I hate people who use children to attempt further their political bullshit with the fire of a thousand suns.
I hate anti-maskers and COVID-denialism with the fire of ten thousand suns.
But people who use their children to further their completely foolish political stance of not masking up and downplaying the COVID pandemic by doing so need to be fed through the fires of one hundred thousand suns.
Genuinely these are awful people. They deserve to get ejected every time they show up unmasked or go unmasked when asked to wear a mask.
There are legitimate, considerate reasons a place that hosts many many people might mandate masks.
Why on earth would I pay $10 a month for search when I can get everything I need using SearXNG? For Free.
It costs me exactly $0.00 to run SearXNG locally using Podman and WSL to host the docker image. It Just Works; and I don't have to worry about paying money every month to anyone; nor do I ever have to count my search queries as precious.
Unfortunately this "$10/month = Unlimited" is also likely to be available only for a limited time; and once Kagi feels it has enough users; then you'll be stuck back on some arbitrary number of searches each month.
Worse is logging in. To search. Yuck.
There are so many "Public" SearXNG instances as well for the less-than-technical; https://searx.space/
All of them provide the option(s) to use whatever engines you'd like.
I would say they're not open to the public if they're behind a security checkpoint. They exist for the comfort and use of people who live on base and for those who are immediate family of service members and other visitors who have reason to be on-base.
I've always felt the FSF has had no idea what they were doing. Therefore I do not always agree with or support 100% of what they do.
I do feel that sometimes code should be able to carry reasonable restrictions. Just not sweeping restrictions.
An example of a reasonable restriction would be a clause that prohibits commercialized use of free software without first obtaining permission from the project in question. Another reasonable restriction would be a clause that prohibits governmental use or use by military entities.
An unreasonable restriction would be naming only specific companies that are not allowed to use the 'free' software. It would also be further considered unreasonable for rights to use 'free' software if it expires, goes away, or is revoked if you commit a specific crime, or fall under suspicion of committing said crime.
Telling someone that they are "Absolutely wrong" is within my right and is also a very polite way to indicate to someone to shut up and listen without saying it; and that attempting to talk with me further on the topic will not be civil or fruitful.
Blocking people who persist is a simple mechanism to weed out anyone who refuse to listen to logic or feelings on a matter when they don't align with their own.
Would you rather I be blunt and simply tell idiots to "Shut the fuck up"? Because that's definitely not civility. Don't try to argue semantics here; it's ugly and unnecessary.
I genuinely recommend against re-federation for Beehaw.
My unique take and experience from lemmy.one is simply the number of users who simply seek to stir the pot.
My blocklist is full of people from lemm.ee and sh.itjust.works and lemmy.world as well as lemmy.ca . When I compare the number of blocks to the number I've blocked from beehaw or even my own instance; a paltry one or two; I'm only ever seeing trolls or idealogues coming from those instances to argue with my posts no matter how well reasoned they may be. For context; if I tell someone they are absolutely wrong and they persist; they automatically meet my block list. I won't suffer people who aren't going to discuss things civilly or rationally.
AI art is factually not art theft.It is creation of art in the same rough and inexact way that we humans do it; except computers and AIs do not run on meat-based hardware that has an extraordinary number of features and demands that are hardwired to ensure survival of the meat-based hardware. It doesn't have our limitations; so it can create similar works in various styles very quickly.
Copyright on the other hand is, an entirely different and, a very sticky subject. By default, "All Rights Are Reserved" is something that usually is protected by these laws. These laws however, are not grounded in modern times. They are grounded in the past; before the information age truly began it's upswing.
Fair use generally encompasses all usage of information that is one or more of the following:
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.
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.
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.
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.
In most cases AI art is at least somewhat Transformative. It may be too complex for us to explain it simply; but the AI is basically a virtual brain that can, without error or certain human faults, ingest image information and make decisions based on input given to it in order to give a desired output.
Arguably; if I have license or right to view artwork; or this right is no longer reserved, but is granted to the public through the use of the World Wide Web...then the AI also has those rights. Yes. The AI has license to view, and learn from your artwork. It just so happens to be a little more efficient at learning and remembering than humans can be at times.
This does not stop you from banning AIs from viewing all of your future works. Communicating that fact with all who interact with your works is probably going to make you a pretty unpopular person. However; rightsholders do not hold or reserve the right to revoke rights that they have previously given. Once that genie is out of the bottle; it's out...unless you've got firm enough contract proof to show that someone agreed to otherwise handle the management of rights.
In some cases; that proof exists. Good luck in court. In most cases however; that proof does not exist in a manner that is solid enough to please the court. A lot of the time; we tend to exchange, transfer and reserve rights ephemerally...that is in a manner that is not strictly always 100% recognized by the law.
Gee; Perhaps we should change that; and encourage the reasonable adaptation and growth of Copyright to fairly address the challenges of the information age.
Melody Fwygon @ fwygon @beehaw.org Posts 2Comments 143Joined 2 yr. ago
Finally.