tabular @ tabular @lemmy.world

I mention [software freedom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software) w

---

Read more

Posts

1

Comments

1,184

Joined

2 yr. ago

"What!? You don't like the erosion of ownership rights? You're an asshole!" - you.

I didn't mean to imply charging additionally for the cheats. Is the state of the games industry so bad that was a reasonable assumption :(

I was thinking of dedicated servers aimed at attracting cheaters, and a server that encourages players to fight handicapped players (various levels of cheat users).

As a player I agree but as a software user and maker I don't. Users should be in control of their own computing, therefore client-side anti-cheat is the unjust power over the user (edit, because it is proprietary).

Has anyone tried? As far as I know the most that has been done is to shadowban cheaters to their own servers for matchmaking. No one has tried having built-in multiplayer cheats to compete with 3rd party cheats.

As an adult you may notice you spend less time with your friends. So if you've tried that you'd know how sad it is when you can't play games with your friends because of your values. When you care about video games then your interpretation of "the point" leaves a lot to be desired. I aspire for a better gaming industry.

I think Ubisoft didn't notice, or very likely attributed others reasons for less sales.

I don't like DRM so I don't use streaming services like Netflix. If friends or work colleges keep talking about some show then I read Wikipedia plot section to get an idea 💀

Have you tried not buying something in protest? If so have you noticed they keep selling it anyway and you have no alternative? Not giving them money isn't enough.

I'm not a fan of DoSA as it's rather strongarm but at least this actually sends a message to them AND other users.

I'm not interested in having to fight anti-features to play what I paid for, but at least circumventing it sends a message.

If you were to treat cheaters as you may treat pirates, a service problem, then the overlap of Linux users and cheaters is a circle of unsatisfied users.

I've used Logical Increments in the past and found it very useful to meet a budget. Now I aim for "price to performance" sweet spots (since GPU prices have been crazy I'm now well overdue for a new GPU).

Both CPU manufactures are changing their naming schemes (to make it difficult to know what it is, I wish this was hyperbole). GPU manufactures also make some weird choice on naming GPUs (same-name GPU with different VRAM). Reading/watching reviews of specific parts will likely be the best way to know what you aught to buy.

If you're confident in your technical knowledge or want to then narrow down your choices then I would recommend watching videos from:

• (GPU, CPU, Case) Gamers Nexus
• (GPU, CPU, Case, Monitor) Hardware Unboxed and Monitors Unboxed.

For a casual overview of CPUs/GPUs video review I'd recommend something like Linus Tech Tips (even with the prior controversy).

The human brain is compartmentised: you can damage a part and lose the ability to recognizes faces, or name tools. Presumably it can be seen as multi-stage too but would that be a defense? All we can do is look for evidence of copyright infringement in the output, or circumstantial evidence in the input.

I'm not sure the creativity of writing a prompt means you were creative for creating the output. Even if it appears your position is legal you can still lose in court. I think Microsoft is hedging their bets that there will be president to validate their claim of copyright.

There are a few Creative Commons licenses but most actually don't prevent commercial use (the ShareAlike is like the copyleft in GPL for code). Even if the media output was public domain and others are free to copy/redistribute that doesn't prevent an author selling public domain works (just harder). Code that is public domain isn't easily copied as the software is usually shared without it as a binary file.

The corresponding training data is the best bet to see what code an input might be copied from. This can apply to humans too. To avoid lawsuits reverse engineering projects use a clean room strategy: requiring contributors to have never seen the original code. This is to argue they can't possibility be copying, even from memory (an imperfect compression too.

If it doesn't include GPL code then that can't violate the GPL. However, OpenAI argue they have to use copyrighted works to make specific AIs (if I recall correctly). Even if legal, that's still a problem to me.

My understanding is AI generated media can't be copyrighted as it wasn't a person being creative - like the monkey selfie copyright dispute.

Be it a complicated neural network or database matters not. It output portions of the code used as input by design.

If you can take GPL code and "not" distribute it via complicated maths then that circumvents it. That won't do, friendo.

If the AI was trained on code that people permitted it to be freely shared then go ahead. Taking code and ignoring the software license is largely considered a dick-move, even by people who use AI.

Some people choose a copyleft software license to ensure users have software freedom, and this AI (a math process) circumvents that. [A copyleft license makes it so that you can use the code if you agree to use the same license for the rest of the program - therefore users get the same rights you did]

If one has followed Apple with regards to their repair programs or their opposition to right to repair laws then it's only natural to expect the old apple on the ground to be rather fermented.

I may very well find a "very nice" (looking) manual, but I've come to expect it is actually unhelpful - at least that's the opinion of a certain 3rd-party Apple repair shop owner.

The issue exists already in wheelchairs being hard to repair and internal pacemakers incorrectly shocking people with unmodifiable software. Most electronics suck in terms of ownership but there are some which do not. With the electronics inside you, and connected to your brain, it becomes even more important that the user is the one in control. I hope we can progress to that with cyborg tech too.

Infrared and ultraviolet though 🥺

Hearing colour might be cool but I'd really like to upgrade my memory storage, and rocket punch.

Those are a part of the image of Hawkings but not a part of his body.

Hope they release it for the Xbox 1

Endless feature creep made browsers are the most complex programs ran by most users. I disbelieve a new browser could be made (securely, or at all). Forks are nice (I use Librewolf btw) but they do not deviate significantly. The browser market is unhealthy and unrecoverable: either it's Google vs Firefox forever or one wins.

Perhaps the alternative to the all-in-one software solution is just to use smaller programs dedicated to each common use of the modern browser (a video player for playing video, an old style internet text-page reader for browsing text, etc).