Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)V

Vodulas [they/them]

@ Vodulas @beehaw.org

Posts
6
Comments
364
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • Not sure what you mean. He's always been pretty involved in Tesla designs.

  • Oh, copyright is for sure fucked, but until we have UBI it is about all we have to potentially protect small artists

  • That is true, and they may have been doing to cover their asses, but I would bet they did the destructive method because it was faster or cheaper (or both). We will probably never know the minutia of that decision though

  • I would hazard a guess that the eBook did not exist for the physical books they bought. Still, that doesn't excuse their actions, nor the bigger issues with training LLMs

  • Totally fair.

  • Paper is a natural resource, and this literally just wasted a fuck ton. There are non-destructive scanning methods.

  • The books were destroyed because duplicating a work without permission is illegal

    It is not illegal if you don't distribute, which the judge ruled meant this was fair use. They destroyed the books as part of the digitizing project because it is likely faster and cheaper than non-destructive methods.

    but destroying the original means that there is only one copy in the end still.

    That is not how this works at all. As long as you aren't distributing, you are well within your rights to make copies of a book you purchase.

  • people got really upset with them throwing away books that had multiple reprintings and were in awful condition.

    That is not what is going on here, though. They bought millions of dollars of new books in order to train AI and used destructive scanning instead of non-destructive methods. It is a huge waste of resources. They could have used a non-destructive method then donated the books. But like everything involved in current AI, they chose the most wasteful method

  • FuckLAPD.com’ Lets Anyone Use Facial Recognition to Instantly Identify Cops

    Jump
  • lol, true. That is a rounding error though

  • FuckLAPD.com’ Lets Anyone Use Facial Recognition to Instantly Identify Cops

    Jump
  • It is only "hit" if you mean hit by a police car or bullet. There is zero accountability

  • FuckLAPD.com’ Lets Anyone Use Facial Recognition to Instantly Identify Cops

    Jump
  • Still very US centric, but guns are incredibly easy to get here. I live in a "progressive" state and I don't even have to take a single class to get one, or get a concealed carry permit

  • FuckLAPD.com’ Lets Anyone Use Facial Recognition to Instantly Identify Cops

    Jump
  • But an article about how guns are used and that they exist is not the same as selling them. I can see the argument that you should not even report on them because it makes them more popular, but at least in the US, guns are pretty permeated through society

  • FuckLAPD.com’ Lets Anyone Use Facial Recognition to Instantly Identify Cops

    Jump
  • A. No, this is an article talking about the tool.

    B. Cops are public figures. Name and badge number are public information. Hence why the first sentence in the article states it uses public records. It does not give their address and phone number. It is not doxxing

  • Oh for sure that too. Also that was a great video.

  • On the other hand, browsing ev charging forums reveals one melted socket after another

    Often this is due to using portable chargers that someone is frequently plugging/unplugging in a socket designed for appliances that stay plugged in. You can't cheap out on the 14-50 socket and sadly people often do

  • I have a 2080 and have been running Pop_OS as my only OS for about 6 months now. It has been incredibly solid. I have also heard Bazzite is good, but have only tried it on an old MacBook with dual GPUs. It did not do great there, but I think that is an issue with the laptop, not bazzite

  • On average kind people are just being kind.

    And that is great, it is good to be optimistic. My point is being kind has nothing to do with trustworthiness. Hell, someone that is kind can also just be plain wrong. They might think they know something when they do not. The kindness just does not factor in to knowledge. Plenty of experts are not what people would describe as kind, and plenty of misinformation peddlers are kind. It just has nothing to do with expertise

  • Right? What a strange and dangerous metric

  • Because the inverse of that is how people get conned. Someone blowing absolute smoke with a confident tone and a sweet word. Tone is about the worst indicator of trustworthiness