QBittorrent breaks out of sandbox to commit crimes

Bold of you to assume it wouldn't be a direct ticket to the new gulag in El Salvador.

People are not charged with hacking when their unsecured box is taken over by a botnet and does bad stuff.

I also keep coming back to this, and I find it harder and harder a fact to live with. It's not a conspiracy theory, we're not crazy for pointing it out, and worse, there are people here I read about constantly what-abouting and number gaming and "well what would you have done?"ing like somehow the destruction of the concept of equal justice isn't just happening, but happening inside the bloody industry that feeds them, clothes them, gives them bonuses and retirements and the ability to even think a future, going off the grid, "retiring early from a smart exit" whatever.

I am finding this community is sadly making me hate my industry specialization more and more and it's because of this.

My magic wand would be waving it at those humans to force them to suddenly and powerfully experience their version of an overview effect in their lives so they would simply STOP working for FAANGYWANGY companies and just say, honestly and humbly and painfully: "I am contributing to the downfall of society by complicity feeding a malicious herd of whales."

I gave up a number of big jobs and stocks and money because the people I met were wretched. I am a massively imperfect person, but by all that I can, I refuse to build the torment nexus.

I have met too many people that want to work for the company that does, and those people put these hyperscalers, as you call them, into positions where they can influence an entire planet of humans on a whim.

I literally dream of a world sometimes where Elon wakes up and finds out no one takes his call, no one reads his tweets, no one even hands him a cup of coffee at a shop. I imagine this for a lot of people in the world.

That sounds like a world trying to rid itself of parasites and evolve toward a brighter future. I want to be in it.

Anyway.

Science and stuff I guess.

The really incredible thing is that my computers were already doing similar stuff before LLMs became really a thing... In the BBS days.

Later on they downloaded mp3s from Napster which my computers auto-installed.

And now I gotta say: LLMs and agents at my place are acting like in TFA, downloading movies and series and setting them up in my Plex and JellyFin instances.

Thankfully they've not found a way to share those with the world yet.

Let’s remember to follow the rules and the laws we want selectively applied to only the weak.

Relevant (NSFW):

> Guns don't kill people, I kill people - with guns

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC03hmS1Brk

:-D

1. my qBittorrent client pirated content without me intending it or taking any irresponsible actions that could reasonably be expected to cause it

2. my chatbot illegally infiltrated servers without me intending it or taking any irresponsible actions that could reasonably be expected to cause it

3. my firearm killed a person without me intending it or taking any irresponsible actions that could reasonably be expected to cause it

Individuals in isolation will be demonized for having only their singular interests in mind.

Not sure what the poster of the mastodon’s tweet was??

That’s not how things work. There is one set of rules for us and another set of rules for the oligarchy and their corporate vehicles. It’s just like the Taliban legal code (see above) where the closer you are to the top the more lenient and ‘understanding’ the system.

Edit: worth a pull quote

Article 9 explicitly divides Afghan society into hierarchical categories based on social status, including religious scholars (ulema), elites such as tribal leaders and merchants (ashraf), the middle class, and the so-called lower class, assigning different forms and levels of punishment accordingly. This structure grants partial or full impunity to privileged groups while subjecting marginalized individuals to harsher penalties.

Dogs breaks out of its enclosure, there is no way to stop or predict that!

Zero responsibility! Zero punishment!

https://www.uschamber.com/technology/data-privacy/impacts-of...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPzJjNQaYEA

For animation I want to be looking at and appreciating the animation and not the subtitles also.

It's completely different for a live action film however.

The AI arguments I've seen are instead usually justifying it like this: "We're democratizing those skills. You shouldn't have to learn art/writing/coding or pay someone else in order make what you imagine. Therefore, training AI on pirated stuff is worth it for the greater good." So the fact that it will result in artists not getting paid is unavoidable and much harder to ignore in that line of thinking.

To be fair, you can have it both ways. If you buy-and-pirate, and you buy 4 UHDs per year or 10 albums per year, you've put more money into the industry than the average streamer. Admittedly, buying-and-pirating isn't as commonly done for movies and TV as it is for music, but that can be explained by the increased DRM and lock-in.

There is all the difference in the world between the scenarios. The argument's popularity seems to be born in the argument, more popular on HN, that American white / Christian / males (or some subset of those factors) face discrimination by programs to benefit minorities / women.

What is the difference? It is power. Punching up or protecting the politically vulnerable is a completely different act than punching down or empowering the already powerful and oppressing the vulnerable. Punching down causes the vulnerable to be oppressed (jailed or otherwise restricted in who, where, what, when, etc they can do and be), impoverished, and killed - by definition, they are vulnerable. The powerful have their power challenged, which is many times appropriate among free people where 'all are created equal' and have the same rights.

In the case of artistic media - songs, books, etc. - private people downloading art to use it as art are spreading art and empowering themselves at the expense of powerful interest who have seized control of the art. That's much different than powerful people taking the art to increase their own profit and power, and to significantly displace and distort the art.

(I'm oversimplifying for these purposes: The fact that artists don't get paid by the former, and that it's anarchy used for bad things too, are serious problems.)

> socialistic

You're giving away your biases. Only a certain group calls everything they don't like 'socialism'. It's libertarianism or anarchism. Socialists might say, for example, the state should control distribution of media.