The answer to 'I don't agree with this' is not 'do something that lets me bypass it while they do it to everyone else until it becomes normalized' it is 'make them stop doing it'.
Some places that would do face recognition would not do gait analysis, and so you defeat those. Additionally, if you prevent them from doing face recognition and they can do gait recognition, they will be forced to use gait recognition, which is likely more expensive or less reliable, which will limit their ability to do it in a widespread fashion or cost them more to do so.
Think of it like cloudflare in reverse. The less of your identity you passively provide cloudflare, the more they will hinder and punish you and your CPU before letting you through to the website. If they make it burdensome enough, you may give in and give over your private data or not access the website at all.
It’s unreliable and difficult. The most recent failure (made the news) was the laughable attempt to link the J6 bomber to a random police officer. Gait analysis belongs in the movies or maybe in some one-off national security investigation where nothing else is available.
I don't know your financial situation but a N95 mask can't cost you more than 10$? I can find 10 packs for less than 10$.
You can even reuse your shopping mask since you primary point is privacy and not air borne pathogens.
Yes, in the same way stored passwords of today may eventually be broken by the quantum computing tools of tomorrow.
The post I replied to implied that gait analysis is a viable alternative option. Gait analysis is not an option today, or this year, or even in the next decade. There is no data supporting the claim that it can be done reliably enough to get down to practical reidentification use cases.
Lol. Why should we make car ownership fair? I want cars to reveal facts about the world. I don't think it would serve that goal to forbid people from stealing your car.
HN did not ban it, the community flagged it. I started flagging these threads because people started playing the victim and did not offer anything other than spamming the same thing over and over. If a topic gets flagged, wait 6 or 12 hours instead of 6 or 12 seconds and try again, that is often all it takes.
Are you saying the topic itself is flaggable (a media outlet self-censoring)? Or are you saying that you take issue with the people posting comments in the threads — and so therefore flag the topic?
The methods left me feeling fairly confident that if a thread survived on the front page with the people currently online, it would be a shitshow. Wait a few hours before posting or email the mods.
A) Firing a CEO because there is an immediate, massive public shaming of them is entirely rational from a business perspective
B) This is the hill you want to die on? That being a bigot should be a protected status for CEOs?
> This is the hill you want to die on? That being a bigot should be a protected status for CEOs?
That is a wildly uncharitable take. I'm not OP, but I believe that nobody, CEOs or otherwise, should be fired for their activities outside of work. That can be political beliefs, but doesn't have to be either. And yes, that means that sometimes someone whose beliefs you find repugnant is going to have a good job. That is the price of a free society, and I think it's worth it.
Imagine, instead, the opinion he expressed outside of work is that Firefox sucks and nobody should use it. Should he be fired then?
As a CEO, your opinion and perspective is MARKETING. You determine if customers stay or leave. And causing customers to leave is obviously a fireable offense.
So Subway should bring back Jared and Jello should bring back Cosby? Freedom is not a one-way street that guarantees the right to be awful without social consequences.
The words "bigot" and "racist" have been so overused that they've lost all meaning. "Fascist" is not all that far behind. In a recent interview, Nick Fuentes (much more deserving of the bigot label than Eich) openly said he's a racist. I suspect he lost 0 supporters by doing this. Abusing the language like this has consequences - not good ones.
Definition of bigot from Oxford Languages: a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
Explain how the word isn't being used according to its definition.
> Nick Fuentes openly said he's a racist.
Do you doubt him? In March 2025, he said, "Jews are running society, women need to shut the fuck up, Blacks need to be imprisoned for the most part, and we would live in paradise ... White men need to run the household, they need to run the country, they need to run the companies. They just need to run everything, it's that simple. It's literally that simple."
> I suspect he lost 0 supporters by doing this.
You seem to believe that his supporters think he isn't actually racist.
I think GP's point isn't that Fuentes isn't racist, it's that the term "racist" lost a lot of its bite precisely because it was thrown around so recklessly and applied to people who obviously weren't "bad guys". So now you can actually go and openly say things like "I'm racist" and mean it, and there's still plenty of people who don't see a problem with that.
> So now you can actually go and openly say things like "I'm racist" and mean it, and there's still plenty of people who don't see a problem with that.
My point is that the people (Fuentes supporters) that he said see no problem with that are racists themselves, or why would they be Fuentes supporters? That's his whole schtick. They don't see a problem with him saying racist things, so why would they see a problem with him directly admitting he is a racist? https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/conservative-writer-says...
This is a bad-faith argument, but even if I were to indulge it: human artists can/do get sued for mimicing the works of others for profit, which AI precisely does. Secondly, many of the works in question have explicit copyright terms that prohibit derivative works. They have built a multi-billion dollar industry on scaled theft. I don't see a more charitable interpretation.
You can't call something a bad-faith argument just because you disagree with it. I mean, you can, but it's not at all convincing.
As I said, if AI companies reproduce copyrighted works, they should be sued, just like a human artist would be. I haven't experienced that in my interactions with LLMs, but I've never really tried to achieve that result either. I don't really pirate anymore, but torrents are a much easier and cheaper way to do copyright infringement than using an AI tool.
LLMs don’t have to be able to mimic things. And go ahead and sue OpenAI and Anthropic! It won’t bother me at all. Fleece those guys. Take their money. It won’t stop LLMs, even if we bankrupted OpenAI and Anthropic.
This argument warrants introspection for "crusty devs", but also has holes. A compiler is tightly engineered and dependable. I have never had to write assembly because I know that my compiled code 100% represents my abstract code and any functional problems are in my abstract code. That is not true in AI coding. Additionally, AI coding is not just an abstraction over code, but an abstraction over understanding. When my code compiles, I don't need to worry that the compiler misunderstood my intention.
I'm not saying AI is not a useful abstraction, but I am saying that it is not a trustworthy one.
Exactly. All of the people in comments here thinking this has any impact on right to repair or open source are thoroughly kidding themselves. Lawmakers don't get out of bed in the morning to fight for nerds or the working class.
reply