If you’re not deliberately min-maxing the CAP Theorem or doing EDA, there’s no reason to use microservices and every reason not to.
It is not just an implementation detail or a matter of preference. There are fundamental UX implications.
That can be a net positive for users (and developers). But if you’re doing it “just cuz”, you’re gonna have a bad time.
Dat dill doe
If you were born during the first industrial revolution, then you’d think the mind was a complicated machine. People seem to always anthropomorphize inventions of the era.
Citation Needed (by Molly White) also frequently bashes AI.
I like her stuff because, no matter how you feel about crypto, AI, or other big tech, you can never fault her reporting. She steers clear of any subjective accusations or prognostication.
It’s all “ABC person claimed XYZ thing on such and such date, and then 24 hours later submitted a report to the FTC claiming the exact opposite. They later bought $5 million worth of Trumpcoin, and two weeks later the FTC announced they were dropping the lawsuit.”
I think one of the most toxic things on Lemmy is the prevalence of judging normies for using incredibly popular services and ascribing it to a character defect instead of life just being too complex for most people to be able to prioritize exploring more ethical technology choices.
I was under the impression that, in the US, public bathrooms operate under some kind of gender-based “purge rules”, and that’s why it’s so essential to know who’s fair game
Teriya-KY
Well now I’m gonna do it out of spite.
ETA Prime reviews a lot of tiny laptops. They might help you find a good match.
How does it handle the half-penny? Does it round up or down, collect the remainder at the end, pull an Office Space, what?
Maybe they could add something to the road, to keep the taxis going in the right direction. Some kind of guard rails on the road.
And if it’s just taxis on those rail roads, they could go a lot faster.
You could probably connect a bunch of taxis together to move them more efficiently, too.
Imagine, if you could connect cities with these kinds of high speed, high capacity rail roads! Robo taxis are the future!
We have mistaken rationality for a philosophy rather than a methodology, and efficiency for a virtue without any particular end in mind.
To have a unique, personal, subjective, divergent human experience is to sin against your prescribed algorithm.
Pregnant with the reincarnation of Piet Mondrian
I guess I technically am?
Polluting the sky in order to pollute the internet 👌
Is it possible to cheer an action but not the actor?
Like, if someone swims out to save a drowning kid but it turns out they were only there to dump a dead body, can I still be glad they saved the kid?
Yes, that’s a good addition.
Overall, my point was not that scraping is a universal moral good, but that legislating tighter boundaries for scraping in an effort to curb AI abuses is a bad approach.
We have better tools to combat this, and placing new limits on scraping will do collateral damage that we should not accept.
And at the very least, the portfolio value of Disney’s IP holdings should not be the motivating force behind AI regulation.
I’d say that scraping as a verb implies an element of intent. It’s about compiling information about a body of work, not simply making a copy, and therefore if you can accurately call it “scraping” then it’s always fair use. (Accuse me of “No True Scotsman” if you would like.)
But since it involves making a copy (even if only a temporary one) of licensed material, there’s the potential that you’re doing one thing with that copy which is fair use, and another thing with the copy that isn’t fair use.
Take archive.org for example:
It doesn’t only contain information about the work, but also a copy (or copies, plural) of the work itself. You could argue (and many have) that archive.org only claims to be about preserving an accurate history of a piece of content, but functionally mostly serves as a way to distribute unlicensed copies of that content.
I don’t personally think that’s a justified accusation, because I think they do everything in their power to be as fair as possible, and there’s a massive public benefit to having a service like this. But it does illustrate how you could easily have a scenario where the stated purpose is fair use but the actual implementation is not, and the infringing material was “scraped” in the first place.
But in the case of gen AI, I think it’s pretty clear that the residual data from the source content is much closer to a linguistic analysis than to an internet archive. So it’s firmly in the fair use category, in my opinion.
Edit: And to be clear, when I say it’s fair use, I only mean in the strict sense of following copyright law. I don’t mean that it is (or should be) clear of all other legal considerations.
Why is it that the pro-democracy parties are always so hesitant to do the messy work of actual democracy?
While the anti-democracy parties — the ones who say majority rule is a futile idea — seem to have no problem persuading people and making steady change even in the face of chaos, unrest, and internal conflict?