They added telemetry. 100% of responses had internet access.

It is true, don’t do it.

Even at huge companies like Google, lots of stuff was keyed on your email address. This was a huge problem so Google employees were not allowed to change their email for the longest time. Eventually they opened it up by request but they made it very clear that you would run into problems. So many systems and services would break. Over time I think most external services are pretty robust now, but lots of internal systems still use emails (or the username part of it) and have issues.

IIUC Google accounts now use a random number as the key. But there are still places where the email is in use, slowly being fixed at massive cost.

I don’t know why everyone is so negative. The gameplan seems pretty clear to me.

1. Make expensive fancy product. This is effectively a “devkit” that companies can use to start experimenting with AR software.
2. Make lower cost product. There are now a few decent apps available and early adopters will be willing to buy it to be one the leading edge.
3. Now there is a bigger market, leading more companies to be willing to develop apps.

Apple is hoping that this is enough to break the chicken-and-egg cycle. Enough to get a few powerful apps such that more regular consumers will be willing to buy which again increases the addressable market which makes it more attractive to companies.

I wonder if it could be something like adding a Link: </post/1234>; rel="activitypub" header or <link rel=activitypub href=/post/1234>. Then a browser (or browser extension) could detect this canonical ActivityPub URL and offer to open it in your configured instance or app. This is basically how RSS feeds work.

I’ll trade rooms with you!

I think the main problem is that the companies selling vapes and related products are not really targeting users who are quitting smoking. Obviously there is less money in temporary users. They are targeting people who will keep smoking, usually because it is “cool” and especially teenagers who are a good target for “cool” and can be customers for a long time.

So yes, if you are using it temporarily ease off nicotine it is great and we should keep vapes available for these people as medical devices. However we should try to reduce the damage that vapes are doing to other people. How strongly we should do this is obviously controversial. Personally I would focus on education and personal choice, but there is a strong argument to be more forceful.

So then don’t buy a folding phone until they make that better.

No one is saying that everyone should having a folding phone. But it seems obvious that the ability to have a large screen that fits in your pocket is a great feature that many people value. There are downsides, but for some people the upsides outweigh them. For other people (like you) they don’t and you can continue to get a non-folding phone.

Yeah, not only are there a dozen platforms that you need to search but they all suck. I have seen so many instances where people download videos for a vacation and then they can’t be played. I can’t even share screenshots to advertise the shows that you are selling to my friends for free!

Funny enough when I have a video file sitting on my computer it just works, all of the time, super fast. And instead of using services that tell me what streaming platform a given show is on it is easier to use a service that tell me the infohash of the file.

I’m using Kagi. I find that it does a better job at finding “legitimate” sites rather than blogspam and content marketing. However I’m not sure I will stick with it a long time. I seems like it has mostly stalled and the team is getting distracted by making a browser, non-relevant AI (I have no problem with the few AI experiments tied to searching) and other side projects. We’ll see. I really hope that they pull themselves together and focus or it might not last. But for now they seem like one of the better options available.

Bing’s new “Deep Search” where it has some sort of LLM refinement iteration process has also been helpful sometimes. Probably the best AI search product I have seen, but definitely doesn’t replace most searches for me.

Algorithms are like AI but accurate, predictable and usually much faster.

Oh, flac fixes for HLS. I wonder if https://github.com/jellyfin/jellyfin/issues/8722 was fixed. I’ll have to try it out today.

Or a crazy idea, just post the text as text.

There is no concrete difference between the two options. But in general they will be similar. I think you are talking about these options:

struct Person;
struct Skill;

struct PersonSkills {
    person: PersonId,
    skill: SkillId,
}

vs

struct Person {
    skills: SkillId[],
}

struct Skill;

The main difference that I see is that there is a natural place to put data about this relationship with the “join table”.

struct PersonSkills {
    person: PersonId,
    skill: SkillId,
    acquired: Timestamp,
    experience: Duration,
}

You can still do this at in the second one, but you notice that you are basically heading towards an interleaved join table.

struct PersonSkills {
    skill: SkillId,
    acquired: Timestamp,
    experience: Duration,
}

struct Person {
    skills: PersonSkills[],
}

There are other less abstract concerns. Such as performance (are you always loading the list of skills, what if it is long) or correctness (if you delete a Person do you want to delete these relationships, it comes “for free” if they are stored on the Person) But which is better will depend on your use case.

Yup. I would try to stop using it if at all possible. As soon as you can, dump a full disk image to some other storage. Tools like ddrescue can be useful as they will try to re-read failed sectors to get a more complete image.

Once you have the data (or at least as much is available) to a reliable medium then you can start sorting through it and discarding or saving individual bits.

Pasting a copypasta is probably actually copyright infringement. Same with memes.

The thing about copyright is that it really only matters if you choose to enforce your protection. Presumably the owners of the copypasta don’t care enough and the owners of the memes think it brings more popularity to the movie than any licensing costs they could possibly gain from selling the stills.

(Some memes may be considered transformative enough to be fair use, but some of them almost certainly are not.)

Video game streaming is a clear example of this. Almost certainly live-streaming or doing full gameplay videos are infringing the game owner’s copyright. The work is often commercial, is often a replacement for the original (at least for some people) and very rarely transformative. But most game publishers think that it is worth it for the advertising. So they don’t enforce their copyright. Many publishers will explicitly grant licenses for streaming their games. A few publishers will enforce their copyright and take down videos, they are likely well within their rights.

Tom Scott has a fairly good overview of basic copyright knowledge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU

I don’t know if I would say the internet is opposed to copyright. I think there is a lot of misunderstanding and a lot of not caring. If the average internet commenter posts a meme it is of such minuscule cost to the owner of that work that it doesn’t make sense to go after them. So it sort of just happens. This makes people think that it is allowed, even if it probably isn’t. Most people would probably also agree that this is morally ok. But I don’t think that means that they are against copyright in general. I think if you asked most people. “Should I be allowed to download a CGP Grey video and reupload it for my own profit” they would say no. Probably similar for “Should I be allowed to sell cracked copies of Celeste for half price”.

I should add that there is one approach that could be taken here. Take this with a huge grain of salt because I am not a lawyer.

When you are posting on Lemmy you are likely granting an implicit license to Lemmy server operators to distribute your work. Basically because you understand that posting a public comment on Lemmy will make it available on your and other Lemmy servers it is assumed that it is ok to do that.

In other words you can’t write a story, post it on Lemmy, then sue every Lemmy instance that federated the comment and made it publicly available. That would be ridiculous.

There is a possible legal argument that twists this implicit grant to include AI training. Maybe you could have a disclaimer that this wasn’t the case. I don’t know how you would need to word this and if it would actually change anything. But I would talk to a lawyer.

It doesn’t work.

By default you have complete ownership of all works you create. What that license link is doing is granting an additional license to the comment. (In this case likely the only available license.)

This means that people can choose to use the terms in this license rather than their “default” rights to the work (such as fair use which is which most AI companies are claiming). It can’t take away any of their default privileges.

Yes. However whether or not it has protections under copyright is not always clear. Likely your comment is too short and simple to be protected. But if it can’t be protected claiming to grant a license to that work doesn’t change it.

Basically by adding this note they are effectively granting a license to the work. There is no situation in which granting a license can restrict how a work (which is effectively maximum protection).

Because people don’t understand how copyright works.

In most countries any copyrightable work that you produce is automatically covered by copyright. You don’t need to do anything additional to gain that protection.

Most Lemmy instances don’t have any sort of licensing grant in their terms of service. So that means that the original author maintains all ownership of their work.

So technically what these people are doing is granting a license to their comment that allows it to be used for more than would otherwise be allowed by the default copyright protections.

What they are probably trying to accomplish is to revoke the ability for commercial enterprises to use their comments. However that is already the default state so it is pretty irrelevant. Basically any company that cares about copyright and thinks that what they are doing isn’t allowed as fair use already wouldn’t be able to use their comments without the license note. So by adding the license note all they are doing is allowing non-commercial AI to scrape it (which is probably not what was intended). Of course most AI scraping companies don’t care about copyright or think that their use is not protected under copyright. So it is again irrelevant.

Also https://archive.org/details/yuzu-windows-msvc-20240304-537296095_20240305_1340 AKA magnet:?xt=urn:btih:13001f9414da4cf238d0370fea54f5668406107a&dn=yuzu-windows-msvc-20240304-537296095_20240305_1340&tr=http%3A%2F%2Fbt1.archive.org%3A6969%2Fannounce&tr=http%3A%2F%2Fbt2.archive.org%3A6969%2Fannounce&ws=http://ia600207.us.archive.org/22/items/&ws=http://ia800207.us.archive.org/22/items/&ws=https://archive.org/download/