orclev

AI isn't allowed on any of my systems, it's practically the first thing I disable (alongside tracking and metrics, but that's basically the same thing). The only AI I will ever allow would be something entirely offline and self hosted that I have complete and total control over.

Microsoft insisting on cramming this crap down everyone's throats has finally convinced me to go 100% Linux for gaming. I'd rather abandon the small handful of games that won't let you run them under Linux than let MS scrape all my personal data and shove ads into every crack of my OS. It's been going great so far and I have absolutely no regrets. Best of all, not a single piece of AI or telemetry to disable.

$9.74 billion for the trash fire that is Twitter is honestly a really good offer, the muskrat should definitely take that.

I got lucky and picked up a 7900 XTX for a reasonable price last gen and it's been a really great card. I've got a couple systems coming up on needing a refresh (1080 Ti and a 2080 Ti) and I'm planning on upgrading both of them to a 9070 XT. I'm staying away from Nvidia until they start pricing their GPUs at prices actual consumers can afford instead of corporations looking to build AI farms.

At least German is consistent, unlike English where every so-called "rule" nearly has more exceptions than places it applies. As a native speaker I'm always amazed that anyone manages to learn our train wreck of a language.

Just like reddit it mostly doesn't host the images itself, but simply links to them. Redgif seems to be the host of choice for most, although some also use catbox.

Please see exhibit A, the US telecoms infrastructure which has backdoors added by the alphabet agencies and has now been so thoroughly violated by Chinese hackers that they've basically given up trying to fix it. It would literally be easier to burn every telecom installation in the US to the ground and build new ones on the ashes than it would be to remove all the Chinese rootkits and back doors. All because someone just had to have a backdoor for the NSA/CIA/FBI.

Because they need a constant stream of data to feed the models. If people had to opt in then they'd be less likely to do so and the models would starve and become less accurate and therefore less valuable to sell. Remember the trained model is the valuable piece of the entire thing, that's what companies pay money to gain access to. There's no point in sitting on all that user data if they can't turn it into a marketable product by feeding it into a model.

I'm just annoyed that the term AI has been co-opted now to refer to pretty much any form of machine learning. Stuff gets called AI today that wouldn't have been considered AI even 10 years ago. I think that's part of what's driving peoples ridiculous expectations because they hear AI and they expect actual AI not a glorified smart fill.

Try posting a picture of Winnie the Pooh and see what that gets you.

It should be pointed out that modern LCDs use local dimming zones to only light up certain parts of the display, although that only really helps if large swaths of the image are solid black. LCDs have come a long way from the old days when they were side or backlit by CCFLs. So even LCDs might draw slightly less power for light-on-dark, although you'd probably get even more benefit by just turning down the displays brightness regardless of the color scheme.

You're being too literal with the term copyright. Fundamentally what copyright has always been about is preventing someone else using your work for their own gain without your permission. In that respect yes, copyright is critical in the digital age. The problem is that it's a compromise. It balances the rights of someone who has "purchased" a copyrighted work with the rights of the creator.

Generally the balance that has been struck is that as a purchaser you have the right to do anything that you want with a work except to sell a duplicate of that work. You can sell the work, so long as you no longer retain a copy of it yourself. In practice this means transferring rather than copying. How exactly that's accomplished gets into the weeds a bit if you start splitting hairs, but what's important here is the spirit of the thing, nobody is going to care if technically you both have a copy for some short period of time in the middle of the transfer process.

As for "copy protection" aka DRM that is and always has been complete bullshit because it is a fundamentally intractable problem. There's exactly one way to enforce copyright and that's the legal system, anything else is doomed to failure.

We also desperately need to prevent companies from using that monopoly to prevent older works from being available by having the copyright and not publishing the work

This is solved by limiting copyright to a short duration after which the work enters the public domain. If a company wants to squander a copyright by sitting on it for the limited time they have it that's fine but they're only hurting themselves. The only reason this is an issue now is because of the ridiculous century long copyright terms we currently have. If copyright was reduced to a decade you would never see this happening anymore. That said a safeguard should also be in place to prevent copyright being used as a censorship weapon by the wealthy. I think a "use it or lose it" clause that immediately enters a work into the public domain if it's not available for some period of time (maybe a couple years) would nip any potential issues there in the bud.

Copyright isn't a stupid concept in the digital age, if anything it's more important than ever but it is grossly out of control and needs to be severely curtailed (along with all other IP law). Copyright needs to go back to what it was originally intended as, a short term monopoly on a creative work. Something like 10 to 20 years. The current 100+ year copyright durations are absolutely ridiculous and never should have been allowed.