No one uses Boolean values anyway and with the amount of resources available on modern systems we can just replace them with integers and we should be fine. This also makes it easier to teach people, as they would learn less different data types.
Yes I’m a software dev :)
At this point I think there is no software dev topic that is somehow not devisive.
That sounds like a really dumb design idea. Why make a federating protocol if you still rely on the server? I don’t even get why they did it at all then.
That’s indeed very interesting and peculiar.
For me it’s 4 Lemmy results and then 2 reddit results and after than chaos ensues.
what a retard
Probably didn’t need the personal insult. Reddit with it’s CEO huff and puffmann is basically as bad as it gets, so I’m happy about every competition. Obviously Lemmy is doing way better but I’d be happy for Discuit to do well too.
I mean if there’s a time to test it out, it’s right now I would argue.
Lemmy is still small enough to test those things.
in full compliance with the letter and the spirit of copyright law
That is some real semantic acrobatics. The law is supposed to follow societal norms and reflect boundaries accordingly. Yeah, AI laws take time, and obv there hasn’t been enough legislation done. That said, the EU for example already has a law for AI but the member states need to adapt that into national laws now.
There is law here. And even though I’m sure what they are doing rn will be illegal or at least very heavily regulated in the future, they might be doing something illegal today. Depending on how eager governments are to litigate, this might already get dicey in the coming months.
It’s beautiful
Yeah that part tripped me up.
“Rolling context window”? You mean one of the universal properties of LLMs in it’s current state? The one that is so big for Google’s latest AI endeavors that they are flexing with it?
It’s hilarious to say that’s a privacy feature. It’s like calling amnesia a learning opportunity.
These claims make me think this is worse than the R1 rabbit or whatever it’s called. Although it’s very difficult to be worse, considering the CEO turned out to be a full-on crypto scammer.
God that’s bad. This is what I’d expected Russian trolls to do on Lemmy before getting down voted into oblivion, but I wouldn’t expect a CEO to do this. This is fucked up.
And because this could just enable government bodies to fuck around with spying, that’s why usually you have to get a warrant for this kinda stuff on the grounds of probable cause.
There’s a few state sponsored media companies that are actually quite reputable. Al Jazeera has generally be seen as pretty neutral on reporting. Although there’s some exceptions, but not as much as one would expect.
It’s like a 6 year old saying “I can stop eating candy! I’ll do it!” Ad after 5 seconds they eat it anyway.
“ignore latest model changes”
Alright I’ll give you that
lawful interception
Idk bout that. Usually you get a warrant for wiretapping and then you pay someone to install it. If they are trying to break encryption or identifying users, that means they inherently are doing something the law does not favor.
Let’s also acknowledge that if encryption is bad because it cannot be broken, that means encryption is pretty good at what it should do.
Breaking encryption is never something you do for the right reasons.
Yeah maybe that could work. I definitely agree that there’s ways to get good anchor points. Maybe through cross-check with wireless networks even.
But wouldn’t you scramble the precision with that? Stations can be quite big and anchoring to the station location means you already start with an offset to your location.
Depending on the accuracy over time, they could pinpoint a location while the user is sleeping and than use that as an anchor for the day.
But everything about that is speculative; let’s see where this goes first.
Wrong way around. The law doesn’t decide how we feel, the law is written after society.
If people think something is really bad objectively, then politicians create laws.
So first we need to decide how we feel, then politicians create laws on that. In Europe, countries tend to be more privacy and security first, and that’s why a lot of them already have stricter rules in place.
And Meta also doesn’t tell us how to think, they just tell us how they treat our posts, and the rest is up to lawyers if it comes to a specific dispute.
You don’t have to agree with laws ever. But for the meantime, you do have to follow them.
The potatoes?