ekky

Element already has desktop streaming as an experimental feature. Worked fine last i tested it. Currently planning how to trick my social circle into using it.

I also want to go check out the new TeamSpeak, it's supposed to be a decent Discord alternative - Even though Discord originally replaced it.

Go tell 'em! Why have alternatives if we can just put all our eggs in one, holey, basket?

I think it came with a pop-up once when it first got added, and I've just kept removing it since.

To this day, I'm still not sure what problem it was supposed to fix, or what feature it was supposed to add.

Found the answer in the parent thread, thank you @Quibblekrust@thelemmy.club:

That’s a mention, not a tag. A tag is a private description you save about a user. Only apps have this fearure.

It's a little weird that they took a well established term (in social media context: tag, id by which to mention a user, also known as 'tagging') and gave it a wholly different meaning (tag: label).

This is what we are talking about, right? Tagging others?

But the other comments seem to be talking about some kind of labelling. Did Lemmy add a new feature that I'm unaware of?

Was about to point this out. I'd just go to one of my IRL friends and have him send me an E-Mail/PM/whatever while i watch him do it.

The claim above was off the top of my head, but I've found multiple pages of results describing the panic that ensued.

Now, Microsoft (Copilot and Github) are less than clear on what exactly is used for training, but the general consensus seems to be, that they don't train on private repositories. Though there appears to be some confusion about this, especially regarding Microsoft's honesty about not using loopholes (this article might be faked, I haven't tried confirming it, though, this topic is a shit show ripe with miscommunication, misinformation, and quite a lot of confusion and fear regardless).

It appears that the specific issue I was referring to required a human error for copilot being able to train on the private repositories. Namely, some unfortunate fool temporarily making the repository public (in which case it obviously isn't private anymore, and therefore free for grabs by scrapers). Usually this wouldn't be a problem, since no indexer or scraper can check all of Github all at once all the time, so the chance of a briefly exposed repository being cached is rather small, albeit always there.

That said, Copilot, Bing, and Github are likely better integrated than Bing simply wasting resources on continuously scraping Github for new repositories. I personally imagine that Github saving resources by sending a signal to Bing when a repository is made public isn't entirely unlikely (that's something I might do, harboring no ill intentions), meaning that it is possible (though in no way confirmed) that Bing punishes briefly exposed Github repositories instantly by forever caching them.

Is this 100% Microsoft being predatory? No, obviously not, since it requires a user error to happen in the first place, and since Copilot is technically only trained on public or exposed data. Though, Microsoft learning about this rather scammy behavior and simply classifying it a "low-impact-severity" and disabling the Bing cache for humans (but apparently not Copilot) doesn't sit right with me. I'm sure that they knew exactly which kind of data they were working with during dataset sanitation, so they could have chosen not to use sensitive data or at least inform exposed clients that they are adding their cached secrets to Copilot.

Wasn't it revealed that Microsoft was training their Copilot on Github repositories, including private ones such as paying coorporations believing their source code to be safe and secure, resulting in secrets suddenly being made semi-public?

I feel that there were other incidents too, though I can't remember them off the top of my head. Definitely not a place I'd recommend anyone to keep anything they love, even if they keep to best practices and don't store secrets in their repositories.

Ignoring space for a moment, it depends whether you see time as a single - linear - dimension, or as a set of n dimensions.

If time can only exist as a single dimension, then yes, we'd have a paradox.

If time is two-(or more)-dimensional, then you'd just step into a parallel timeline/dimension for every change made, forsaking the old timeline Steins' Gate-style.

Obviously, 2+ dimensional time cannot be proven, so it's just a fun thought experiment. It's not entirely unlike the hypothetical 4th dimension of space - which would leave space-time with 4 dimensions of space and one of time.

That's what we Europeans call a "petty answer to the disgrace that is Amarican military time" (not the be confused with regular Amarican time and dates, which don't allow overflow, as far as I'm aware). The date described above is clearly "the second of March, 2015" or 2015-03-02.

Well, I got that, but that's also pretty much the only thing it mentions. What were the results? Was it better then the last generation? How will it change warfare in the future (beyond Gaza)?

I'm gonna ignore the deeply unethical application under which this mysterious and barely named new rocket was tested, since that hardly is relevant to this community and better discussed elsewhere.

EDIT: Sorry, that last paragraph should have an "I think" in there, since I'm no mod and am purely voicing my opinion about low quality and (what I find to be) barely relevant posts in this community.