Skip Navigation

Posts
5
Comments
652
Joined
3 yr. ago

  • If people are are ambivalent about the censorship, they probably also don't care that people are complaining about it. To me it's a mildly interesting quirk for an image to be self censored like that, but I'm also not going to downvote people who don't like it since I don't have any problem with their opinion.

  • In order to build the library you need access to Perforce, as that is where some of our dependencies live

    ...

  • Now I'm feeling paranoid about the degree to which hackernews comments are NSA run chatbots

  • Sort of, afaik the original people aren't involved anymore and the current site is notorious for being undermoderated and full of malware.

  • I'd like to propose a combination of the two. A language model that parses natural language but checks back in with the user to see if it has understood. This can be done by converting high-ambiguity sentences to low-ambiguity ones when appropriate and storing the latter as source. When the interpretation program is confused, it can check back in with the user to ask what they meant.

    This is something I've been thinking about lately. It's a huge problem that looking into how a given software project works or specifically what it does is normally beyond the reach of most people, or in the case of software that is very elaborate or wasn't written to be read, beyond the reach of almost everyone. It could help a lot to have some kind of tiered specification/documentation going from more concise to more detailed that can at least be independently confirmed in an automated way to have been derived from each other.

  • An unofficial Minecraft-like game for luanti

    Luanti is what Minetest was renamed to so it basically is Minetest

  • you are taking a risk either way. You are placing your trust in the dev and the few that can read code.

    There is definitely a trust issue and a need for ways of conveying and building trust in smaller software projects. I think a much better solution there would be discussions about the code and how it works that aren't hostile interrogations with foregone conclusions in pursuit of a broader anti-AI agenda. If someone just put a lot of effort into making something the details of that process should be on their mind, it should be possible to make them more accessible to people and convey that there is non-artificial understanding behind the project. Automatic hostility and suspicion makes those kinds of conversations harder and less likely.

  • That way a certain subset of members could just drive-by downvote without getting themselves dirty.

    I think tags could be alright but only if this is not allowed, it is unreasonable to ask people to disclose something just so others can shit on them for it.

  • There's ways for a comic to be good that go beyond just the strength of the joke. I really like the art style, the color scheme, the ways the emotional state of the characters is expressed, and the background details. It just conveys a sense of this setting and the people in it really succinctly. It would probably be bad if it was a comic with the same joke but much worse execution.

  • Extra fast spinning high tech drills though iirc

  • What would be better ways of doing it?

  • I learned about pings in college, because apparently my torrent client was constantly sending them, but the university network did not allow pings and they sent an email threatening to shut off my internet if I didn't stop pinging.

  • So this problem should be solvable with only changes to client code then?

  • As I understand it the distinction between a website hosting user content and another publisher is Section 230, but that is about limiting liability for publishing user content, and I see no reason to believe that this law would prohibit users from granting such websites non-revocable rights to publish their writing.

  • Can you elaborate? To me it really seems like it does apply. A more related example might be Wikipedia, which has open licensed content. Or even the whole concept of writing for pay with a contract; the person who pays you gets the rights, because you agreed to that, and you can't just demand they delete it later. These things are within how the law works. Why wouldn't it also be within how the law works to have a social media website where the condition of posting is granting a non-revocable right to publish what you wrote?

  • The point is that once you have released something under an open license, it's permanently under that license and you no longer have the right to demand that other people stop publishing it (which admittedly you do have by default). Giving up rights is a thing.

  • If that was true open source software would not exist

  • There's copyright, but that is easy to get around by just making it part of the terms and conditions of a website that by posting you grant a right to republish.

  • Deleted

    Permanently Deleted

    Jump
  • I figured it's a watermark but it's very confusing because it looks like part of the content and is incoherent if interpreted that way