Why isn't "it's informed and you can just opt out" good enough for paid users? They could've developed a single system instead of two if that's a sufficient standard of care for users' data.
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 113
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
- Posts
- 0
- Comments
- 113
- Joined
- 3 yr. ago
Opt out means "we will be doing this, without permission, unless you tell us not to" and opt in means "if you give us permission we will do this." Codebases can contain important and sensitive information, and sending it off to some server to be shoved into an LLM is something that should be done with care. Getting affirmative consent is the bare minimum.
The right thing is to make it opt-in for everyone, simple as that. The entire controversy goes away immediately if they do. If they really believe it's a good value proposition for their users, and want to avoid collecting data from people who didn't actually want to give it, they should have faith that their users will agree and affirmatively check the box.
If free users are really such a drain on them, why have they been offering a free version for so long before it became a conduit to that sweet, sweet data? Because it isn't a drain, it's a win-win. They want people using their IDE, even for free, they don't get money from it but they get market share, broad familiarity with their tool amongst software engineers, a larger user base that can support each other on third party sites and provide free advertising, and more.
The best, clearest code in the world will make it perfectly clear exactly what's going on, but not why. "
database.fetch(); // Fetch from the database" is a terrible comment, sure, but "// Resource loading is done lazily on first run, so we cannot depend on it being available right away" is something that can't be conveyed through code alone.They're doing as much of a bad thing as they think they can get away with. I don't feel a particular duty to carefully acknowledge that in some circumstances they feel obligated to do the right thing instead. If they don't like the "misleading" aspects of that, they're free to just do the right thing completely.
I only use it when I've royally messed up and the commit I need to get back is no longer referenced anywhere. Accidentally deleted a branch, finished a merge or rebase before realizing I messed up, that kind of thing, just use the reflog to find it again, get a branch pointing to it, then try again.
Yes, but most human em dashes are from writing going through relatively professional processes, not, say, writing a comment online. Of course, there are many — like myself — who know how to type them quickly, and choose to use them, but LLMs are definitely a lot more eager to use them than the average person.
Maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not sure what the worst case scenario is... like, is some company going to get rich off of their proprietary
cpandsudoimplementation that they forked off of an open one?The FCC regulates all 3, but they have a lot more control over OTA content because the electromagnetic spectrum doesn't have enough room for everyone who wants a TV station to get a channel. As a result, if you do get one, it comes with strings attached and you have to serve the public good as well as whatever else you want to put out there. In addition, a broadcast is out in the open, blasted out in all directions for anyone with a receiver to see and hear, so much like being outside means some of the things you can do in private are not allowed, TV networks can't broadcast some content that is otherwise legal. Those constraints offset some of the first amendment protections that would otherwise exist.
Cable and internet don't have these properties. They're constrained only by how many lines of cable you can deploy in an area, and physics isn't stopping anyone from running their own. And since it's not being blasted out into the air in all directions, it's closer to private communication. Without those justifications, the full protection of the first amendment still applies.
That is indeed the right way to do it, unfortunately Plex doesn't handle it well. It'll show all the episodes separately, but each one plays the entire file (fair, it doesn't know for sure where the breaks are, but could be done better), and watching the whole thing marks only the one you selected as watched, so you have to mark all the other "episodes" as watched manually (this is annoying, if it knows you watched the whole file, it should know that you've watched all the episodes it covers).
Usually if an episode is a 2 parter in one file, I'll just name it for part 1 since you'd watch them together anyway, but for cartoons the two parts are usually entirely unrelated, so it really only works properly if the file's split. It'd be better if the interface at least showed that a range of episodes are combined so you could, say, start it and know that the episode you want needs to be scrubbed through to find it, and also if it marked them all as played when you watch the whole thing.
I believe this is talking about the original AltStore, which uses the same mechanism that app developers use to test their apps on device as they're developing and works in any country, not just the EU. You run a Mac app on your local network called AltServer, then the AltStore app on your phone can automatically send .ipa files to the server to get signed or re-signed. As they mentioned, with a free Apple account the signed app is good for 7 days before needing a refresh, if you pay Apple for a developer account it's much longer and you can have more things signed at once.
That "unacceptable and insensitive" comment was, in reality, an entirely reasonable take on how Charlie Kirk directly stoked the fires that ended up taking his life. They're sending a clear message that you are not allowed to speak honestly about any of the context surrounding the event, and can only share an opinion if it shows Kirk in a positive light, since apparently neutral or worse is not allowed.
For most software, iteration starts getting diminishing returns only if it's approaching feature completeness and no bugs. LLMs are plateauing well before they became super genius job stealers like they were supposed to, and it's going to take a major breakthrough to see any significant improvement.
Those images in the mirror are already perfect replicas of us, we need to be ready for when they figure out how to move on their own and get out from behind the glass or we'll really be screwed. If you give my """non-profit""" a trillion dollars we'll get right to work on the research into creating more capable mirror monsters so that we can control them instead.
Fan art is generally protected because of a rule called "fair use", which allows people to use copyrighted work without permission. For example, if you briefly quote a book, the author won't have success if they go after you for copying from their book, even though you clearly did. Generally speaking, a person making fan art and not selling it is going to be protected under fair use. The law wants creators to have control of the thing they created, but we all live in a shared culture and we all deserve to participate in the art we experience, so there's some wiggle room, and this has been the case long before AI was a thing.
What these AI companies are doing, on the other hand... well, it hasn't really been tested in court yet, but they're doing a lot more than single images or brief quotes, and they're doing it for money, so they'll likely have some work to do.
The problem is that the sports industry has been propped up for decades with cable, where every subscriber paid fees for sports whether they cared about it or not. If they charged a reasonable price to just the people who care, it'd be a devastating loss. And cable was structured the way it was because that's what made the most money, and though cable's slowly being replaced by streaming, don't be shocked when the streaming landscape starts to take on a similar shape. There's already lots of bundling going on, remember when streaming meant that you could save a ton of money by just paying for what you wanted? They're going to do whatever they can to keep the revenue from falling.
Ah, I didn't see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying.
Isn't that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There's a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they're listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn't a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO's got a good track record of listening, the pay's pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they're kept in line with picket lines when it's necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China's government is?
I'm comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It's fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There's as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn't ever going to "put" you on a project, you're free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there's freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That's closer to the country I'd want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I'm really not happy.
Right, that's a good example of it going the way you describe, and I'm curious what would've happened if the government hadn't folded. If the people really are making the decisions, they would get their way eventually, what does that look like?
I'm not an ATProto expert either, but broadly speaking, it's more of an aspirationally decentralized service, a lot of it is still centrally run by Blue Sky. Rather than split all responsibilities equally among hundreds of equal peers like ActivityPub, they've broken up the responsibilities themselves into modular parts: one thing stores user data, one thing is a firehose of everything happening everywhere, one thing is providing content moderation, etc., and users can kind of assemble their social network from all the parts they like. Many parts of it were designed with the assumption that the whole thing would have to operate at Twitter scale (that was the original idea, to make something that Twitter could move to) so it's basically impossible for others to run some parts, like the firehose. The theory is that the real big infra stuff will all be so generic and neutral that there won't even a reason for people to run their own anyway, and the more subjective or personal bits like personal data or moderation decisions will be easier to host alternatives for.