Sorry, forgot about a few. Sam Altman, Sundar Pichai… Honestly, it’d probably be easier to list the white cishet billionaires in tech than it would be to list the exceptions. There’s tons of them outside of tech, probably the majority tbh, but within tech it’s far too diverse.
Don’t forget about the other big players! Jensen Hwang, Lisa Su, Lip-Bu Tan, Satya Nadella, plus the memory cartel (Samsung, SK Hynix, etc.)
This particular war is a class war.
If your life total is 20 or more and you control an effect that states “you can’t lose the game”, then an infinite loop is formed. If neither player wants to end the loop by removing one of these two cards from the battlefield, the game ends in a draw.
It’s a Self-Destruct Button!
We are somewhat similar to contractors and directly help our customers write their code. Usually this means bringing in some kind of starting template, and it’s easier to do this with a permissively licensed template than make them sign another legal agreement.
They own the code once we’re done, and they don’t need to make it open source (companies naturally don’t like to open source their products). Our templates are open source and well-documented, though.
We’ve managed to convince our workplace to allow us to use MIT on a few projects. We mainly share that code directly with customers, and it’s easier to do that with permissively licensed code, plus we can make it public for an extra win (both at work and for the community).
There are definitely good uses for permissive licenses. In the same way that you should consider not using one, you should also consider whether one meets your specific needs.
“Such speech may be offensive to many, but it is not Meta’s role to police offensiveness,” the company added.
I don’t really know what else to write here because the quote is already enough. Anyway, if anyone still had any doubts about Meta for some reason, there you go.
What’s yours? Pay Anthropic $2k/mo to generate fake C&D letters and send them out to random businesses?
Unless you have a plan that doesn’t rely on the service-based models, then I don’t see where you’re going with this. Sure, you can use self-hosted models, assuming you’re fine paying for the GPUs (Jensen Huang? Lisa Su? Lip-Bu Tan if you’re feeling special?) and power to run them of course. But you’ll be “behind” the big cloud-based models, endlessly chasing after them.
Or, hear me out, don’t use them and do it all yourself and you won’t have to pay these companies and make their execs richer.
With a saguaro.
I call it a car subscription, and it’s for people who make poor financial decisions. It’s better to buy a car you can afford, pay it off, and own it until it becomes unsustainable to keep it running.
Unfortunately, any tools a screen reader can use to read the page are tools a LLM can use. Without challenge-based solutions like Anubis, I’m not sure what can really be done that isn’t IP whack-a-mole.
If it comes down to losing accessibility or losing the website due to scrapers obliterating the hosting costs, then I think most website admins would rather just put a “use OCR” message at the top of their skip nav.
As much as I hate using JS for this, I wonder if there’s a JS-based solution that gets the best of both worlds while killing off scraping. Serve this obfuscated trash initially, then swap it out after completing some challenge sometime after FCP.
Well that was a dodged bullet. I’m glad we settled on a different car when we got ours recently.
Still, I think pretty much the whole industry is moving towards SaaS bullshit. Everything from subscription heated seats to ads in the infotainment. Hell, even in our new car, I can’t start the car without it begging me to connect to Amazon and setup Alexa. It’s making me miss my older car’s basic dash and infotainment honestly, but getting Android Auto/Car Play and a suspension that doesn’t feel like the Tower of Terror (or whatever it’s called now) whenever we go over a speed bump was life changing.
This shit should be illegal. At the very least, I hope that ad isn’t playing while driving.
GitHub more like ShitHub
Codeberg is free. If you need uptime, self host it.
This is undecided by courts.
From what I’ve found from some simple research, it’s possible that if it’s reproducing the same information as another user that the website is protected, possibly even if the LLM modified the exact presentation of that information.
If it’s creating new claims, then I think it’d be likely that whoever is running the service would be liable. Who knows though, since they might just claim that the new claims are from its training data and therefore they are protected.
In an ideal world, we’d just follow Germany’s example and hold the website liable for any new content generated by a LLM. Ideally, if you make shit up, you made the claim, and if you’re parroting a user, the user made the claim.
I’d imagine due to current circumstances, the US would want to shield AI companies though because politicians want money and the SCOTUS is useless.
This reminds me of Rossman’s praise for the AI overviews when it helpfully informed everyone that he has paid sponsors and his friend was a 9/11 terrorist. Except it wasn’t praise.
The AI summary at the top is like asking a college freshman to summarize the latest research in a field. It’s accurate enough to be dangerous, but not accurate enough to be reliable.
This. A charge isn’t a conviction, though.
Plausable deniability might help you here as long as you can think of a valid reason why you had that code on the note. It could be as simple as “this is the code I needed to remember for this one game” or something too. As long as you don’t tell them that the note contains the code to your phone, you can pretend the note contains a code of some other value instead later on and let them shoot themselves in the foot.
As a general rule, most lawyers would tell you if you are under arrest to say nothing more than what you are required to by law. Since this is at a border, it gets weird, but that’s what makes this case unusual as well. Under normal circumstances, they might seize the phone as evidence, but saying nothing might result in them wiping the device themselves before they ever get a warrant for the passcode.
He could just as easily argue he was forced to give the password under duress and accidentally gave them the wrong password.
It’s not really a case of duress. Legal searches are also done under duress, and you can’t just argue to a judge “well I got nervous and shredded the documents”.
What it really boils down to is whether border agents can search a phone without a warrant on entry, or whether the search was illegal. As part of it, they also need to decide whether a person has their Miranda rights during entry to a country. The answer, in my opinion, should be obvious (the alternative is you have no rights on entry), but with the current courts, who knows what they’ll decide.
Also highly illegal.
This is where the question about Miranda rights comes in, and whether the question of whether the constitution grants rights during entry comes in as well. If you have no rights, then it can be argued you have no right to demand a lawyer either.
This case is really strange.
The case raises questions about which constitutional rights apply at US borders, including international airports, where authorities have broader search powers.
On the one hand, destroying evidence during an investigation or which someone believes might be linked to one is a generally bad idea. However, to me it seems like the border agents should have had no right to search the phone without a warrant. Seize maybe, but not search. If the search was illegal and the case dismissed (especially since Tunick was not read Miranda which seems to imply there was no arrest?), then I think it would be hard to argue that any evidence was destroyed because the investigation itself would have been performed illegally.
In any case, doing this in a legal search of the phone (with a warrant) is most likely illegal.
Nah they’re ugly af.
If you wrap them (like you should), then you can make them look cool though. Some of my favorites that I’ve seen are bright pink, yellow, and various wraps covered in decals.
Without wrapping them, they look like scrap metal on wheels.
Your phone stores the code on the device and does facial recognition locally. Apps on your phone only receive that data if they explicitly request your camera and perform the recognition themselves.
This is vastly different than sending Google a video of your face that they save on their servers and use to analyze future selfie videos.
But assuringly its just an encrypted passcode created with an algorithm using measured face data.
From the article:
Selfie videos can be used for login purposes, to verify your age for accessing certain account features, and to create an AI avatar.
It’s not just an encrypted passcode.
You can block Facebook ads by blocking the Facebook domains. This is what I do, anyway.
Even if you get through the ads, there’s nothing of value there. At best, you’re maintaining superficial relationships while wading through AI slop and ragebait. If you haven’t actually talked to the person in years, consider whether there’s even a real connection there or if you’re just inflating each other’s egos by pressing a like button every couple weeks.