shiri

@Murdoc Oh yeah! And that’s how “regenerative braking” works!

@taladar @Jeraxus It’s a Guinness World Record for number of tires per year (ongoing record holder), in volume they don’t remotely compete.

@shootwhatsmyname Two parts, the easier to chew is that Microphones are basically just speakers wired backwards.

The second part is Solar Panels are basically just LEDs wired backwards.

(In both cases there’s a lot of design work around them to make them better at one task than the other, but the technology is still the same)

@lauha @shootwhatsmyname Special interests

@Tsun In the US there’s little to gain really, being autistic is both for and against you and formal diagnosis applies to both ends equally.

It gets used in child custody hearings to take children away from parents, conservatorships to take away our rights, etc.

And for accommodations, depends on your state. Half the country has “at-will-employment” laws, which practically means you have zero protections, so a diagnosis doesn’t offer much help there.

@cogitoprinciple Yeah, unfortunately it rules me out of having any information since I’m in the US

@cogitoprinciple it’ll help a lot if you edit to include what country you’re in

@r3df0x @SuddenDownpour That’s not remotely what this is referring to and it makes me wonder if you read the article at all?

They were comparing public vs private actions of allistics vs autistics and basically determined that autistics are more likely to be charitable/kind without needing recognition or attention to it.

The real findings:
* We’re less likely to differ our choices based on whether or not they’re perceived
* We’re more kind by default

What you’re talking about is a separate, but also common thing, called fawning. A trauma response that many of us also have in which we do whatever we think a person wants to avoid perceived threats and harm, even if that action itself causes us further harm.

This test did not examine fawning and did not examine charity at great personal cost. It was just whether or not someone would act charitably at personal expense or uncharitably at personal gain… an allistics basically were only good when people were watching while autistics were consistent regardless.

@nichtsowichtig @teraflopsweat “Scripting” is a common tool for us, though in most cases it’s just rehearsing lines and establishing conversation patterns and flows.

Groups like this are also great places to get together and workshop communication ideas, from figuring out something accessible to say to get your needs met to other forms of communication, or even just validation when there isn’t a reasonable way forward.

@Brkdncr @KasanMoor for reference, mailgun offers a free tier for <5k emails a month. It’s what I use for email from any of my servers.

www.mailgun.com/products/send/…

@Brkdncr
Or if you’re low volume just use a free/cheap relay
@KasanMoor

@Brkdncr @KasanMoor I don’t think they care about incoming port 25, the blocking being talked about is outgoing 25.

@Harrison ::face palm:: thank you for calling that out, I’m so used to correcting fellow americans on copyright

@fwygon all questions of how AI learns aside, it’s not legally theft but philosophically the topic is debatable and very hot button.

I can however comment pretty well on your copyright comments which are halfway there, but have a lot of popular inaccuracies.

Fair use is a very vague topic, and they explicitly chose to not make explicit terms on what is allowed but rather the intents of what is to be allowed. We’ve got some firm ones not because of specific laws but from abundance of case evidence.

* Educational; so long as it is taught as a part of a recognized class and within curriculum.
* Informational; so long as it is being distributed to inform the public about valid, reasonable public interests. This is far broader than some would like; but it is legal.
* Narrative or Commentary purposes; so long as you’re not copying a significant amount of the whole content and passing it off as your own. Short clips with narration and lots of commentary interwoven between them is typically protected. Copyright is not intended to be used to silence free speech. This also tends to include satire; as long as it doesn’t tread into defamation territory.

These are basically all the same category and includes some misinformation about what it does and does not cover. It’s permitted to make copies for purely informational, public interest (ie. journalistic) purposes. This would include things like showing a clip of a movie or a trailer to make commentary on it.

Education doesn’t get any special treatment here, but research might (ie. making copies that are kept to a restricted environment, and only used for research purposes, this is largely the protection that AI models currently fall under because the training data uses copyrighted data but the resulting model does not).

* Transformative; so long as the content is being modified in a substantial enough manner that it is an entirely new work that is not easily confused for the original. This too, is far broader than some would like; but it still is legal.

“Easily confused” is a rule from Trademark Law, not copyright. Copyright doesn’t care about consumer confusion, but does care about substitution. That is, if the content could be a substitute for the original (ie. copying someone else’s specific painting is going to be a violation up until the point where it can only be described as “inspired by” the painting)

* Reasonable, ‘Non-Profit Seeking or Motivated’ Personal Use; People are generally allowed to share things amongst themselves and their friends and other acquaintances. Reasonable backup copies, loaning of copies, and even reproduction and presentation of things are generally considered fair use.

This is a very very common myth that gets a lot of people in trouble. Copyright doesn’t care about whether you profit from it, more about potential lost profits.

Loaning is completely disconnected from copyright because no copies are being made (“digital loaning” is a nonsense attempt to claiming loaning, but is just “temporary” copying which is a violation).

Personal copies are permitted so long as you keep the original copy (or the original copy is explicitly irrecoverably lost or destroyed) as you already acquired it and multiple copies largely are just backups or conversions to different formats. The basic gist is that you are free to make copies so long as you don’t give any of them to anyone else (if you copy a DVD and give either the original or copy to a friend, even as a loan, it’s illegal).

It’s not good to rely on it being “non-profit” as a copyright excuse, as that’s more just an area of leniency than a hard line. People far too often thing that allows them to get away with copying things, it’s really just for topics like making backups of your movies or copying your CDs to mp3s.

… All that said, fun fact: AI works are not covered by copyright law.

To be copyrighted a human being must actively create the work. You can copyright things made with AI art, but not the AI art itself (ie. a comic book made with AI art is copyrighted, but the AI art in the panels is not, functioning much like if you made a comic book out of public domain images). Prompts and set up are not considered enough to allow for copyright (example case was a monkey picking up a camera and taking pictures, those pictures were deemed unable to be copyrighted because despite the photographer placing the camera… it was the monkey taking the photos).

@jarfil @Shialac “How are you?” “Forever hating that question, you?”

@BilboBargains @MadgePickles … I kinda want to steal that one because it’s brutal and beautiful

@Caesium @MadgePickles Taking calls for my job I’ve developed “I’m doing alright, how can I help you?”… internally it’s my own “fuck your formality, get to the point”

@apophis @Zeth0s @Worx but the fact that we even have to think that much to establish the patterns like that… oof

But also very similar to my answers as well

@Zeth0s @SRo it’s because we fundamentally process language and interactions in a different way, our brains aren’t wired for “small talk” or non-meaningful communication. Also the example earlier of context mattering where sometimes they might be asking with sincere interest and it can be catastrophic to fall back on a pattern like that.

And that’s simply because we’re either following an unnatural pattern that we’ve jury-rigged together from years of painful trial and error or we’re thinking much harder about the words being said than you are.

We call this masking and it’s a severe drain on our mental resources every single day and it’s why it’s claimed that we have a social problems (claimed because those problems completely disappear when interacting with fellow autistics, they’re considered problems only because the majority expect us to do all the work of accommodating them and none of the work themselves).

Also, hi/hello are different from “what’s up?” and “how’re you?” despite being used the same by allistics (non-autistics). Hello is purely an acknowledgement, it doesn’t even need to lead to a conversation, it’s just basically saying “I know you are there and recognize you as a person”.

Think of it like this: if you’re in a dark house and hear a sound… do you say “what’s up?” or “Hello?”

The others are formalities, evolved originally from real interest eventually into empty phrases. It has a lot to do with how allistics connect socially vs autistics.

We’ve recently begun to unravel the fact that allistics connect their social interactions and relationships to their identity while autistics connect values and actions. Because of that, I believe allistics put a lot more meaning into the form of an interaction than into the actual things accomplished in it.

“How’re you?” was originally an expression genuinely asking someone about their day, a genuine expression of caring. However, since it became associated with caring it eventually became a formality, a shape of conversation in which “Hello” became seen as cold and uncaring… so everyone changed their patterns of speech for it and felt it much warmer… despite dropping what actually made it warm.

Us autistics however, we often struggle with casual lying because we care intrinsically about our actions, even the small perceived as meaningless ones. When we ask how someone is, we have the intent of asking that question.

Small talk is all about the “form” of the interaction. It’s tied to allistic identity in that allistics typically seem to define themselves by the forms of their interactions. Autistics however couldn’t care less about the form if nothing actually happens in it because we tie our identity to the actual things happening.

An allistic might consider themselves caring if their interactions take a caring tone and form… and they’re often right (but not always, there’s always that person everyone humors but can’t stand). An autistic however might consider themselves caring based on the individual elements of the conversation, what was actually talked about and what happened during the conversation (ie. the person opened up, became less stressed, you got an update on what was going on, you were able to share inspiration, etc)

@SuddenDownpour Pathologizing aside, this matches up with another thing I’ve seen pointed out as an autistic trait that backs this up: value based identity vs group based identity.

Allistics typically tie their identity up in the groups they’re a part of: family, work, church, town/city/state, etc

Autistics tie our identity up in our values: what we do, impacts we’ve made, accomplishments tied to our values

This is why you hear things like “snitches get stitches” because group loyalty is considered more critically important than values, or how we’re seen as turning on the group when we call out how the group could be improved.

This would especially make sense in the mentioned study because when you take away the group it takes away the impact to their identity while our identities don’t care if someone is watching.