Me observing that it’s cold out and offering to sell you some gear so you can avoid frostbite isn’t extortion.

Me threatening to break your legs if you don’t buy something is.

Hope that helps.

Sometimes taking what seems like the right stand on an issue can deepen the harm - be careful about getting too extreme.

For example when the whole “gamergate” thing was going on and people were like “Why can’t I just enjoy Tomb Raider?” - one side was standing up for diversity and inclusion by denouncing them as basement-dwelling incels who should self-terminate. So that naturally drove some to those right-wing assholes.

Sometimes it takes a bit of work to change someone’s context so they can get closer to your perspective.

They’re just a consultancy service - hardly worth investigating. Seems that they purport to offer expertise on how a developer can improve diversity and inclusion in their products.

Like any consultancy, whether they can actually do this and whether their clients will actually implement it effectively are another matter entirely.

The Steam group creator seems to think either they’re garbage or that their clients’ approach to diversity and inclusion is garbage. (Or maybe they’re just some alt-right incel Nazi <insert favoured pejorative here…>)

This particular take that’s going around seems to be almost as stupid as Sweet Baby Inc’s attempted takedown of the Steam group.

They’re just pointing out reality - gaming media is “woke”, if your product doesn’t check the diversity and inclusion boxes it will be criticized, “hire us to help”. They’re basically a PR firm.

This isn’t them threatening to cause the damage, they’re not The Mob - “Say, that’s a nice game you got there. Be a shame if something happened to it.”

And even if you do have the talent internally you can still seek specialised feedback on your work - most authors work with editors for example.

The only reason this case is notable is because of the reactionary response to the “woke” games industry (and games journalism in particular). This is just another round of nonsense in this culture war, so people on either side are staking out ridiculous positions.

Copyright has little to say in regards to training models - it’s the published output that matters.

The UNIX philosophy isn’t about having only one way to do things - it’s about being able to use tools together. The deliberately simple interface is what makes it so powerful - almost any existing too can become part of a pipeline. It’s adaptable.

Shameless plug for NZ: https://www.timetoscreen.nz/breast-screening/sign-up/

But then of course you’d have to live somewhere that isn’t the greatest country in the world.

Yeah, he’s maybe taken it a bit far, but his point is still valid. If I’m talking about my experience with abuse it should be allowed to stand alone. I shouldn’t have to acknowledge its place in the meta.

It’s fine to discuss its place in the wider conversation, but I shouldn’t be forced to engage with it when sharing my experience. When people do try to push this it does unfortunately come across as invalidating my experience.

The original commenter posting that bit makes it seem like they’re minimising their experience for fear of others’ reactions.

Something transformative from the original works. And arguably not being being distributed. The model producing and distributing derivative works is entirely different though. No one really gives a shit about data being used to train models - there’s nothing infringing about that which is exactly why they won their case. The example in the post is an entirely different situation though.

Using it to train on is very different from distributing derived works.

I thought the point of the LGPL was to allow this sort of usage without requiring the release of source code. It’s an extension of the GPL to remove those requirements isn’t it?

A recent one I saw had pretty good options for this - Pathfinder: wrath of the righteous. Had so many different knobs to tweak to get the difficulty just right.

Why does the prompting matter? If I “prompt” a band to play copyrighted music does that mean they get a free pass?

Braking does not increase range. Regenerative braking reduces the losses involved, it doesn’t eliminate them. Your last sentence makes it sounds like not braking enough will lower your range - that isn’t the case.

And then trying to hold the card issuer liable rather than your cousin…

I don’t think so. Those users had opted in to share information within a certain group. They’ve already accepted the risk of sharing info with someone who might be untrustworthy.

Plenty of other systems do the same thing. I can share the list of games on my Steam account with my friends - the fact that a hacker might break into one of their accounts and access my data doesn’t mean that this sharing of information is broken by design.

If you choose to share your secrets with someone, you accept the risk that they may not protect them as well as you do.

There may be other reasons to criticise 23andMe’s security, but this isn’t a broken design.

Exactly, so the use of “crash” would generally be far better for these sorts of articles.

“Accident” starts addressing intentions or expectations.

We could just add easily refer to them as “vehicular violence” but then we’d end up distorting things in another direction.

I’d prefer titles that more accurately described the content - they don’t necessarily have to quote the content.

It all comes down to common usage, either interpretation can work. It’s like the phrase “I could care less” now means entirely opposite things to some people.

Biannual means twice a year here. Biennial is used for every two years.

Similarly for biweekly, we have fortnightly for every two weeks which means no-one uses biweekly to mean the same thing.

It’s all just down to common usage though.