dev_null @ dev_null @lemmy.ml

Posts

0

Comments

690

Joined

2 yr. ago

It would be a tremendously bad business move to choose not to revive them. They'd immediately lose all business as people obviously wouldn't trust their service anymore.

Give one example (with a source)

By adding a free feature that doesn't make anything worse?

Yeah, I think the meme is intended from the perspective of an observer on Earth.

Because it, ever so slightly, pulls Earth towards it with it's own, miniscule gravity.

Do we really think video games are promoting violence?

No, that's not their argument. They are saying the gun manufacturer advertised their real life gun in the video game. They don't have an issue with video game violence, they have an issue with advertising weapons to children.

No, it's not. It's part of React internals that you shouldn't use because your app will break. It's a warning for developers using React. It's not a secret of any kind.

Agree, I just wouldn't call that "never willingly using proprietary software".

Even Stallman said games are an unfortunate, but reasonable exception. Of he can see it, anyone can.

I wish that was possible, but it's not feasible to get a lot done on a 15 year old ThinkPad or whatever, that doesn't have any proprietary firmware.

Yes, and what does it change for the purpose of this post? The question wasn't what's the best software you use in your leisure time for non-work purposes.

What aren't you happy to financially support creators of open source software you like?

Why? I'd be happy to give them a defense that obviously won't work. Otherwise someone else could've get them a better one.

Sorry, my app glitched out and posted my comment multiple times, and got me banned for spamming... Now that I got unbanned I can reply.

So is the car manufacturer responsible if someone drives their car into the sidewalk to kill some people?

In this scenario no, because the crime was in how someone used the car, not in the creation of the car. The guy in this story did commit a crime, but for other reasons. I'm just saying that if you are claiming that children in the training data are victims of some crime, then that crime was committed when training the model. They obviously didn't agree for their photos to be used that way, and most likely didn't agree for their photos to be used for AI training at all. So by the time this guy came around, they were already victims, and would still be victims if he didn't.