Yeah, I suppose I should clarify - that was in response to the objection to paying for pirated content; it’s different from the service provider’s point of view, but from the end user’s point of view, they’re paying for pirated content either way.

This doesn’t seem that different from paying for usenet. It’s not like they’re making DVDs of pirated movies and selling them on the street corner; they were basically just aggregating content and the service they were providing was making it easily searchable and accessible, not doing the actual pirating, from the sound of it, unless I’m misunderstanding the situation.

I wish I could show my country next to my username or something lol.

You could use a vanity username with a flag emoji in it, if you really wanted to.

That being said, creating a private instance is a relatively difficult hurdle. By providing private communities, an admin can take care of the hosting, along with all of the other communities, while those who want something more controlled and closed can have an easily accessible option.

That’s fair, and I’m honestly probably just thinking about worst-case scenarios that won’t actually happen. There’s plenty of ways malicious actors could already be doing some pretty bad things and they don’t seem to be, so it’s probably fine.

Eh, we already have private communities.

I did mention further down the comment chain the one use case for this I can think of - communities for info and feedback about the specific instance to / from its members; things like donations, financial disclosures, etc. - that you wouldn’t want participation in from anyone not actually using the instance. It has its place; I’m more afraid of seeing popular communities going instance-only for whatever reason, with it being used solely to drive signups on a specific instance.

I mean it’s fine on paper. But like… imagine that a popular instance - lemmy.world, let’s say - has a community that’s very popular and, for whatever motivation, decides they want to push people to move to their instance (or at least create accounts there), so they change one or more of those popular communities to be local-only.

Best case, they fracture the community. Worse case, a very large number of users start making accounts there to use those communities, and abandon other instances. Worst case, they use the large influx of signups they get from such a move to promote themselves, grow even further, and eventually do something malicious.

We can already create private instances that don’t federate for those niche communities; I don’t really see what this feature is adding other than specifically having communities dedicated to that specific instance (With instance-specific information like donations, financials, outage notices, that sort of thing.)

Hopefully these don’t start getting used too frequently, as it kind of… defeats the purpose of federation. Would not want to have to make accounts on multiple instances just to participate in niche communities.

They claimed that the FTC never alerted them to any wrongdoing before filing the lawsuit, so how could they have known they were violating the law?

“The police never informed me I was doing anything illegal before arresting me, so how could I possibly have known?”

Ignorance of the law isn’t a defense against breaking it in any other sector…

Assuming you’re making the change in your browser’s default search settings, and not editing the URL every time you do a search, it takes a minute or two once, and it’s done forever. No harder than adding an adblock rule and it also removes a lot of other bullshit, too (since it’s just defaulting you to a ‘web only’ search).

They copied and pasted text that had a link in it, and got the alt-text.

Documentaries often include recreations of events, such as historical events that weren’t filmed. It’s usually noted as being a recreation or re-enactment. If AI-created images are used instead and are noted as being such, I don’t really see the problem, assuming the images are curated to depict the scene accurately.

Disney+ could introduce linear cable-style streaming channels featuring key franchises

Netflix is reportedly planning to introduce linear cable-style streaming channels to enhance user engagement and increase app usage time.

What? Is Disney’s content going to be shown on Netflix in this format? Is it just a typo? I’m so confused.

While that could be a worthy topic of discussion, these scenarios can be immediately addressed using a DMCA counter-notice. BPC’s creator can simply file one with GitLab and in less than two weeks’ time, the platform would have to restore it, if whoever sent the original notice didn’t sue the developer in the United States.

Who is the author of this piece suggesting pays for that potential lawsuit? Like, it’s great to say “Oh, they can totally fight this, and they’re probably in the right to do so”, but companies weaponizing the legal system is basically trivial for them to do, and unless they’re offering to help foot that bill, they’re putting all the risk on the developer which isn’t really fair.

Yeah, it’d be more interesting to see this done with, for instance, an RTS. Something where smarter decisions can beat out faster gameplay some percentage of the time. Obviously high APM is important in an RTS, but in this Street Fighter example, I’m pretty sure a 5 year old who only knows how to Hadouken spam would beat any of these LLMs from what we’re seeing here; it’s not so much about how good their decision-making is, but just about which ones execute the most moves that have a chance to connect.

My understanding is that this is because of the way they operate internally. They reward new initiatives but not maintaining old initiatives, so employees are heavily incentivized to sunset old apps in favor of new apps that are functional replacements, and this cycle is the result.

Did you even read the article we’re discussing, or are you just reading the comments and getting mad?

1. No decision has been made. This is simply a judge denying the companies’ motion to have this thrown out before going to trial.
2. This is very much different than “the gun market” being indirectly responsible. This is the equivalent of “the gun market” constantly sending a person pamphlets, calling them, emailing them, whatever else, with propaganda until they ultimately decided to act on it. If that was happening, I think we’d be having the same conversation about that, and whether they should be held accountable.
3. Whether they’re actually responsible or not (or whether any group is) can be determined in court following all the usual methods. A company getting to say “That’s ridiculous, we’re above scrutiny” is dangerous, and that’s effectively what they were trying to do (which was denied by this judge.)

If we remove that it become: funnelling a market towards the further consumption of your product. I.e. marketing

And if a company’s marketing campaign is found to be indirectly responsible for a kid shooting up a grocery store, I’m sure we’ll be seeing a repeat of this with that company being the one with a court case being brought against them, what even is this argument?

Ohh u didnt report someone ur also guilty cant see any problems with this.

That’s… not what this is about, though?

“However, plaintiffs contend the defendants’ platforms are more than just message boards,” the court document says. “They allege they are sophisticated products designed to be addictive to young users and they specifically directed Gendron to further platforms or postings that indoctrinated him with ‘white replacement theory’,” the decision read.

This isn’t about mandated reporting, it’s about funneling impressionable people towards extremist content.

I wonder if this could also be applied to games owned in whole or part by Tencent…

Okay so I’m just going to open myself up to ridicule here; my understanding of comparing numbers using orders of magnitude might be wrong, and if it is, I would like to know that. So on that note, I don’t think that’s how OOM comparisons work, and I’d be very interested to be corrected if I’m wrong.

You could accurately say that 2.1B has 2 more orders of magnitude than 73M does (7 vs. 9), but I believe when you’re directly comparing two numbers and saying that one is “x orders of magnitude larger than y”, that doesn’t work. You wouldn’t say that 10 is an order of magnitude larger than 9… that would be very misleading; 90 is an order of magnitude larger than 9. In fact, that claim would be off by… approximately an order of magnitude.

1 order of magnitude larger than 73M is 730M; 2 orders of magnitude larger is 7.3B, as you note, but… wouldn’t you look upward to say a number is in the same order of magnitude, not lower? So since 2.1B is approximately 29x larger than 73M, it would be 1 OOM larger (and only becomes 2 OOM larger at 100x)?

To look at it another way:

73M x 10^1 is a lot closer to the correct value than 73M x 10^2, so even if the correct method is to round to the nearest OOM, it wouldn’t beecome 2 OOM larger until 73M x 50, or 3.650B.

Again, it’s quite possible that my understanding is incorrect because… this doesn’t come up in every day conversation much, so if I’m wrong, please correct me!