I'll sometimes make a lazy version of this, just on a plate in the microwave. Probably shouldn't use ingredients, though, that need to be cooked for food safety...
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 119
- Joined
- 5 mo. ago
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 119
- Joined
- 5 mo. ago
I enjoy how there's the correct answer, and then there's the other answers in this thread. 🙃
It's a really loose reference, but lots of programming languages are "garbage-collected": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_collection_(computer_science)
Sorry, I didn't want the myth to persist, but also not to spam the definition multiple times in this thread. I guess, I could've just linked to my other comment, though: https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/21547211
Side-note: It's of course quite a colloquial term, so you might find different definitions, too. You can probably look up the definition of your country's farming ministry or such, though, for kind of the most official definition.
According to botanical definitions, yes, because botany does not know the category of a "vegetable". Culinarily, though, these are most definitely vegetables.
Yeah, "vegetables" are not a thing as far as botany is concerned. It is a purely culinary category.
The distinction between botanical and culinary definitions often causes confusion. Botanically, a fruit is defined by its origin as a mature ovary containing seeds, based on anatomical structure and developmental biology.
In contrast, culinary definitions are based on flavor, texture, and how a plant part is typically used in meals. Sweet or tart plant products are generally considered culinary fruits, while savory plant parts are classified as culinary vegetables. This explains why many botanical fruits are commonly treated as culinary vegetables. Tomatoes, for example, are botanical fruits because they develop from a flower’s ovary and contain seeds, but their savory flavor leads them to be used as a vegetable in cooking. Cucumbers, peppers, squash, and eggplants are other botanical fruits frequently used as culinary vegetables.
https://biologyinsights.com/the-botanical-classification-of-fruits/
I guess, this is different from automating a part of your workflow every so often, in that you don't yet know the surrounding context. It is the point to just dick around with some new context for a bit.
And if you get bored of it, i.e. you've learned enough about the new context, then you can just archive the repo and move on, because you don't actually need it as a solution.
Ah, had not heard that before, but I'm willing to believe it right away.
That just sounds like a very Google thing to do, like how they tweaked the video algorithm, so that longer videos would get more visibility, not long before TikTok took off and they had to introduce a separate category for short-form videos.
Huh, does caveman just mean that it uses fewer fill words and less prosa, or does the output only look like that by chance?
I thought, I read at some point that the caveman models use some pseudo-language for their thinking tokens. If they waffle less, that would be much more interesting to me...
I think, it comes from a general frustration, because the YouTube comment section is practically unusable for actually discussing a video.
Every so often, I watch something and want to see what people are saying about a particular section in the video. Like, maybe I was hoping for some info in the video and expect someone to have posted it in a comment instead.
But then I have to scroll through tons of comments like:
- "First!" (Followed by people telling them they're not actually first.)
- Various comments about how they're watching the video shortly after its publication. Or long after its publication.
- "What an inspiring video! Blah blah blah..." (with a profile picture of a half-dressed lady, because it's actually just a bot)
- A verbatim quote of a funny sentence in the video with nothing added.
- "Just commenting for the algorithm!"
Like, I don't want to hate on people commenting what they like, but it's just frustrating in that situation, because you do have to read every comment, to make sure you're not missing something. You just become acutely aware of every repeated joke and every single comment you had to read, which did not actually say something.
Could imagine that working at the scale where PeerTube is currently at, where you can actually get to know folks and it's not just about broadcasting to as many people as possible...
This reads like a complete shitpost, but somehow is also an actual Wikipedia article...
I imagine, the problem comes in from there being wildly different sizes of both, dogs and chocolate.
I once heard a story, where a small dog had eaten chocolate, so the owner called the vet. And at first, the vet told them that it's probably fine, but wanted to know how much chocolate the dog ate.
And when they then told the vet, that the dog had eaten a full-size chocolate bar, suddenly it was treated like an emergency. As in, they had to bring the dog to the vet immediately, got treated before everyone else still waiting, and the dog was given a drug to make it puke out all the chocolate.
In our current legal system, copyright is the basis for me to be able to set requirements on how my code can be shared. I do not care that I own it, I just care that it is shared under the conditions I set.
Without being able set these conditions, I would not open up my code.
As a developer, you hold the copyright to your code. When you make it open-source, you grant a license to use the code and the resulting program under certain terms.
This is a contract. If you copy my code without following these terms, then that's theft.
The Internet Archive's use complies with these terms for all open-source licenses. These AI companies do not. In particular, here's a quote from the MIT license, which you will find in a similar wording in all open-source licenses:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
In effect, what this means, is that when you copy my code, I demand that you also copy the license text along with it, so that anyone else looking at this code knows the permissions I grant and the terms I require.
And now guess what these AI companies are doing. They copy my code and reproduce substantial portions upon a user asking, yet they do not include my license terms. They violate the contract under which they obtained my source code.
I suspect you don't realize how shit that is, because source code is so abstract.It's like spending hundreds of hours painting a great artwork and then deciding that everyone should be able to give a copy to everyone they know, under the simple condition that they inform those people that they have this right as well.And then comes along a company and sells my artwork for money, without informing their customers that they can pass it on for free. That's, plain and simple, a criminal operation.
Even if it was spoken words, the comic would still work, since the boss presumably wouldn't have heard the previous sentence. Every so often, you see that in non-satire comics...
Hmm, interesting. I always write Markdown unformatted, so where I put the asterisks in myself. So, that's a decent reality check, I guess.
If they wanted to make a specific part of the command bold, that still wouldn't work.
Could underline the part, I guess, like this:
shell
ls -la ###(
#starts a comment in shell syntax, so doesn't get run, in case someone pastes the whole thing.)I mean, Markdown was specifically designed to be convertable to HTML. So, it is structurally rather similar. It's basically just a bunch of aliases for a subset of HTML tags.
Having said that, it is also designed to be plain text. You don't have to convert it, and even when you do convert it, there's a good chance that what you've written in plain text will look fine in converted Markdown as well.For the purposes of this meme, I would certainly group it with plain text.
I mean, their status page says they are/were seeing lots of unauthenticated traffic, which sounds like AI scrapers hitting them...