Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)UR
Posts
7
Comments
600
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • Just look at all the people getting frustrated at being told “you should probably do it a different way.” They really don’t understand that just because they’re asking the question, it’s not all about them.

    I don't agree. I remember having a problem (something with PDF and JS if I remember correctly) and I had some restrictions (no I could not do anything about those restrictions). Someone on SO had asked my question with somewhat the same restrictions, which boiled downed to no being able to utilize the most common solution. The first answer on SO was to use the solution that specifically could not be used.

    I can see your point and I actually somewhat agree but when the answers are "do X" to the question "how do I do this when I cannot do X?", the audience should be the minority going there because they have a niece problem, not the majority that are lead there by search engines. And all the "do X" answers should be removed, or moved somewhere they are relevant.

  • I read the article and I read the comments. Is there something I am missing here? I thought they were discussing OpenAI gathering data on it's users (those using ChatGPT) and not giving that data back. Based on the comments, the article is upset that OpenAI can give back data that ChatGPT was trained on.

    Does the second case fall under GDPR? Could not OpenAI just claim that they removed any information that makes it identifiable and call is a day?

  • Perhaps because a court hasn't ruled on it, they won't word it that explicitly?

    My best guess is that the new paper could be charged with defamation if the court ruled that the police didn't kill him and they claimed he did.

    But I'm not a lawyer and have no idea about the law regarding journalism nor its ethics.

  • I remember reading something similar, with someone responding that they were always two people for these tasks. One doing the job and one guarding the circuit, making sure this does not happen.