fubo @ fubo @lemmy.world

No relation to the sports channel.

---

Read more

Posts

17

Comments

2,226

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

No, that's hummus. Hamas are a domesticated South American camelid.

As a reminder, Hamas has plenty of food. Is it unreasonable to ask them to release that food to the people of Gaza?

Good Omens.

You're supporting the growth of fascism. Please stop.

Our voting system requires that voters "compromise their morals" if they want to avoid electing the most immoral candidate.

That is a mathematical truth about first-past-the-post voting. It is part of why we should switch to approval voting, ranked choice, or another such system as soon as possible. Most other systems require less compromising your morals to meet the goal of keeping the worst candidate out of office.

The moral voter recognizes this, realizes they cannot fix the voting system before the next election ...and refuses the temptation to let the bad guy win just to spite the insufficiently-good guy.

Morality ultimately rests on outcomes, not purity. If you take actions that are consistent with getting fascists elected, that is your morality right there.

You can't stop fascism over there by threatening to put fascists in charge here. Trump expressly approves of human rights violations, remember? He doesn't just tolerate them in allies; he likes them. They're a show of strength. Fascists love strength.

I'd like to see US military aid to Israel contingent on a better human rights record. Hell, I'd like to see a policy of bankrupting China if it doesn't free its slaves (including the North Koreans, who are held in slavery by Chinese support for Juche fascism).

I think those are long shots under liberalism, but they're impossible under fascism.

But if you throw the US to fascism because the liberals didn't do good enough, that is a revealed preference for fascism here on your part.

Our voting system sucks. But we still have to use it to keep fascists out of office.

I don't condone it here or there.
I don't condone it anywhere.
I do not like this Bibi N.
I do not like him now or then.
He's as bad at least as Trump.
He's an ape who throws his dump.
But if you live in purple state
You are obliged for our land's fate.
If you throw the vote to Trump,
You're the one who threw the dump.
You're the one who spread the brown.
You're the one who wrecked your town.
If you fail to vote for Joe,
Let your state to Trump's red go,
If we drown in fascist poo,
It will be the fault of you.

Any material action that leads to Trump (or a Trump imitator) returning to office is material support for fascism.

"I'll let fascists take over my country if the liberals here don't stop the fascists in that country over there" is ideological support for fascism.

Perhaps every federal judge should receive a copy of Spider Robinson's "Melancholy Elephants". (It's under a Creative Commons license.)

http://www.spiderrobinson.com/melancholyelephants.html

Sure, then whoever uses it to extract that text is infringing. If I memorize a copyrighted text, my brain is not an infringement; but if I publicly perform a recitation of that text, that act is infringing.

Really the precedent of search engines (and card catalogs and concordances before them) should yield the same result. Building an index of information about copyrighted works is librarianship; running off new copies of those works is infringement.

On the other hand, AI transparency is also an interesting problem. It may be that one day we can look at a set of neural network weights -- or a human brain! -- and say "these patterns here are where this system memorized Ginsberg's 'Kaddish'." I hope we will not conclude that brains must be lobotomized to remove copyrighted memorized texts.

The question should be pretty simple:

Does the AI product output copyrighted material?

If I ask it for the text of Harry Potter, will it give it to me? If I ask it for a copy of a Keith Haring painting, will it give me one? If I ask it to perform Williams's Jurassic Park theme, will it do so?

If it does, it's infringing copyright.

If it does not, it is not.

If it just reads the web and learns from copyrighted material, but carefully refuses to republish or perform that material, it should not be considered to infringe, for the same reasons a human student is not. Artistic styles and literary skills are not copyrightable.

e e cummings doesn't get to forbid everyone else from writing in lowercase.

(Some generations of ChatGPT won't even recite Shakespeare, due to overzealous copyright filters that fail to correctly count it as public domain. The AI folks are trying!)

Then it's probably just more. Again: your post did not contain enough information for anyone to provide an answer to your question.

Antivirus doesn't do what it promises. The only general solution for a compromised system is a clean reinstall. (This is true in Windows too.)

A process can change its name. If I wanted to make sneaky malware for Linux, I'd have it call itself more or something innocuous too.

The correct answer is "this is not enough information". Why should a real more process eat ¼ of a core for any substantial amount of time?

No mention of patent license costs as a separate line item from materials? Boo.

Look in developer tools in your browser. You can record the network activity while loading the page, and see whether the access to that site is coming from this page load. (It could also be something else on your system.)

Wrong answers only:

You're only allowed to program in pure functional languages. Hence the name "Standard ML".

Adblocker users are a small minority. For all we know, this could be an internal squabble between YouTube and Chrome departments too!

This recent push is probably to support someone's promotion. That's where stupid corporate moves mostly come from.

Previously Google's attitude was something like "adblocker users are cynics and don't buy stuff anyway, so why bother showing them ads? Save the ad impression for a user who is more impressionable."

Even with CPM ads, the advertiser prefers that they spend their budget on users who are actually open to being swayed by the ad. Adblocker users are saying up front that they won't be. It's bad for the advertiser to spend their budget on people who hate ads so much they go out of their way to block them.

The only way seeing an ad is beneficial is if you click on it

This is not really true anymore, though it once was. Most web ads are served on a "cost per impression" basis, not "cost per click". Even classic AdSense is moving to CPM rather than CPC, and Google AdX (which serves big brand ads) already was, as with the old DoubleClick.

Did y'all really need the Second Coming of Maggie?