rock bottom
• Rudy Giuliani's ex engaged to Palm Beach energy exec after six months of dating in 'whirlwind romance' (Exclusive!)
• Unions want full control of schools and our kids — we can't let Albany allow it
• Activists lobbying to 'morally' allow trans kids to change their bodies are only doing more harm

My point isn't that he's a good guy. I'm saying that he's not Tom Cotton, and if you don't think that's a meaningful difference, you don't pay much attention to the Senate.

The consequence is that he is not a total simp for Trump the way most of the rest of the party is. Aid to Ukraine has been a very large division, to name one example.

The government's main desire is to increase the number of licenses handed out, since Korea's population is aging and more and more doctors will be needed. Current doctors are less than thrilled about that, since more doctors means more competition and lower pay for them. To quote the article,

About 9,000 medical interns and residents have stayed off the job since early last week to protest a government plan to increase medical school admissions by about 65%

If you expect most of them to cave - and facing license suspension I'd imagine most would - then losing a relative handful of doctors that will be more than replaced within a few years is worth it from the government's perspective.