• 0 Posts
  • 508 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 14th, 2023

help-circle
  • You don’t have to finish the file to share it though, that’s a major part of bittorrent. Each peer shares parts of the files that they’ve partially downloaded already. So Meta didn’t need to finish and share the whole file to have technically shared some parts of copyrighted works. Unless they just had uploading completely disabled,

    The argument was not that it didn’t matter if a user didn’t download the entirety of a work from Meta, but that it didn’t matter whether a user downloaded anything from Meta, regardless of whether Meta was a peer or seed at the time.

    Theoretically, Meta could have disabled uploading but not blocked their client from signaling that they could upload. This would, according to that argument, still counts as reproducing the works, under the logic that signaling that it was available is the same as “making it available.”

    but they still “reproduced” those works by vectorizing them into an LLM. If Gemini can reproduce a copyrighted work “from memory” then that still counts.

    That’s irrelevant to the plaintiff’s argument. And beyond that, it would need to be proven on its own merits. This argument about torrenting wouldn’t be relevant if LLAMA were obviously a derivative creation that wasn’t subject to fair use protections.

    It’s also irrelevant if Gemini can reproduce a work, as Meta did not create Gemini.

    Does any Llama model reproduce the entirety of The Bedwetter by Sarah Silverman if you provide the first paragraph? Does it even get the first chapter? I highly doubt it.

    By the same logic, almost any computer on the internet is guilty of copyright infringement. Proxy servers, VPNs, basically any compute that routed those packets temporarily had (or still has for caches, logs, etc) copies of that protected data.

    There have been lawsuits against both ISPs and VPNs in recent years for being complicit in copyright infringement, but that’s a bit different. Generally speaking, there are laws, like the DMCA, that specifically limit the liability of network providers and network services, so long as they respect things like takedown notices.


  • I’d just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Alpine Linux Alpine Linux is in fact Pine’s fork, Alpine / Alpine Linux Pine Linux, or as I’ve taken to calling it, Pine’s Alpine plus Alpine Linux Pine Linux. Alpine Linux Pine Linux is an operating system unto itself, and Pine’s Alpine fork is another free component of a fully functioning Alpine Linux Pine Linux system.





  • Why should we know this?

    Not watching that video for a number of reasons, namely that ten seconds in they hadn’t said anything of substance, their first claim was incorrect (Amazon does not prohibit use of gen ai in books, nor do they require its use be disclosed to the public, no matter how much you might wish it did), and there was nothing in the description of substance, which in instances like this generally means the video will largely be devoid of substance.

    What books is the Math Sorcerer selling? Are they the ones on Amazon linked from their page? Are they selling all of those or just promoting most of them?

    Why do we think they were generated with AI?

    When you say “generated with AI,” what do you mean?

    • Generated entirely with AI, without even editing? Then why do they have so many 5 star reviews?
    • Generated with AI and then heavily edited?
    • Written partly by hand with some pieces written by unedited GenAI?
    • Written partly by hand with some pieces written by edited GenAI?
    • AI was used for ideation?
    • AI was used during editing? E.g., Grammarly?
    • GenAI was used during editing?E.g., “ChatGPT, review this chapter and give me any feedback. If sections need rewritten go ahead and take a first pass.”
    • AI might have been used, but we don’t know for sure, and the issue is that some passages just “read like AI?”

    And what’s the result? Are the books misleading in some way? That’s the most legitimate actual concern I can think of (I’m sure the people screaming that AI isn’t fair use would disagree, but if that’s the concern, settle it in court).



  • It’s a discussion of principle.

    This is a foreign concept?

    It appears to be a foreign concept for you.

    I don’t believe that it’s a fundamentally bad thing to converse in moderated spaces; you do. You say “giving somebody the power to arbitrarily censor and modify our conversation is a fundamentally bad thing” like it’s a fact, indicating you believe this, but you’ve been given the tools to avoid giving others the power to moderate your conversation and you have chosen not to use them. This means that you are saying “I have chosen to do a thing that I believe is fundamentally bad.” Why would anyone trust such a person?

    For that matter, is this even a discussion? People clearly don’t agree with you and you haven’t explained your reasoning. If a moderator’s actions are logged and visible to users, and users have the choice of engaging under the purview of a moderator or moving elsewhere, what’s the problem?

    It is deeply bad that…

    Why?

    Yes, I know, trolls, etc…

    In other words, “let me ignore valid arguments for why moderation is needed.”

    But such action turns any conversation into a bad joke.

    It doesn’t.

    And anybody who trusts a moderator is a fool.

    In places where moderator’s actions are unlogged and they’re not accountable to the community, sure - and that’s true on mainstream social media. Here, moderators are performing a service for the benefit of the community.

    Have you never heard the phrase “Trust, but verify?”

    Find a better way.

    This is the better way.



  • Yes, I know, trolls etc. But such action turns any conversation into a bad joke. And anybody who trusts a moderator is a fool.

    Not just trolls - there’s much worse content out there, some of which can get you sent to jail in most (all?) jurisdictions.

    And even ignoring that, many users like their communities to remain focused on a given topic. Moderation allows this to happen without requiring a vetting process prior to posting. Maybe you don’t want that, but most users do.

    Find a better way.

    Here’s an option: you can code a fork or client that automatically parses the modlog, finds comments and posts that have been removed, and makes them visible in your feed. You could even implement the ability to reply by hosting replies on a different instance or community.

    For you and anyone who uses your fork, it’ll be as though they were never removed.

    Do you have issues with the above approach?


  • As a user, you can:

    • Review instance and community rules prior to participating
    • Review the moderator logs to confirm that moderation activities have been in line with the rules
    • If you notice a discrepancy, e.g., over-moderation, you can hold the mods accountable and draw attention to it or simply choose not to engage in that instance or community
    • Host your own instance
    • Create communities in an existing instance or your own instance

    If you host your own instance and communities within that instance, then at that point, you have full control, right? Other instances can de-federate from yours.


  • To be clear, I’m measuring the relative humidity of the air in the drybox at room temp (72 degrees Fahrenheit / 22 degrees Celsius), not of the filament directly. You can use a hygrometer to do this. I mostly use the hygrometer that comes bundled with my dryboxes (I use the PolyDryer and have several extra PolyDryer Boxes, but there are much cheaper options available) but you can buy a hygrometer for a few bucks or get a bluetooth / wifi / connected one for $15-$20 or so.

    If you put filament into a sealed box, it’ll generally - depending on the material - end up in equilibrium with the air. So the measurement you get right away will just show the humidity of the room, but if the filament and desiccant are both dry, it’ll drop; if the desiccant is dry and the filament is wet, it’ll still drop, but not as low.

    Note also that what counts as “wet” varies by material. For example, from what I’ve read, PLA can absorb up to 1% or so of its mass as moisture, PETG up to 0.2%, Nylon up to 7-8%… silica gel desiccant beads up to 40%. So when I say they’ll be in equilibrium, I’m referring to the percentage of what that material is capable of absorbing. It isn’t a linear relationship as far as I know, but if it were, that would mean that: if the humidity of the air is 10% and the max moisture the material could retain is 1%, then the material is currently retaining 0.1% moisture by mass. If my room’s humidity is kept at 40%, it’ll absorb moisture until it’s at 0.4% moisture by mass.

    That said, this doesn’t measure it perfectly, since while most filament materials absorb moisture from the air when the humidity is higher, they don’t release it as easily. Heating it both allows the air to hold more moisture and allows the filament (and desiccant) to release more moisture.


  • What have you done to clean the bed? From the link to the textured sheet, you should be cleaning it between every print - after it cools - with 90% IPA, and if you still have adhesion issues, you should clean it with warm water and a couple drops of dish soap.

    Has the TPU been dried? I don’t normally print with TPU but my understanding is that it needs to be lower humidity than PLA; I use dryboxes for PLA and target a humidity of 15% or lower and don’t use them if they raise above 20%. The recommendation I saw for TPU was to dry it for 7 hours at 70 degrees Celsius, to target 10% humidity (or at least under 20%) and to print directly from a drybox. Note that compared to other filaments, TPU can’t recover as well from having absorbed moisture - if the filament has gotten too wet, it’ll become too brittle if you dry it out as much as is needed. At that point you would need to start with a fresh roll, which would ideally go into a dryer and then drybox immediately.

    You should be able to set different settings for the initial layer to avoid stringing, i.e., slower speeds and longer retraction distance. It’s a bit more complicated but you can also configure the speed for a specific range of layers to be slower - i.e., setting it to slow down again once you get to the top of the print. For an example of that, see https://forum.prusa3d.com/forum/prusaslicer/bed-flinger-slower-y-movement-as-function-of-z/

    What’s the max speed you’re printing at? My understanding is that everything other than travel should all be the same speed at a given layer, and no higher than 25 mm/s. And with a bed slinger I wouldn’t recommend a much higher travel, either.

    In addition to a brim, have you tried adding supports?


  • stuck with the GPL forever

    If you accept a patch and don’t have the ability to relicense it, you can remove it and re-license the new codebase. You can even re-implement changes made by the patch in many cases, whether those changes are bug fixes or new features.

    If you re-implement the change, you do need to ensure this is done in a way that doesn’t cause it to become a derivative work, but it’s much easier if you have copyright to 99% of a work already and only need to re-implement 1% or so. If you’ve received substantial community contributions and the community is opposed to relicensing, it will be much harder to do so.

    A clean room implementation - where the person rewriting the code doesn’t look at the original code, and is only given a description of the functionality - which can include a detailed description of the algorithm - is the most defensible way to perform such a rewrite and relicense, but it’s not the only option.

    You should generally consult an attorney when relicensing and shouldn’t just do it casually. But a single patch certainly doesn’t mean you’re locked in forever.



  • If they do the form correctly, then it’s just an extra step for you to confirm. One flow I’ve seen that would accomplish this is:

    1. You enter your address into a form that can be auto-filled
    2. You submit the address
    3. If the address validates, the site saves the form and shows you the address in a more readable format. You can click Edit to make changes.
    4. If the address doesn’t validate, the site displays a modal asking you to confirm the address. If another address they were able to look up looks similar, it suggests you use that instead. It’s one click to continue editing, to use the suggested address, or to use what you originally entered.

    That said, if you’re regularly seeing the wrong address pop up it may be worth submitting a request to get your address added to the database they use. That process will differ depending on your location and the address verification service(s) used by the sites that are causing issues. If you’re in the US, a first step is to confirm that the USPS database has your address listed correctly, as their database is used by some downstream address verification services like “Melissa.” I believe that requires a visit to your local post office, but you may be able to fix it by calling your region’s USPS Address Management System office.


  • Good point!

    If OP is hourly, those 3 hours should be billed as work - probably under a generic HR-related category if one is available.

    If OP is salaried exempt, then this would fall under “doing any work at all” (all that’s needed to be paid for the day) and if sick time is tracked by day and not by hour, then OP doesn’t need to use one. If it’s tracked hourly then OP should make sure to only use 5 sick hours (or less, depending on how long the work-related conversations took) and depending on employer policies may not need to use any sick time at all.

    This also cut into the time OP could have been using to rest. It would be very reasonable for OP to need an extra day to recover, as a result.



  • Generally, usage of the term “gentrification” refers to the improvement of neighborhoods - or other places where people live, like apartment complexes - and, due to increased cost of living, the displacement of the people who used to live there. Displacement of less wealthy current residents when gentrification occurs is so common that it’s implied. If it weren’t, people wouldn’t have such low opinions of gentrification.

    If a forest has been gentrified, therefore, then - if you interpret “gentrified” in the same way - it follows that people who have been living there have been displaced. And since those people were living in a forest - not in a cabin in a forest - they’re necessarily homeless. Since OP didn’t say that they were building houses or apartments in the forest, that would mean that the wealthier people who displaced them were also homeless.

    Since the context was another commenter calling “gentrified forest” a cursed phrase, I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that.