I recall reading about a murder case where the blood of the killer was preserved back when DNA sampling technology was nonexistent and the court knew the identity of the killer but couldn't prove it. A decade later the same blood sample was tested when DNA fingerprint became viable and matched with the killer, proving him guilty.
I can understand your reasoning now. Knowing some trace of my DNA could be preserved for years or decades just to profile me on a molecular level seems sufficiently dystopian. Thanks for letting me know
Could you tell me more on why having the DNA of a person is a "privacy endgame"? I don't have much knowledge on DNA sampling and applications like in 23andMe, but isn't it ultimately used for identification? Government IDs like SSN seem to already hold all information about you and your relation with others. Besides if they are so keen on collecting your DNA, they could just collect it without your knowledge from the places you stay or work at or anywhere in between.
I just shifted my entire workspace from brave to waterfox a few weeks ago! Now I have to do it again...
I know Librewolf exists, but I have reserved it for only personal and private use. I also know I could use containers too but my work use requires websites where I need the canvas API and DRM, and I don't want to unharden my Librewolf installation for them which is why I want to store my 'work' workspace in a separate browser altogether. Is there some other Firefox fork I could use for desktop?
I unironically have a wallpaper just like that. I love taking screenshots of games I play and putting them on my desktop. Some of them tend to be rather bright, but they get covered by other windows most of the time so they aren't really a bother.
Thanks for your response. I already have Joplin synced with my server as a solution for my documentation. However I meant to ask how you structure your documentation, know what and how to mention, and organise it for future reference.
You're right. I cannot avoid it completely. Sometimes I use it unknowingly through some other online service intermediate or work in projects among peers who do use AI. What I should've said is I avoid using it to the best of my ability.
My complaint is with commercially available generative AI like ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude etc. The fact that they are being proposed as solution to every conceivable problem without addressing its drawbacks to equal standards and everyone accepting it as such is what's wrong to me.
I wish to inform them of the implications of using these services what others failed to do. I do believe some people would consider reducing their uses if not stop altogether if they heard what it really is and what they contribute to by using it.
It's hard but right to admit that I'm coming off as an 'AI vegan' with what I've said earlier. I don't want to be casted out for not wanting to use something just for the sake of it, like with other mainstream social media.
This is a brilliant idea! I was wondering whether talking subjectively would be detrimental to my point, but having it explained this way is so much better. I think the key point here is to not berate the other person for using AI in between this explanation.
The post is aimed at me facing situations where I state among people I know that I don't use AI, followed by them asking why not. Instead of driving them out by stating "Just because" or get into jargons that are completely unbeknownst to them, I wish to properly inform them why I have made this decision and why they should too.
I am also able to identify people to whom there's no point discussing this. I'm not asking to convince them too.
'Anthropomorphous' is still like a tongue twsiter for me