It would depend on the jurisdiction obviously, but I believe most of those points are irrelevant.

• An arbitration clause is just a preference, it doesn’t mean you can’t resolve a disagreement in some way.
• Just because a contract typically binds both people to some requirements doesn’t mean it always has to be that way. An agreement can be one-sided. In the case of EULAs though, there is the requirement on the company to provide you with the software and allow you to use it for as long as the EULA is in effect.
• I doubt an agreement has to identify both individuals in the actual text. The key aspect is whether both parties agree to the terms and whether it can be shown that the individuals agreed to them after the fact.

As far as signing goes, I know that in my country (Sweden) a verbal agreement is legally just as good as a written signature - it’s just harder to prove in court. Contract law typically recognizes the ability to agree electronically, and in EULAs the agreement is made by using the software. Again, YMMV by country. My original claim that they’re typically illegal was about the actual terms of the agreement, which often conflict with written law. For example in the EU you have a right to reverse engineer products for the sake of interoperability, and no EULA can override that right.

In Sweden there’s also a law to allow you to make personal backups of media and software, and you’re permitted to give copies to your friends and family. In fact, there’s a state-regulated “private copying levy” designed to compensate content owners for their monetary loss caused by this copying. Which really infuriates me considering the lengths they go to to prevent me from doing the copying that I’m paying them for the right to do.

As far as I can tell that’s not at all the case in Sweden where I live, in fact geriatric or slow drivers are very rarely involved in accidents. Intoxicated drivers are extremely rare compared to most other countries. See e.g. https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/sweden-road-safety.pdf which says “Inappropriate speed is one of the leading causes of road crashes”. You can find more research saying similar things on Google, e.g. that for every 10 km/h increase, the risk of an accident increases by 33 percent.

But it’s not just a matter of having a high overall speed. It’s also how quickly you accelerate / break. BMW/Audio/Tesla drivers have a high capacity for acceleration and they use it e.g. to overtake in situations when others wouldn’t. I suspect the cause/effect is the other way around though: if you’re a reckless driver who doesn’t care about safety, you’re more likely to choose a car that has a lot of power.

I’m sure that’s one contributing factor, but I’d bet that the biggest issue is that the car is made to go fast. People who drive faster end up in more accidents. Hence why Audi / BMW drivers are also stereotypically bad drivers - they are both brands with a high-acceleration profile.

Indeed and it seems attainable now, if it weren’t for the expensive hardware and massive energy required for general pre-trained transformers. Don’t want my car to call home just to run a neural network on Azure, it needs to run locally.

TIL you can have text formatting in headlines on Lemmy. Cool! …I think.

Especially when the buttons move around in the GUI after an update so you accidentally press the wrong ones, or end up having to search the menus while driving.

Perhaps this could change when we have mainstream tactile displays, but until then buttons will always be better.

An upvote would have sufficed to communicate as much

Where I live, they’re almost always in contradiction with the laws.

you’re mom

The Monster product placement was tone deaf and took away so much from the immersion. IMHO it almost ruined the experience.

I’m a long-time software developer who at one point spent a lot of time on a software synth as a hobby project (never finished it as I realized it had fundamental design flaws). I’m also interested in making music (but still suck at it), follow various producers on YouTube and dabble with Ableton. Here are some things that puzzle me:

Latency seems inevitable, regardless of how fast your CPU or code is. Many algorithms simply require a certain window of input data before they can produce something. For example, an FFT with a window size of 2048 requires 2048 samples (~50 milliseconds) before it can react. Chain multiple such filters together and it adds up. In my hobby project I wanted to make a “reverse reverb” module (buffer data, reverse it, apply reverb, then reverse audio again to get an effect as if the sound is “arriving”) and I could never wrap my head around how to do it. It could potentially add a latency of tens of seconds. How can we deal with this in the audio pipeline? It seems like for prerecorded or generated audio, it should be possible to consume data ahead of time to make the output come out at the right time. But all of the modules need to be synchronized so e.g. a drum comes out at the right time along all paths.

Typically analog synths have lower latency, but I don’t understand why. Aren’t they theoretically subject to the same limitations as a digital synth? Even an analog filter would need some kind of buffer to determine frequency. It’s like Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle but for sound. So how does that work, and how can we replicate the low latency of analog synths in software synths?

I lack an intuition about sound synthesis and it all seems very magical, so I wish somebody would help me untangle the relationship between what I hear and what the algorithm does. I mean it’s easy to look up algorithms for producing audio, but I don’t know how to apply those algorithms to incrementally work my way toward the sound I’m looking for in my head. As a developer I have an analytical mindset, and most producers I follow seem to go more on feeling (which is difficult to me). I have a hunch that a lot of what they talk about is just placebo, but I don’t know how I would test that assertion. For example, there are people who compare the different sounds of Ableton’s Operator and Serum, as if they are different beasts. But both are FM synths; it’s the same maths behind them. So why would they have different sound? With all the FM synths that are out there, what are the things that actually separate them to produce different “feeling”?

In fact, speaking of FM synths, they are one of the biggest mysteries for me. I know what they do mathematically, but I need help understanding why someone chose to build a synth in this particular way and how they tame it to get the sound they want. It just seems like a really chaotic way to work for me, only slightly better than a random number generator.

Perhaps it would be interesting as a case study to try to replicate some of these commercial software synths by stitching together basic algorithms covered in the manual.

That sounds like a great idea. There was a recent Kurzgesagt video about how similarity encourages us to work together, but this breaks down on the Internet where people are too different from one another.

Stupid comparison, we are not computers.

Yes we are, just more complicated computers. As for deterrent, I don’t think it’s actually working that way. It just pushes him to dig his feet in more.

Thus far in this thread I have suggested:

1. Regulation to put a leash on Musk (and other billionaires), preventing him from e.g. treating his workers badly.
2. Welcoming him into environments where he will come in contact with “normal” people who are emotionally mature and have enough compassion to validate his concerns but who can also give balanced pushback and help him realize the negative effects his actions are having on society.

I’m sure there are other things that can be done if people are willing to sit down and think about what effects they want and how to achieve them.

To elaborate on #2, he’s not going to listen to people if they don’t first show that they understand what he’s worried about. I believe Musk’s ideals are very focused on optimizing for societal output, and that individuals (including himself) are expendable. He views society as an anthill, every human being just a cell in a larger body. Someone needs to help him realize that there are better metrics for a society, such as quality of life. I don’t think he has ever experienced what that’s like because he’s never spent time in a healthy family where there is love, and where just being together is good enough. The only value he has ever known is whether you are producing something of material value. He needs to relearn. Ideally we’d convince him to voluntarily get therapy.

You’re right, it’s a bit silly to claim that people don’t make choices. I use the word “choice” all the time for something that I believe is happening in me and in others. The AI in a computer game also makes choices, every if/else statement in a piece of software is a choice. It comes down to what people mean with the word. What I disagree with is the notion that there’s something ethereal happening that decides if a person “deserves” to be spit and kicked on - just on account of them being morally reprehensible and not based on any meaningful analysis of what would improve the situation.

but your solution is we sit with a sock in our mouth because it’s so very mean to tell Elon he’s a cunt “because he has no choice”.

That’s misrepresenting what I’m saying. I’m absolutely not saying that we should just let him go on because he has no choice. That would be like letting an alligator roam free in the city because “it’s just doing what alligators do.” But to kick and spit on the alligator “because it’s evil” isn’t a good strategy either.

I’m saying Elon is a problem, and to fix the problem we should analyze what is causing the problem and devise a rational plan of action that will mitigate that as much as possible. At its core it’s a question of mindset - are you just letting your anger out because he’s the devil, or are you keeping a cool head and thinking about how to attack the problem at its root. Ultimately the goal should be to make the future better, not to exact retribution for the past.

The part about not being mean is not because I think he should be excused from his actions. It’s because I think that being mean is counterproductive. It’s pushing him further into the hole where we don’t want him to be.

It’s like debugging a computer program: we don’t yell and curse at the program for having bugs; we try to figure out what is causing the bugs and fix them without being overcome by emotion.

Yes, I did not mean to give the impression that it is everybody on the internet. There has even been a couple of times after arguing for a while that people have come off the spell and literally said something like “I thought you were just a troll, I didn’t understand you were asking the question genuinely”. But these are exceptions, unfortunately. I wish good faith was the norm.

I don’t consume much right-wing content. This is mostly from interacting with people online who identify as left wing/woke, e.g. on Reddit, Twitter and TikTok.

Free will has nothing to do with the ability to be influenced, in fact you might even say the opposite is closer to reality. The more predictable something is, the easier it is to influence it. I’m sure you agree that your computer has no free will, and you can easily get it to do different things just by clicking the mouse.

So what’s the rationale for dunking on an idiot? Do you believe that people shitting on Musk on Twitter will actually cause him to be more woke and compassionate toward others?

I interpret it as the time taken to render a frame. Unlike FPS which is basically a moving average (or rather 1 divided by the average frame time), frame time is a single data point. Collecting frame times allows you to do things like compute the median or, in this case, the lowest 1% of the frame times. That can give you a better idea of how smooth performance appears to the player, and what the worst-case performance is like.

My experience has been that people on the Internet don’t try to teach you new things. They just attack your person, make unsubstantiated claims, or make overly broad references like “go read a book.” Even when you just ask questions without making any claims of your own, they will assume that you’re implying some disagreement with them instead of taking the question at face value. It’s extremely frustrating.