abhibeckert @ abhibeckert @beehaw.org

Posts

0

Comments

321

Joined

2 yr. ago

t just seems like the government is sticking to the default search issue because it’s soft and they truly don’t care.

Or maybe they're actively investigating the other issues too but aren't ready to bring those to court yet... so they're not saying anything which could affect proceedings.

If someone wants information taken down, they shouldn’t be asking Google to de-index it, they should be going after the news site.

How? How can you ask a site run in a foreign country, by people who don't speak english, to remove some content about you?

Also - just because content is accurate doesn't mean it's legal. A video of two people having sex is "accurate". That doesn't mean it should be shared online if they haven't consented to that.

As far as I know, Mario Costeja González never did anything wrong? All he did was sell an asset in order to pay off a debt. The media's coverage of the event did long term harm to his reputation. I think it's a perfectly good example of a reasonable takedown request. The normal rule for people with financial difficulties in Australia is to erase all records after five years (e.g. if you're overdue paying off a loan, that black mark against your name will be forgotten if you do eventually pay the loan off and then don't miss a payment for five years).

Kids also do stupid shit all the time, and these days those mistakes are often posted online. They shouldn't ruin your reputation for your entire life.

I'm sure this won't be a universal right. There will be rules around when someone can ask for content to be taken down. I'm reserving judgement until I've seen those rules... and even then it's pretty normal for new legislation to miss a few things and be amended later.

According to the Experts

I don't recall "the experts" guaranteeing any of the things you listed would happen.

When I checked the weather report this morning, it said 20% chance of rain. It hasn't rained yet, but it might later. But rain or no rain the weather report was accurate.

If it was possible to predict the outcome of an election, there wouldn't be any point having an election at all. The other candidates would save themselves all the money and effort by just not competing at all. Similarly, if the yes/no vote had an obvious winner it would have unilateral support by both major parties.

That’s kind of the point being made in the article, though: they could succeed in the chip game thanks to a multi-decades head-start from ARM

Apple basically created ARM (look into the history of the chip design company).

Who knows, maybe in 30 years their cell modem efforts will be good enough to use. Or maybe not. I don't think Apple really minds either way there's nothing wrong with Qualcomm chipsets.

What local car production? There is none in this country.

I want a BEV car because I can charge it for free with the solar panels I already have on my roof. That benefits me - not China.

As for Hydrogen... whatever advantages it has are irrelevant since nobody sells an affordable and practical hydrogen car. I'm sure hydrogen will be a viable option one day, but it's not right now or in the near future.

COVID can, and does, kill us.

Look, I get it, but there's a big difference between a hundred thousand deaths per day and a couple hundred deaths per day which is where we are now with covid (according to the WHO).

Covid is nowhere near the highest risk anymore, even people who are especially vulnerable to it are far more likely to be killed by something else.

Doesn't mean covid should be ignored but the precautions we took in recent years just aren't necessary right now.

I have no idea what the numbers are today, if people here are still dying. I doubt it,

The numbers are available. Official count (by the WHO) is a few hundred deaths a day globally and dozens of deaths per day in the EU.

Keep in mind those numbers are probably not accurate, since they're coming from unreliable sources (I would think the EU number is more accurate than most of the world though).

Several months ago there was a wave that peaked at 41,000 deaths per day. We definitely need to keep a finger on the pulse incase another wave like that rises up. In the height of the pandemic restrictions the death rate was more like a hundred thousand deaths per day (and that wasn't a peak of a single wave, it was around that high for a year).

Everyone's different. Personally when I wear a mask I can't see since it fogs up my glasses within a few seconds, and therefore I can't really function as a normal human being. My partner can't breathe properly while wearing a mask - which is even worse.

If you compound that with the fact that you're wearing a mask because you're sick... then the mask makes an already unpleasant day 10x worse.

For us - if the choice is wear a mask or stay home, we'll both just stay home (or at least away from public indoor spaces). We did that all of last week. Cost thousands of dollars since we had to take unpaid leave from work - but we'd rather do that than wear a mask.

The obvious solution would be to do everything in their power to follow the script to the letter

It's not just sets that are a problem, there's a million different reasons why a script might look good on paper but not work in practice.

Fundamentally, writers are never experts in every aspect of the industry so they can't possibly recognise all of the problems in their script until someone else points it out. A lighting designer perhaps. Or a makeup artist. Or a lawyer.

Nothing wrong with Daniel Craig being involved in a rewrite. But he should be doing it alongside a writer instead of replacing the writer.

Twitter was profitable in the years before covid. They made a net income of $1.2 billion in 2018.

They made a slight (compared to their revenue) loss during the pandemic, presumably because advertisers generally were willing to spend less, but they were still earning more than enough - simply cut a few costs and they'd be profitable again. Or just wait for the market to improve since from the sounds of it they had more than enough savings to ride it out (that appeared to be their plan).

They didn't sell to Musk because they were desperate, they sold to Musk because he signed a contract guaranteeing he would pay far more than the company was worth. If I owned a house that was worth a million dollars, and someone offered me ten million, hell yeah would I sell that house even if I wasn't really interested in selling.

most value in this if it’s above politics I guess that’s probably to much to hope for

Way too much to hope for and it would get especially ugly if a labor federal government investigation highlighted issues in liberal run states.

The C word is not acceptable in Australia.

they said it would be racist to include specific powers to a specific race in the Constitution

But the voice doesn't do that.

It gives the government specific powers to advise itself on an important issue that needs to be worked on.

It doesn't give indigenous people any powers at all. Look, the proposed constitutional amendment is a few short paragraphs. Show me the line of text that gives special powers to a specific race. It's not there.

I got another pamphlet in my letterbox today claiming there are things "on the agenda" that are clearly not on the agenda at all. The proposed change to the constitution is very short, very simple, and the No campaign has consistently and repeatedly making things up and claiming a Yes vote will do things that it simply will not do. Frankly it sounds like you're someone who believes some of their miss-information, which is sad.

I encourage you to go back read the actual legal text that we are about to vote on. Fuck the yes and no campaigns and anything people are saying here (even what I'm saying). Just read the actual proposed amendment to the constitution. Have a good think about what it means, it's clearly written.

Also look into how much we are already spending on this issue without good results — spoiler: it's estimated at 3% of our GDP. That's about $1,500 per capita per year... except per capita is the wrong way to look at it since that includes children, elderly people, unemployed people, people who are in prison, or suffer a mental or physical disability. If you are someone who pays taxes then you're probably spending several thousand dollars per year on this issue already and you have been your entire working life. Ask yourself, do you want to continue spending all that money even though it's not working? No, of course not. Lets get this advisory body in place so parliament can start making better decisions and all that money can actually start getting results hopefully (it's worth a try at least).

PS: Yes/No are not the only options. You could just leave the ballot paper blank when you vote. Seems like a waste though, might as well decide where you fall on the issue and select that one.

Generally, photographers do not like to offer their services to clients through a Work for Hire Agreement

If I was getting married, I'd find one that will do a work for hire agreement. It's my wedding, I want to own the photos. Nobody else should be profiting off them (aside from what I paid them to take the photos).

if two people use the same prompt, do they get the same result?

Usually part of the prompt includes a very large random number that is impossible to guess - so two people cannot use the same prompt. And therefore will get different outputs.

There are some tools that let you specify a fixed number instead of a random one, and in that case yes the output would be the same. But that's not the norm.

Also the prompt is usually very complex. For example if you were to use Stable Diffusion to generate comic book images... you'd normally use a prompt that is close to ten gigabytes in size. Sure, it might include the words "cat sits on a hill looking over the sunset" but it also includes gigabytes of data that tells the model what style of drawing to do. You might also be happy with the cat sitting on the hill, but not the sunset, and can select the sunset in the image and have it draw that again with a different prompt, leaving the cat and hill untouched from the previous prompt.

I've been working on and off for the last month on a single image. AI doesn't mean the human does no work at all - especially if you want a specific result.

How are you going to convince ten billion people not to use AI? You can't do it.

I’d expect manufacturers to have charging limits that maintain the health of the battery

I'd expect manufacturers to have charging limits that give the car the longest range on a charge.

It's also worth noting battery chargers often continue to consume power once the battery is 'full'. For example most Apple devices prolong battery by continously cycling the battery between 100% and some lower number (maybe 95% - depends on the battery chemistry). They also don't recommend disconnecting the battery at 100% charge if you can avoid it because sitting on 100% for long periods (as in hours) is bad for the battery. Apple also tries to predict your usage pattern and charge to 80% overnight (and leave it at 80%, without cycling it like they do at 100%) until you're about to wake up in the morning and then it charges to 100%.

Test it with your car - but seriously I would avoid plugging in overnight unless you're going on a long road trip the next morning.

Huh? It works perfectly without a wire.

It doesn't use your wifi router, it uses a direct (peer to peer) wifi connection between your computer and the tablet, which if they're next to each other (e.g. a laptop and a tablet), will be faster than USB.

If it's a tower PC under a timber desk with a crappy wifi antenna, then yeah that won't work as well as a cable. Timber is pretty effective at blocking wifi.

To me this is a potential can of worms.

Copyright is absolutely a can of worms. It always has been.

That doesn’t work with AI for a variety of technical and practical reasons.

As a rule, the law doesn't care about technicalities or practicalities.

Two people could, completely coincidentally, generate something that is so similar that it looks the same at a glance… even with dramatically different prompts on dramatically different models.

Sure. If two humans take a photo of the same sunset standing next to each other, they will be virtually identical and they will both own full copyright protection for the photo they took.

That protection does make the other person's photo an illegal copy - because it wasn't a copy.

No, the output of an AI is fundamentally “coincidental” and should not be subject to copyright. Human intent and authorship MUST be a significant factor. An artist can still use AI in their workflow, but their direct involvement and manipulation must be meaningfully “transformative” for copyright to apply in a fair and equitable way.

Of course. By the way that applies to human created works too. Copyright doesn't apply to everything created by a human, only certain things are protected. If someone asks you what 2 plus 2 is, and you reply "4"... you don't own the copyright on that answer. It wasn't creative enough to be protected under copyright. If you reply with a funny joke, then that's protected.