@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

ChairmanMeow

@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

Musk was responding to a post that said Jewish communities “have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them.” The post also referenced “hordes of minorities” flooding Western countries, a popular antisemitic conspiracy theory.

It’s the kind of post you can find easily on X these days, and likely would have gone unnoticed had Musk, with more than 160 million followers, not re-shared the post with the comment: “You have said the actual truth.”

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

That’s not what he was agreeing to, he agreed with a conspiracy theory that claims that Jewish people are actively encouraging the “Great Replacement Theory”. So it’s two conspiracy theories stacked on top of one another.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

Supposedly Firefox users spoofing the Chrome user agent don’t get the issue because the script tries to execute the 5s delay in a way that works on Chrome but not on FF. Because the Chrome method doesn’t work on FF, it just gets skipped entirely. But I’m not sure if that’s entirely accurate, just read about it.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

There’s people reporting exactly that if they’re using certain ad-blocking tools.

Near-Future file type concept "Digital Memory" (lemmy.world)

This is an idea I’ve been toying with for a bit. There is a ton of media that includes unimportant information that doesn’t need to be stored pixel perfect. Storing large portions of the image data as text will save substantial amounts of storage, and as the reality of on-device image generation becoming commonplace sets in...

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

Video file sizes are actually getting smaller all the time, but when filming we don’t save a neatly compressed video file. On-the-fly compression and encoding would help a ton in reducing camera video files, but is very expensive at the moment CPU-wise.

TikTok says it’s not the algorithm, teens are just pro-Palestine — The company denied allegations that it has been promoting pro-Palestine content in an effort to sway American opinion (www.vice.com)

TikTok says it’s not the algorithm, teens are just pro-Palestine — The company denied allegations that it has been promoting pro-Palestine content in an effort to sway American opinion::In a blog post, the company denied allegations that it has been promoting pro-Palestine content in an effort to sway American opinion.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

The PA has power in the west bank, but not in Gaza (where Hamas is in charge). They’re not a very effective government, but they don’t seem to have genocidal intent either.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

Player collision was the best thing about the local coop! It both allowed you to work together to reach high-up places, as well as screw each other over for fun!

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

A bar can reliably verify the customer’s age, a website can’t do that.

The internet is not a safe space for children. It’s absolutely the parents’ responsibility to monitor their children’s internet consumption.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

That’s just blatantly false. We’ve even had dev diaries showing they’ve fixed some performance issues, even showing the performance graphs to prove it.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

That’s literally what the game already does. But it can’t have all the effects you believe it should have, because there are a lot of events that can change a modifier that would require a recalculation.

Also marking thing as “should_update” (like you called it here) the way you describe it would cause terrible performance issues. You can’t mark large amount of pops for an employment update, because employment calculations are some of the more expensive ones to do, and doing it for large amounts of individual pops at a time would cause severe lag spikes.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

That was always in there, but the degree of optimization varied of course.

AI companies have all kinds of arguments against paying for copyrighted content (www.theverge.com)

AI companies have all kinds of arguments against paying for copyrighted content::The companies building generative AI tools like ChatGPT say updated copyright laws could interfere with their ability to train capable AI models. Here are comments from OpenAI, StabilityAI, Meta, Google, Microsoft and more.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

Both of your examples are governed by the same set of privacy laws, which talk about consent, purpose and necessity, but not about scale. Legislating around scale open up the inevitable legal quagmires of “what scale is acceptable” and “should activity x be counted the same as activity y to meet the scale-level defined in the law”.

Scale makes a difference, but it shouldn’t make a legal difference w.r.t. the legality of the activity.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar
  • To have been influenced by that piece, legally, the human will have had to pay the copyright holder to; go to the cinema, buy the bluray, see the performance, go to the gallery, etc. Works out of copyright obviously don’t apply here.
  • To be trained in a discipline, the human likely pays for teaching by others, and those others have also paid copyright holders to view the media that influenced them aswell

Neither of these are necessarily true, and the first one is even demonstrably false given the amount of copyrighted content that can be freely accessed online.

  • Even thought the vast majority of art is influenced by all other art, humans are capable of novel invention- ie things which have not come before - but GenAI fundamentally isn’t.

That depends highly on your definition of “novel invention”. Given that GenAI can be given randomised noise as input to create something from, it’s highly debatable if GenAI is truly “incapable” of novel invention. And even then, it’s possible to provide prompts describing a novel style (e.g. “oil painting with thick, vibrant streaks of colour” or something), so a human + GenAI together may well be capable of novel invention. I don’t recall the last time a human was able to create something that could not be expressed in previously existing words at all. You can describe Van Gogh without using his name, or describe a Picasso without using named art styles. Yet we consider their works novel, no?

That’s the reason people are complaining, cos they aren’t being paid today, and they won’t be paid tomorrow.

Even if AI only trained on non-copyrighted art, this would still be true. It might set the AI companies back a year or two, but AI art generation is here to stay and will threaten artists’ incomes. These lawsuits are only really stalling tactics to delay the inevitable.

I can’t predict if they’re going to win their lawsuit or not, nor do I know if they should. But the artists’ salvation won’t lie in copyright law, I know that much.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

Lack of consent and the intent to cause harm.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

Outsider art can be explained using words. It’s certainly strange art, but not necessarily something that’s “unpromptable”.

AI companies mostly push back because dealing with copyright is very expensive, not because it would necessarily take a very long time. Google and Microsoft likely already have a sizeable library of copyright-free art they could use, but using everything is just more efficient and much, much cheaper.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

Falls under unwanted calls, you should be able to opt out of both (though I believe both are currently legal in the US).

It's not just about facts: Democrats and Republicans have sharply different attitudes about removing misinformation from social media (theconversation.com)

It’s not just about facts: Democrats and Republicans have sharply different attitudes about removing misinformation from social media::One person’s content moderation is another’s censorship when it comes to Democrats’ and Republicans’ views on handling misinformation.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

It’s different because the company built and maintains the space. Same goes for a concert hall, a pub, etc…

Nobody believes that someone being thrown out of a pub for spouting Nazistic hate speech is their “free speech being trampled”. Why should it be any different if it’s a website?

You rarely see the discussion, because there’s rarely a good argument here. It boils down to “it’s a big website, so I should be allowed to post whatever I want there”, which makes little to no sense and opens up a massive quagmire of legal issues.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

I’ve tried both but always find myself just opening new windows instead of using split panels. I find it to be more convenient personally.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

EU laws apply to EU citizens, even on the internet. EU laws therefore tend to have surprisingly global effects, often called the ‘Brussels Effect’.

A US company harvesting data from EU citizens is subject to EU laws and can be fined for breaking them accordingly, for example.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

Please read beyond the first Google result that you find: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect

What a UK court has ruled based on EU law is not necessarily what an EU court would rule. They may well state that Clearview is a commercial partner of foreign law enforcement and therefore not protected (because it’s not the foreign law enforcement itself doing the data harvesting, but a commercial firm intending to make money).

Besides, the UK court clearly ruled that the law did apply, but that Clearview wasn’t in breach. This wasn’t a jurisdiction issue, as you asserted initially.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

I’m not talking about who is in breach or not, I argued about the jurisdiction of the court, which they ruled that the law does apply to Clearview (even if it wasn’t breached). It’s literally in the article, maybe you should read it?

Also, foreign companies saving any data on EU citizens who reside in the EU are subject to the GDPR, see this webpage set up by lawyers who actually know about this stuff:

“The law is structured in this manner so that it can safeguard the data and privacy rights of all internet users in the EU, regardless of where they browse online or purchase. Therefore, if you conduct business with EU citizens, you must comply with GDPR.” reciprocity.com/…/guide-to-gdpr-compliance-for-us….

And the French also brought a case, precisely because the law does apply and they have jurisdiction. So thanks for proving my point I guess?

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

Collecting personal data from EU citizens whilst they are in the EU is doing business in the EU, which is why the court ruled the law did apply. Did you read the article?

Clearview was not fined specifically because of a provision in that same law that says such data collection is permitted if they were doing this business on behalf of foreign law enforcement. So the UK court ruled the law does apply, but that Clearview wasn’t in breach. The UK court used EU law to determine Clearview was not in breach of EU law. The fine was not removed because Clearview is outside of their jurisdiction, which they’re simply not.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

I think I understand your confusion now.

For starters, we’re talking about the exact same ruling. And I think the snippet you posted will help me explain the issue.

GDPR is an EU law. It applies to all companies collecting data on EU citizens. If a company does, it falls under the jurisdiction of the GDPR and European (member state) courts (in this case a UK court). The UK court clearly held that it has jurisdiction, and could apply a penalty if Clearview were to be in breach of the law.

However, the court is not normally the one to hand out these fines. Instead, that is delegated to each country’s data protection agency, which in the UKs case is the ICO. Now, the exact conditions under which the ICO is allowed to fine a company is defined in the GDPR. It defines the jurisdiction of the data protection agencies.

One of those conditions states that the ICO is not to have jurisdiction over data collection done for foreign law enforcement (that’s usually covered by international treaties instead). The ICO for example can’t fine the FBI or NSA or something.

In the case of Clearview, the ICO argued that sinced Clearview is a private company, they were not covered by this exclusion. Clearview argues that the sole purpose of the data collection is for foreign law enforcement, so that they are covered by that exclusion. Note that Clearview didn’t argue that they can’t be fined because they’re not an EU company.

The court has ruled that yes, the GDPR applies to Clearview, but also that Clearview is covered by the exclusion outlined in the GDPR for foreign law enforcement, and thus that the ICO does not have the jurisdiction to fine them (again, note the difference between the jurisdiction of the law/court and that of the ICO). So GDPR applies, but Clearview is not in breach.

Hypothetically, had Clearview sold this data to other private companies instead of law enforcement agencies, then Clearview could not have argued that they were covered by the GDPR exemption, and thus the court would have ruled that the ICO does have the jurisdiction to fine them.

So in conclusion:

  • The EU can and has fined companies that are not in the EU for breaches of the GDPR.
  • The GDPR does apply to Clearview.
  • The UK court does have jurisdiction.
  • The ICO does not have jurisdiction on Clearview specifically, due to the aforementioned provision in the GDPR.
  • The ICO can not fine Clearview for this activity, for reasons outlined in the GDPR.

I hope this makes a bit more sense now.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

Finding examples is difficult, as most articles tend to be about the big tech companies that have bases globally. But I can point you towards the legal mechanism the EU uses in the case of the US, which is the EU-US Data Protection Umbrella agreement, see here: “Law enforcement cooperation: EU-US Umbrella Agreement” commission.europa.eu/…/eu-us-data-transfers_en#:~…

This is an international agreement between the EU and the US. When the UK Brexited, I believe (but not 100% sure) they were no longer part of that agreement, meaning the UK lost the ability to efficiently go after companies without a base in the UK even if the law remained identical.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

Adding characters is easy when you don’t have to deal with licensing issues.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

I like the person casually walking into the fire at 19:05. I also noticed reflections in the water near the edges of the screen don’t show properly, most noticeably at the end of the video.

Amazing tech demo, but I wonder if they’re focusing on the right things. Physics-based nosebleeds are cool, but not as noticeable as getting reflections right.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

Humble Bundle has a special relationship with Valve iirc, because of the charity work they do.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

No, they can do it with the phone turned off.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

I personally modded the game to remove weapon and shield durability, and it was unreal how much more enjoyable this made BOTW to me.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

It’s because there’s not enough people in the EU actually using it.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

Wouldn’t solve it, drift can affect regular joystick operation as well, where pushing it all the way to the side could show up as it being stuck in the middle.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

Some arguments that people keep bringing up that are all wrong and carry zero weight in this discussion:

  • The creator says it’s JIF
  • It’s like Gift, but without the T
  • It’s like Giraffe, but without the raffe
  • It stands for “Graphics Interchange Format” so it’s GIF
  • My dictionary says it’s GIF
  • My dictionary says it’s JIF
  • Obama says it’s GIF
  • Giphy says it’s GIF

Ultimately, language is very dynamic and changes all the time. Words change their spelling, their meaning and their pronunciation too. Dictionaries tend to lag behind a little bit, but the fact that they publish a new version every year signifies how much languages change. The creator of a word can coin a pronunciation, but ultimately has zero control over whether it will be adopted or not.

So therefore whichever way most people actually pronounce it is by definition the correct pronunciation. And the polls done on this subject are pretty clear, showing that GIF is the preferred pronunciation, chosen by up to 70% in North America and over 80% in Australia and the UK. This depends on which poll you use, but in general the split is at least 2:1 in favour of GIF, and over time the usage of GIF tends to trend up over time.

So ultimately, the one true pronunciation is GIF, as decided by the people as a whole. However, most dictionaries do list JIF as an accepted alternative pronunciation, due to the not insignificant minority pronouncing it that way.

In other words, just choose which pronunciation you prefer, and use that. And try to avoid the pointless debates people like to have on the subject, filled with arguments that don’t carry any weight whatsoever.

ChairmanMeow ,
@ChairmanMeow@programming.dev avatar

There’s no such thing as “the internet’s public square”. It is the “X-owned public square”. In an offline public square, the government owns the square, so free speech protections apply. But this “square” is privately owned. There’s an incredibly fundamental difference here.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • tech
  • drbboard
  • updates
  • til
  • testing
  • bitcoincash
  • programming
  • Sacramento
  • All magazines