[-] shiri@foggyminds.com 8 points 7 months ago

@taladar @Jeraxus It's a Guinness World Record for number of tires per year (ongoing record holder), in volume they don't remotely compete.

[-] shiri@foggyminds.com 33 points 7 months ago

@shootwhatsmyname Two parts, the easier to chew is that Microphones are basically just speakers wired backwards.

The second part is Solar Panels are basically just LEDs wired backwards.

(In both cases there's a lot of design work around them to make them better at one task than the other, but the technology is still the same)

[-] shiri@foggyminds.com 4 points 9 months ago

@cogitoprinciple Yeah, unfortunately it rules me out of having any information since I'm in the US

[-] shiri@foggyminds.com 10 points 9 months ago

@cogitoprinciple it'll help a lot if you edit to include what country you're in

[-] shiri@foggyminds.com 5 points 1 year ago

@Brkdncr @KasanMoor I don't think they care about incoming port 25, the blocking being talked about is outgoing 25.

[-] shiri@foggyminds.com 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

@fwygon all questions of how AI learns aside, it's not legally theft but philosophically the topic is debatable and very hot button.

I can however comment pretty well on your copyright comments which are halfway there, but have a lot of popular inaccuracies.

Fair use is a very vague topic, and they explicitly chose to not make explicit terms on what is allowed but rather the intents of what is to be allowed. We've got some firm ones not because of specific laws but from abundance of case evidence.

* Educational; so long as it is taught as a part of a recognized class and within curriculum.
* Informational; so long as it is being distributed to inform the public about valid, reasonable public interests. This is far broader than some would like; but it is legal.
* Narrative or Commentary purposes; so long as you're not copying a significant amount of the whole content and passing it off as your own. Short clips with narration and lots of commentary interwoven between them is typically protected. Copyright is not intended to be used to silence free speech. This also tends to include satire; as long as it doesn't tread into defamation territory.

These are basically all the same category and includes some misinformation about what it does and does not cover. It's permitted to make copies for purely informational, public interest (ie. journalistic) purposes. This would include things like showing a clip of a movie or a trailer to make commentary on it.

Education doesn't get any special treatment here, but research might (ie. making copies that are kept to a restricted environment, and only used for research purposes, this is largely the protection that AI models currently fall under because the training data uses copyrighted data but the resulting model does not).

* Transformative; so long as the content is being modified in a substantial enough manner that it is an entirely new work that is not easily confused for the original. This too, is far broader than some would like; but it still is legal.

"Easily confused" is a rule from Trademark Law, not copyright. Copyright doesn't care about consumer confusion, but does care about substitution. That is, if the content could be a substitute for the original (ie. copying someone else's specific painting is going to be a violation up until the point where it can only be described as "inspired by" the painting)

* Reasonable, 'Non-Profit Seeking or Motivated' Personal Use; People are generally allowed to share things amongst themselves and their friends and other acquaintances. Reasonable backup copies, loaning of copies, and even reproduction and presentation of things are generally considered fair use.

This is a very very common myth that gets a lot of people in trouble. Copyright doesn't care about whether you profit from it, more about potential lost profits.

Loaning is completely disconnected from copyright because no copies are being made ("digital loaning" is a nonsense attempt to claiming loaning, but is just "temporary" copying which is a violation).

Personal copies are permitted so long as you keep the original copy (or the original copy is explicitly irrecoverably lost or destroyed) as you already acquired it and multiple copies largely are just backups or conversions to different formats. The basic gist is that you are free to make copies so long as you don't give any of them to anyone else (if you copy a DVD and give either the original or copy to a friend, even as a loan, it's illegal).

It's not good to rely on it being "non-profit" as a copyright excuse, as that's more just an area of leniency than a hard line. People far too often thing that allows them to get away with copying things, it's really just for topics like making backups of your movies or copying your CDs to mp3s.

... All that said, fun fact: AI works are not covered by copyright law.

To be copyrighted a human being must actively create the work. You can copyright things made with AI art, but not the AI art itself (ie. a comic book made with AI art is copyrighted, but the AI art in the panels is not, functioning much like if you made a comic book out of public domain images). Prompts and set up are not considered enough to allow for copyright (example case was a monkey picking up a camera and taking pictures, those pictures were deemed unable to be copyrighted because despite the photographer placing the camera... it was the monkey taking the photos).

[-] shiri@foggyminds.com 4 points 1 year ago

@SuddenDownpour Pathologizing aside, this matches up with another thing I've seen pointed out as an autistic trait that backs this up: value based identity vs group based identity.

Allistics typically tie their identity up in the groups they're a part of: family, work, church, town/city/state, etc

Autistics tie our identity up in our values: what we do, impacts we've made, accomplishments tied to our values

This is why you hear things like "snitches get stitches" because group loyalty is considered more critically important than values, or how we're seen as turning on the group when we call out how the group could be improved.

This would especially make sense in the mentioned study because when you take away the group it takes away the impact to their identity while our identities don't care if someone is watching.

[-] shiri@foggyminds.com 27 points 1 year ago

@mudeth @pglpm you really don't beyond our current tools and reporting to authorities.

This is not a single monolithic platform, it's like attributing the bad behavior of some websites to HTTP.

Our existing moderation tools are already remarkably robust and defederating is absolutely how this is approached. If a server shares content that's illegal in your country (or otherwise just objectionable) and they have no interest in self-moderating, you stop federating with them.

Moderation is not about stamping out the existence of these things, it's about protecting your users from them.

If they're not willing to take action against this material on their servers, then the only thing further that can be done is reporting it to the authorities or the court of public opinion.

[-] shiri@foggyminds.com 37 points 1 year ago

@scrubbles My favorite early moment was him firing people based on lines of code written... which of course meant he fired all of his best because the worst programmers write many lines that do less while great programmers write few lines that do more.

[-] shiri@foggyminds.com 4 points 1 year ago

@shortwavesurfer @InquisitiveApathy ion drives really don't solve any of these problems.

Orbital dynamics are *weird* and "more speed" isn't a solution. With orbital dynamics your relative position and speed are directly related, so moving faster basically means changing direction. Once you're in microgravity thrust power is more about how quickly you can steer and fuel quantity is how many maneuvers you can do. Ion drives can do a lot of maneuvers, but every maneuver is very slow (which also makes them more complicated because you need to account for the changes that happen over the course of the maneuver).

We don't travel to orbital bodies in a straight line because it goes beyond an absurd quantity of fuel to do so (ion drives don't even scratch the surface of the amount needed, let alone the complexity they add due to slow acceleration).

Right now we don't have much to improve the speed of getting places and not much on the horizon there either, so we're focusing on questions like how to survive getting there.

[-] shiri@foggyminds.com 13 points 1 year ago

@saba @Recant We're definitely not going to have a moon colony in our lifetime, and a manned mars mission would only be a disaster.

The reason we haven't really gone back to the moon and don't have a colony there is because it's much more expensive to access and offers no real benefit over space stations. It's perk is low gravity instead of microgravity, but it trades off in massively increased fuel and time costs as well as the inability to "dodge" hazards. The moon has no special resources, no capacity for terraforming, and if we were wanting to build enclosed habitats we could do that more easily in a space station.

Mars is kinda worse because as far as I can tell we're finding problems faster than we're finding solutions. My favorite recent example of this is that we discovered anyone we sent would go blind before reaching the planet (microgravity destroys your vision over time, it took us forever to find out because the astronauts were hiding it so they wouldn't be disqualified from future flights).

view more: next ›

shiri

joined 1 year ago